Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 30
- 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 because of the large support for keeping the article, particularly in light of the improvements that happened during the course of the AFD debate. Of the two supporters for merging the first occurred early in the debate before improvements, and the second was more a request to trim then a merge. With the changes, it appears that even the nominator supports keeping. (non-admin closure) Monty845 23:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Zartan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is sourced to the subject matter in a offline cite to comic books - Which is odd. Over detailed, fancruft. Written in universe with no reliable third party sources. One source which is a fansite was deemed unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters. There are so many unsourced claims and bad choice of wording here. As with many of these characters the WP for Fictional characters were shocked at the HUNDREDS of unreferenced pages GI Joe had. A big AFD was discussed but the WP GI Joe team said they would merge some. However this is one of the surviving lot. These editors use forums, youtube videos and blogspot to cite these articles, so bare that in mind if you think it should be merged as the lists for these characters are supporting such links and trying to say they are fine.. Rain the 1 BAM 23:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable character in all aspects of G.I. Joe media. There ARE a lot of G.I. Joe character articles that need to be merged, but this is not one of them. It only needs to be properly sourced, regarding the character's appearances in animation, comics, toys and movies. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are no sources that demonstrate this character's notability. Just because he was in G.I. Joe doesn't automatically make him notable. If you think he's notable, you're going to have to be the one who finds the sources and proves it (or someone else who decides to do it, of course), because no one can prove that there aren't sources. Otherwise we'd all end up with editors having to search every single book and website made by mankind so that they could delete an article. Harry Blue5 (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:JNN. But still is it worth the risk to delete article's history just because there was no effort to prove his notability yet. Source #7 and #11 are two reliable sources book cites so far. You never know when there can be more. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It says in WP:JNN "Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability"", which is exactly what I said. Keep in mind, those two sources were added after I made this post. Still, I think some more sources might be useful before the character is proven beyond doubt to be notable. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I linked WP:JNN I wasn't really directing to you. It is to for whoever states that he is notable or not notable without a valid reason. ;)Jhenderson 777 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It says in WP:JNN "Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability"", which is exactly what I said. Keep in mind, those two sources were added after I made this post. Still, I think some more sources might be useful before the character is proven beyond doubt to be notable. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:JNN. But still is it worth the risk to delete article's history just because there was no effort to prove his notability yet. Source #7 and #11 are two reliable sources book cites so far. You never know when there can be more. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ormergeKeep unless sources can be found which demonstrate notability. Harry Blue5 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Change to merge per two sources added. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm happy enough that this meets notability requirements now. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to merge per two sources added. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to character list major character in the cartoon, large role in the film 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a quick check online found numerous reliable third party sources that could be added to the article. I added three in a matter of 10 minutes. Clearly indicating this character has notability. Mathewignash (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's a major character featured in the comics and also in the film. 67.80.12.192 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am more in favor of keep on this one. Major character in G.I. Joe. And if the article was treated properly I am sure notability would be proven. And also Wikipedia is a work in progress. So it being imperfect or it not being liked is not a good reason to delete. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just added some more reliable third party sources. This includes 4 books with author, page number and ISBN listed, and a link to a toy review magazine review of a Zartan toy. More could easily be added if people were willing to work on this article. I think this helps proves the article is potentially viable at least. ADDITIONAL: I just added a book citation from a 1997 work on the portrayal of mental health in the media which cited Zartan as an example of portraying multiple personality disorder as evil. Tell me again how Zartan isn't notable? Mathewignash (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
- Zartan is notable enough for even MTV to care: [1]
- Also the statement that: "A big AFD was discussed but the WP GI Joe team said they would merge some. However this is one of the surviving lot." smacks of WP:NOEFFORT, which we've seen on more than one occasion in relation to the Joe articles, not just this one. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so what's the deal with the "first" AfD nomination here? It's a bit misleading, because it was created all of two minutes before the "second" nomination, and it makes it look like Zartan's been through AfD more than once, which can be prejudicial. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has third party sources, notable character featured in a variety of media, I'm pretty sure he's going to be the main villain in the movie sequel. ScienceApe (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Atleast something good came of this and it has had a little work done top it and some sources added.Rain the 1 BAM 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that this AfD was simply a case of WP:NOEFFORT? I would remind you that in Wikipedia:There is no deadline. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure looks like it huh? Just checking Google Books for matches to Zartan could have told the person who nominated this article that viable third party reliable sources existed, and should have stopped them from making the nomination. The article should have simply been tagged with needing more third party sources, not for deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True there is a lot of google results and sources. But see WP:GOOGLEHIT and WP:SOURCESEARCH. Jhenderson 777 21:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think those are problems. I read the sources I added and all seem pretty legitimate, and the nominator for this deletion should have had the forethought to do that first before making a bad nomination. Mathewignash (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledge that you added sources. Kudos for that. If this AFD happened you probably wouldn't have noticed to do that. AFD's are sometimes helpful for those reasons. They aren't always a bad thing. Jhenderson 777 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The problem is not that it has NO sources, the problem is that it does not have enough to assert notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly disagree respectfully. It has enough sources (at least five) + enough information to be a seperate article for it to be split so I think it should stand alone. And it has certainly enough sources to definitely not think of delete. Jhenderson 777 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely agree that this shouldn't be outright deleted, however, I think the article could use some reworking to better show its notability that the sources provide. And a trim. A great big trim. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly disagree respectfully. It has enough sources (at least five) + enough information to be a seperate article for it to be split so I think it should stand alone. And it has certainly enough sources to definitely not think of delete. Jhenderson 777 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems ridiculous that this one should even come up for AFD. I know, I know, same old tired refrain, "it doesn't have enough sources, so delete it". Then I say, "but it's a popular character, so I'm sure the sources exist somewhere", and someone will reply with "then prove it". Well, that's all I've got for you at the moment, and if you can't take it on faith then I've got nothing for you, but I am sure there are more sources out there, and a merge for a character this important does not make sense. For those crying that this is "just another character in the franchise" and the like, I'd say that while Zartan would not be in the top five G.I. Joe characters in terms of notability, and depending on whom you ask he may or may not be in the top ten, but I doubt many would leave him off of their top 25 list. BOZ (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Importance in series is not a way of finding out how notable a character is. And, y'know, the majority of popular series don't have 25 articles on their character. That's a very rare occuruance. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversely, there is no set limit to only like the "top 10" characters in any series being notable. Notable is notable, whether there are articles on 1 or 50 other notable characters in the same series. Mathewignash (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also what you Mathewignash and your inclusionist ilk seem to forget is notability is WP:NOTINHERITED its important toWP:VERIFY
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwayne: well, it seems to me that your deletionist ilk are basically WP:IDONTKNOWIT on this article. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, you created an article called Porn Wikileaks and you expect us to take you seriously? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwayne: well, it seems to me that your deletionist ilk are basically WP:IDONTKNOWIT on this article. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does Porn Wikileaks have to do with GI Joe nothing and beside you inclusionist attitude seems to be WP:ITEXISTS so therefore an article should be made regardless if the article is well sourced or even reliably sourced. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, it has to do with your credibility - you're arguing notability here, and yet to create rubbish like that? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Porn Wikileaks article has independent third person sources the subject matter I choose to edit is irrelevant to this current debate. If you feel the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia you are free to AFD that article just as the nominator (wrongly in my opinion believed this article should not have existed.) You are only throwing insults because you have nothing else to contribute to the main article on whether it should stay for the record I believe it should be kept because it has independent sources to demonstrate ts notability. Not some abitrary self appointed standard of whether a character is notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you notice that Dwanyewest simply falls to name calling rather than addressing my statement? There is no numerical limit on the number of characters from a fictional series that can become notable. We don't have to pick a top 10 if more characters have notability. This is a true statement, and no ammount of name calling or subject changing will alter that. Mathewignash (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And neither do you get to pick a top 10 which automatically have notability. This is a true statement, and no ammount of name calling or subject changing will alter that. If you think it's notable, then you've got to WP:VERIFY it's WP:NOTABILITY. (NOTE: It has to be notable outside of the G.I. Joe universe). I'm fairly sure this could be proven to be notable, but I can't find any sources proving it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lets get it right, When it was nominated it was an article based soley on Comic book ciations, self/primary based sources. The situation has changed, which to me is a good thing. This AFD was not a waste of time as an editor who actually adds sourced third party sources added. This editor Dwayne article is perfectly fine too, using other stuff to make a point is not valid Jake. Someone saved this article by proving it's notability once and for all, no Yojoe and myuselessknowledge refs.Rain the 1 BAM 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Next time, if you are going to discriminate against the nobility of "fancruft", please do your homework first, and only nominate articles that deserve to be nominated. Also, consider placing the tags {{Notability}} oder {{Refimprove}} at the top of the article, instead of nominating it for deletion. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rain:
- from your comment above it seems to me that your whole point of this AfD was to get us hopping on it, which I believe is offside per WP:NOEFFORT and WP:POINT.
- The AfD process is not unlike a tribunal in many ways - it's absolutely correct to bring other people's work into the argument on the basis that their "testimony" has no credibility if they themselves are not a credible "witness". You yourself have used my edits and comments in your diatribes against the Joe articles, so why is it OK for you and not for me? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rain:
- Guys, knock this off. AFD's are not supposed to be a place where we complain if the AFD was necessary or not. And definitely judging some editor by what article he created is uncalled for too. Even mentioning that article if it has nothing to do with this article is almost just as bad as saying other stuff exists. Jhenderson 777 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Readily sourceable, clearly notable based on sources available. bd2412 T 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Was in major motion picture, other movies, cartoons, comics, action figures...soooo much media. 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Janice Sosebee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Not sure this radio news reporter would be notable even if fully sourced, perhaps being news anchor for WTOP-FM is enough. The "awards" the article says she won are quite bizarre for a radio broadcaster, American College of Emergency Physicians? J04n(talk page) 23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as totally unsourced BLP. I suppose those awards could be explained but without any sourcing this article appears to be a (partial?) hoax. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A million wikilinks does not cover the absolute lack of coverage in reliable sources. Looks like a resume or legacy piece as is, and even if fixed, it would appear she would be shy of the bar for notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph Donia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual who does not meet WP:BIO. Appears to have some local stage actor credits, but no significant coverage of his work in third party sources. Claims to have received write-in votes in the 2003 California recall election are dubious; the claim that he received 1 vote was added to that article by the creator of this article, and cannot be substantiated by any sources. The 2008 election information is also dubious, and insertion of information about this person into that article and other places seems to indicate that this is some sort of hagiography, with the subject failing WP:GNG and the article, if not an autobiography, is a possible WP:BLP violation. Kinu t/c 22:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – NN individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Clearly does not meet GNG or WP:BIO. Appears to be a vanity article or other type of WP:COI violation - note the edit history with contributions from 2 new accounts and an IP with no edits other than the ones to this article, all within hours of its creation. Note also that an earlier version was speedily deleted less than a week ago.--JayJasper (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Digging through the fluff, it appears that he is a high school drama teacher. (My hunch is that the article was written as a tribute/joke by his students.) His only hits at Google News are about the school board deciding to build theaters at a couple of local high schools. The political claims have already been removed from the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Zoë Boccabella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Author of one book with no evidence of notability per WP:AUTHOR. The only third party references provided are two blog-style reviews; the article in the Italian Historical Society Journal appears to be by (not about) her and does not convey notability. There do not appear to be sufficient reliable sources about the subject to meet WP:GNG. Kinu t/c 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources can be found, I gave it a shot, and was unable to find reliable, secondary sources on this author. --joe deckertalk to me 22:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Her book was published by a real publisher (unlike many self-published "authors" we see at AfD), but I can find no evidence that the book, or she herself, received coverage by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Ken Ham and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lie: Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The book fails WP:Notability (books), which states it must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works." This does include "other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book".
The book has won no awards and was published in 1987. In the more than twenty years since, has received only minor mentions from a small group of people.
At first, the book appears to have some notablity, but if you look closer at the sources there appears to be only minor mentions from self-interested parties and reviews from self-published books. There are four sources. One of the books in the article is published by iUniverse-- a self-publishing business. Another, which contains scientific criticism, is also self-published by the National Center for Science Education. The website review comes from Answers in Creation(this WP article directs to a general creationist page), a creation website ran by one person critical of book's type of creationism. The final book is published by Soft Skull Press, which appears to be a independent publisher with a poorly done website.
The article was kept from deletion in 2008 because of the aforementioned "references," which were not closely looked at. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lie: Evolution.
Without sourcing from non-trival publications or self-interested groups that self-published, the article will remain in poor quality about an unnotable book. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems the book also nominated for deletion in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lie Evolution. The reason it was kept, and I quote, was because "the book has been published." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The book doesn't seem to meet WP:BK. There appear to be no independent sources covering the book, nor any indication the book will become important in the future. Lord Arador (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: references to date lack depth of coverage, and no indication that less superficial sources are forthcoming. No in-depth reviews of this book have been forthcoming, and it appears to neither be particularly widely cited by fellow creationists nor widely criticised by the scientific community (the NCSE review would be reliable, but would not add to notability, as the NCSE is a specialist source, often giving coverage to quite obscure creationist literature). This may be because there is no indication that it makes any particularly original claims (just the normal anti-evolution diatribe). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - coverage is trivial in reliable sources. WP:AfD has become much more exacting in the past four years, as our consensus has changed, especially concerning the notability of books. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a 1987 title with not a singlehit in google news. not notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. As MelanieN notes, even though it is not notable enough to merit its own article, that in and of itself does not preclude its mere inclusion in a list of past work within a stage director's article. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Good, The Bad and The Sholay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD; original rationale was "no evidence of notability" per this edit. Student-written play that was performed at a university arts festival. Attempts to assert notability by association, but the only third party coverage appears to be one newspaper article, and thus does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG. Kinu t/c 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Speedy would almost apply, as it doesn't even claim notability, and certainly doesn't establish it, likely because it can't. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly is a student-written play but it was directed by Huzir Sulaiman and Claire Wong. Mohit Kanwal (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be frank, this statement really means nothing. There still needs to be coverage in WP:RS about it. --Kinu t/c 08:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright please go ahead and delete the article, I still do not understand, when one can verify the existence of the play directed by a prominent dramatist, why does then it needs a separate WP:RS reference? Mohit Kanwal (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Because the guidelines of Wikipedia, in general, require that is has verifiable wp:rs references. It isn't a statement on the quality of the play, only its notability according to the guidelines herein. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Curating the list of plays that a person has produced? Mohit Kanwal (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Because the guidelines of Wikipedia, in general, require that is has verifiable wp:rs references. It isn't a statement on the quality of the play, only its notability according to the guidelines herein. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright please go ahead and delete the article, I still do not understand, when one can verify the existence of the play directed by a prominent dramatist, why does then it needs a separate WP:RS reference? Mohit Kanwal (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be frank, this statement really means nothing. There still needs to be coverage in WP:RS about it. --Kinu t/c 08:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The play is non-notable, but it could be documented via a mention at the article Huzir Sulaiman. Suggestion to Mohit Kanwal: you might want to devote some effort to expanding and improving the Huzir Sulaiman article, which hasn't been improved for several years; it doesn't even mention the Checkpoint Theatre. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a very detailed list of more than couple dozen fictional items of military equipment used by a fictional military of a fictional faction in a fictional universe (IMHO this article is a simple Wikipedia:Fancruft case). However Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia and not a detailed games sourcebook (WP:NOTMANUAL). The subject's inherent notability is frankly extremely doubtful (IMHO it fails Wikipedia:Notability - please read the General notability guidelines carefully). IMHO the sources and references reflect this; they don't come from independent third parties but rather from sourcebooks themselves or from sites of the respective computer games. Please read the article carefully and then truly ask yourselves: is this a proper article for Wikipedia? Afterwards feel free to vote according to your conscience. I also wish to point out the similar deletion proposals in Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 and Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Wikipedia is not the Codex Imperialis. Though it's as close as real life gets to an STC... hm... HominidMachinae (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a RPG game guide. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if these are deleted, then Equipment and vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 and Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 should also be deleted. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a gameguide. WP:GAMEGUIDE. We don't list every single unit in every single game ever made. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second Revolution flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It was literally only used at that one Scott Brown rally, and all coverage relates to that. The rest seems to be a possible advertisement for this tea party flag company. There has been no notable use, or even use as far as I can tell, outside of this one event. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar the last deletion discussion ended yesterday. Couldn't you wait a week until renominating? 65.95.14.96 (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and Merge into American flag or Betsy Ross flag. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 17:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge, per WikiCopter, into American flag or Betsy Ross flag. Per nom., not notable enough to warrant its own article.--JayJasper (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- May I recommend a merge into Tea Party Movement or something along those lines? It seems a bit too trivial to merit mention in an article of such top importance as the American or Betsy Ross flag. But that's just my two cents.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The purported activism flag itself has received little coverage in reliable sources and that coverage is not enought to meet WP:GNG and maintain a stand alone article. The topic could be about the Second American Revolution, but the defaced flag with the II in the canton doesn't call for a real revolution against the American government structure. The Second Revolution flag article tries to convey the flag as being political advertising for a candidate (Scott Brown) or a political party (the Tea Party/Republician Party), but neither the candidate or the party are behind the event and the event is out of their control (which means no merge or redirect to articles related to these topics). The events behind this Flag of the Second American Revolution up to now seem more about advertising an idea and an effort by salesman Jeff McQueen to brand his flag as a symbol that represents that idea so that he can sell these flags. Another example of a second revolution flag is here. This is nothing more than a non-Wikipedia notable Variations on flags of the United States. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uzma Gamal. Non-notable.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uzma Gamal, too. B-Machine (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SporkBot (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator's note: I am reopening the debate for further comments, based on the outcome of my own deletion review. Mandsford 20:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge I searched the Proquest newspaper archive and found only a single, two-sentence long mention of it from April 2010. It does not appear to be notable. Will Beback talk 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added more refs, it has received the most press on two events the Scott Brown's victory party, and the National Tax Day Tea Party rallies on Tax Day. I also found it referred to as "Second Revolution flag", "II Revolution flag" and "New American flag"; "Second Revolution flag" has 13,000 google hits. However RS has not cover the flag alone that often. But other tea party rally articles often have images of it, as well youtube has several videos of it across the US at many different rallies.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets both wp:notability and real world notability....keep if the main editors want to. Main editor has supplied a RS that specifically covers it and others that include it. Few would argue that there isn't more RS coverage of this out there. As a sidebar, has more real world notability than then subjects of about 1/2 of Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, voluntarily merging it to the TPM article might be a good idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd actually oppose a merge of this into the main TPM article. Given the large scope this article covers, this is barely a blip on the radar, maybe part of a sentence in a section about the use of the gadsden flag, but I don't think more is needed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that it should be short (if merged). But the standards for weight/inclusion at the TPM article are already in the toilet, so nothing could make it any worse. There's a big section in there on one guy's twitter comment, and a 710 word section on an unsubstantiated claim that some unnamed person in a crowd made a racial insult. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. But just because quality may be low, it doesn't mean we should lower our standards to the same level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that it should be short (if merged). But the standards for weight/inclusion at the TPM article are already in the toilet, so nothing could make it any worse. There's a big section in there on one guy's twitter comment, and a 710 word section on an unsubstantiated claim that some unnamed person in a crowd made a racial insult. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does appear to be spreading, and this reference says the flag is "synonymous with Tea Party causes and events." --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "spreading", the refs that have been added are all the same as the ones from before the relisting and from the exact same time period, with the exact same issues that were objected to above. And, although it's unrelated to the AfD, I really think we should be taking phrases like "synonymous" with the tea party with a few grains of salt; you'd think something that is supposedly so prominent would be getting a bit more coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment . It's all about news cycles and the protests/rallies. It will be in the news cycle again on the 15th Tax day. --Duchamps_comb MFA 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. If it is and gets coverage that would very likely be evidence of enduring notability. But we certainly can't just assume that anything will happen.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment . It's all about news cycles and the protests/rallies. It will be in the news cycle again on the 15th Tax day. --Duchamps_comb MFA 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a very detailed list of more than couple dozen fictional vehicles used by a fictional military of a fictional faction in a fictional universe (IMHO this article is a simple Wikipedia:Fancruft case). However Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia and not a detailed games sourcebook (WP:NOTMANUAL). The subject's inherent notability is frankly extremely doubtful (IMHO it fails Wikipedia:Notability - please read the General notability guidelines carefully). IMHO the sources and references reflect this; they don't come from independent third parties but rather from sourcebooks themselves or from sites of the respective computer games. Please read the article carefully and then truly ask yourselves: is this a proper article for Wikipedia? Afterwards feel free to vote according to your conscience. I also wish to point out the similar deletion proposals in Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 and Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - Could it be that this information is a subtopic of a (more?) notable article about Warhammer 40,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Arador (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question. Games Workshop sells products about Warhammer 40,000, a science-fiction universe where the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is the dominant faction. The Imperium fields the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) (among other military forces) which uses certain vehicles. The question is if Wikipedia should have an article about these vehicles. IMHO such an article is simply over-kill and the subject fails in regard to certain policies. Flamarande (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this article meets the general notability requirements, however, Wikipedia has other articles on the topic (e.g. Warhammer 40,000) and I'm wondering if it might be appropriate that we WP:Merge the information from this article into another article that already has notability--basically I'm saying that this article might have been or could become a subtopic of another article which could benefit from the information provided. I really don't know much about the game, so I don't want to rush into making suggestions for specific pages, but if none are readily obvious to anyone else, I could look into further. Lord Arador (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question. Games Workshop sells products about Warhammer 40,000, a science-fiction universe where the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is the dominant faction. The Imperium fields the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) (among other military forces) which uses certain vehicles. The question is if Wikipedia should have an article about these vehicles. IMHO such an article is simply over-kill and the subject fails in regard to certain policies. Flamarande (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a RPG game guide. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if these are deleted, then Equipment and vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 and Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 should also be deleted. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a gameguide. WP:GAMEGUIDE. We don't list every single unit in every single game ever made. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a very detailed list of more than couple dozen fictional items of military equipment used by a fictional military of a fictional faction in a fictional universe (IMHO this article is a simple Wikipedia:Fancruft case). However Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia and not a detailed games sourcebook (WP:NOTMANUAL). The subject's inherent notability is frankly extremely doubtful (IMHO it fails Wikipedia:Notability - please read the General notability guidelines carefully). IMHO the sources and references reflect this; they don't come from independent third parties but rather from sourcebooks themselves or from sites of the respective computer games. Please read the article carefully and then truly ask yourselves: is this a proper article for Wikipedia? Afterwards feel free to vote according to your conscience. I also wish to point out the similar deletion proposals in Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 and Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a RPG game guide. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if these are deleted, then Equipment and vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 and Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 should also be deleted. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia isn't a place to list every weapon or item in a game. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. One good rescue deserves another. Kudos to those who improved the article sourcing. joe deckertalk to me 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Animal Rescue League of Western Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
organization of questionable notability, 1 ref from local tv station, other refs are self refs WuhWuzDat 18:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on adding additional sources. Please don't delete yet. User:Levihahn —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- These discussions generally last a week, or longer. WuhWuzDat 18:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the source of the mission statement and also added an additional source under history. I'll be working to incorporate more information and sources in the near future. Any suggestions would be appreciated. User:Levihahn —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Article has turned completely around, in that sources are now all independent except for one, which sources the opening of a new building with a new purpose. The CBS Pittsburgh source has been joined by WQED (TV), Charity Navigator, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette pages from 1944, which are negative publicity, but show the ARL were active and reported on as early as 1944. Anarchangel (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This organization is obviously notable. This organization has been in existence since 1909.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It looks good now. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nicely done, well-sourced. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Webgistix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
spammy article on non notable "internet company" WuhWuzDat 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very weak sourcing that is more akin to paid articles to trade rags that don't pass RS. Have to agree with the nom for the same reasons. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Updated this article because it was out of date, but I can see how some content might be viewed as advertising. Edited out some content, all others are sourced by independent, third-party publications. GeoffreyYu7 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe I am just missing it. I see links to trade mags, but I don't see any links that would pass wp:rs, ie: NOT trade mags and are instead true 3rd party references. Trade mags are easy to buy "articles" in, which is why most wouldn't be considered under wp:rs as "third party, reliable sources". Without multiple true reliable sources, I don't see much difference before and after the edit. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No doubt you are correct that trade publications are more susceptible to paid advertisements than others, but that doesn’t mean every trade publication is a mercenary mouthpiece. I’ll review the sources individually:
- Olean Times Herald – Not a trade magazine, but a fairly significant newspaper that covers the region around the city of Olean in NY.
- E-Commerce Times – A trade paper, but the article is completely tone-neutral. It discusses fulfillment houses in general, and mentions Webgistix in only one sentence: “Yugster.com uses Webgistix.” Pretty unlikely it’s a paid advertisement for Webgistix.
- Supply&Demand Chain – (No longer cited)
- The Paypers – (No longer cited)
- Las Vegas Business Press – Not a trade publication, and a fairly significant newspaper in Las Vegas. It deals with business in Las Vegas in general, mostly news about the gaming industry. Article also interviews their competitor without bias, which would make no sense for a paid advertisement.
- IAOP List – It’s a list of companies that have won a award, and the sentence citing it notes that Webgistix has won the award., should be straightforward.
- Auction Bytes – (No longer cited)
- Please explain which sources you consider biased with these in mind. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'll welcome any suggestions. GeoffreyYu7 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen. Yet another online business that fancies itself an encyclopedia subject: an Internet company that provides outsourced e-commerce order fulfillment to a wide variety of customers. -25 notability points for "e-commerce". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - I think you might be getting the wrong impression from 'internet company' here. They own and operate offices and warehouses on the ground in New York, Vegas, Singapore, and some other countries. Their customers are primarily, but not limited to, companies that sell merchandise online. The company is notable because it has been mentioned by multiple, neutral, independent sources, which meets Wikipedia:Notability. If you feel a source is NOT neutral or independent, please explain your reasoning based on the individual case, thanks. Also note I've removed the dubious Supply&Demand Chain, AuctionByte, and The Paypers citations, and added an article that features Webgistix significantly by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the largest daily circulation newspaper in Nevada. GeoffreyYu7 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.30.203 (talk) [reply]
- Comment I think we get that they exist, the question is whether or not they meet the criteria for inclusion here. It doesn't matter now "notable" they are under any other guidelines, it only matters if and how they meet the criteria here. After the recent modifications and adjustments and such, they still don't appear to meet the criteria as getting significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject matter, IMHO. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - I think you might be getting the wrong impression from 'internet company' here. They own and operate offices and warehouses on the ground in New York, Vegas, Singapore, and some other countries. Their customers are primarily, but not limited to, companies that sell merchandise online. The company is notable because it has been mentioned by multiple, neutral, independent sources, which meets Wikipedia:Notability. If you feel a source is NOT neutral or independent, please explain your reasoning based on the individual case, thanks. Also note I've removed the dubious Supply&Demand Chain, AuctionByte, and The Paypers citations, and added an article that features Webgistix significantly by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the largest daily circulation newspaper in Nevada. GeoffreyYu7 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.30.203 (talk) [reply]
- Comment I am not quite sure I'm understanding you correctly. I've only ever referred to the Wikipedia guideline for notability, is there another I should be looking at? I've linked three articles that feature Webgistix significantly. These are from the Olean Times Herald, the Las Vegas Business Press, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, all of which are large, established, and undeniably neutral publications. You simply cannot buy your way into these papers. With that in mind, I can't see how any of them fail Wiki's standards as reliable, independent source material. If you could let me know specifically which one you find dubious, it would help a great deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyYu7 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability is a bit of jargon that doesn't really help; what we're really after is "long term historical notability, and that can't be had just from counting sources. In one of the offered stories, Webgistix personnel are quoted as one source in a story about holiday shopping.[2] Another is "Local company finds way to outsource"[3]. Another is a puff piece about a warehouse in Las Vegas.[4]. I don't see any of these stories as elevating this business to the sort of thing that ought to have a stand alone encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First off, I think you're being a little unfair about the sources. The Las Vegas Review-Journal article quotes Webgistix's CEO, and spends about 25% of the article talking about the company, far more than the other sources in the article. They mention its expected growth level, previous growth, number of employees, warehouse size(s), number and type of customers, as well as shipping volume. The reason they do this is because they feel the company is significant enough to write about. Olean Times calls Webgistix a local company because, at the time, the headquarters was in Olean. The title "Local Company Finds Way To Outsource To Olean" is meant to be a clever wordplay, because outsourcing usually destroys local companies, not helps them. The Olean Times is NOT a local newspaper, as it covers and has circulation in New York and Pennsylvania. The article is entirely about Webgistix.
- Finally, I don't see how you can say that the business press article is a puff piece. It talks about a warehouse for all of one paragraph. Which it does because that's what fulfillment houses do, they take orders, carry inventory, and ship them, thus they need warehouses. The piece mainly deals with how eCommerce businesses are helping Nevada diversify its industry beyond gambling, how eCommerce businesses gain an advantage by having an on-the-ground presence, and how Webgistix is establishing a global business. Please read the articles more carefully, they are quality, not just quantity. As for why Webgistix is notable:
- 1: It was established in the beginning of 2001, making it one of the first eCommerce Fulfillment services that still exists. Think back to the internet ten years ago. Yeah, it was just as bad as you remember.
- 2: Fulfillment houses are becoming more and more important as the number of online retailers rise. As proof of this, just a week ago, eBay bought GSI Commerce, probably one of the largest fulfillment houses there is, for 2.4 billion dollars.
- 3: The company is one of the fastest growing companies in Nevada, and is on track to grow by 100% this year, effectively doubling its value. All the articles I've linked are from 2009 and 2010, meaning that it only became a notable company only recently. At the pace of growth, it's inevitable that it will only become more notable.
- 4: It's significant enough that the former CEO of McAfee, Dale Fuller, decided to chair its board.
- 5: There are numerous and major authors writing about Webgistix. If a writer is not paid to specifically write about a subject, then they write about it because they think other people would find it interesting, thus making it notable. The purpose of Wiki is so that people can find information about things they are interested in. This is why the article you linked on enduring notability focuses ONLY on reputable sourcing, because sources themselves are a measure of notability.
- This is a small article and I don't believe it's promotional in any way. If you want to suggest edits, I would be happy to work towards that. But if you're saying the subject itself is not notable then I must respectfully disagree based on the reasons above. User:GeoffreyYu7 - User talk:GeoffreyYu7 23:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources very weak with just a mention of the company. Several are hometown newspapers and even then articles are about business or economic issues and not Webgistix itself. GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Igors Kozlovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This article was previously kept in this afd on the grounds that he had been called to the national team and that he met WP:GNG. Being called to a national team without actually playing is of course insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT, and I can find no evidence of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Being called into the national squad and not playing is no different to being signed to a club and not playing - it does not confer notability, and NFOOTBALL is very clear that one must actually play in order to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not played for the national team or in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – The leagues he's played in don't meet WP:FPL, and nothing I saw in a Google News search gives any evidence of notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. Absent a consensus that satisfying WP:GNG should be insufficient in this case in favor of subject-specific notability guidelines, the GNG presumption of notability holds. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obi Egekeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An American football player. Article states he played for University of Maryland. College days are notable per NFOOTBALL#College_athletes. He was signed by the Omaha Nighthawks of the United Football League (UFL), but was released before season was started. I don't believe the UFL is a top-level league per WP:NFOOTBALL. Bgwhite (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The deletion debate of Justin Watts is mentioned often here. Here is Watt's debate. Also note, the consensus was to delete Watt. Bgwhite (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NFOOTBALL is for what we "silly Americans" call "soccer" and not American football. That said, the player does not appear to meet the automatic qualifications of WP:NSPORTS or WP:ATHLETE--HOWEVER, there is a significant amount of coverage that I can see in Google News which should be enough to pass the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He was a two-year starter at a big-time football program, ranks among the Top 10 scoring leaders in Maryland Terrapins football history (dating back to the 1890s), was twice selected as an Academic All-ACC player, and there's enough non-trivial coverage of his collegiate football career at Maryland to meet the WP:GNG standard. There have been multiple stories specifically about him (i.e., not statistic reports or passing references in game coverage) in The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Times, and The Washington Examiner. A few examples that pop up from a google search (the first five being feature stories about Egekeze): (1) Terps' Egekeze Stays Positive: After Missing First Five Kicks, Senior Has Made Five in a Row, The Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2008; (2) To win job, Egekeze reboots; Kicker revamped game, landed position on his third try, The Washington Times, Sept. 11, 2007; (3) For Maryland kicker Egekeze, it's now all good, The Washington Examiner, Nov. 5, 2008; (4) Giving slump the boot: After 0-for-5 start to begin season that nearly cost him his job, kicker Egekeze finds footing, gets back in groove for Terps, The Sun (Baltimore), Nov. 6, 2009; (5) Egekeze's misfires concern Terps, The Washington Times, September 19, 2008; (6) Egekeze unseats Ennis as Terps' starting kicker, The Sun (Baltimore, Md.), Aug 20, 2006; (7) Terps' Ennis, Egekeze seek job, August 20, 2006, The Washington Times; (8) Egekeze's Margin for Error, The Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2008; (9) A week later for Obi, The Washington Times, Sept. 22, 2008; (10) Egekeze, Ennis unable to solidify kicking job, CSTV U-Wire, April 26, 2006; (11) Egekeze is Alive and Kickin', Testudo Times, Sept. 18, 2008; (12) Terps? Egekeze boots No. 17 UNC in 17-15 upset, The Washington Examiner, Nov. 16, 2008; (13) Egekeze's big kick moves Terrapins into first place, The Augusta Chronicle, Nov. 19, 2008; (14) Q&A With Place-Kicker Obi Egekeze: Special teams leader discusses academic success, the mentality of being a kicker and The Masters Golf Tournament, Maryland Football, July 1, 2008; (15) Egekeze Makes Another FG, The Washington Post, Sept. 20, 2008. Cbl62 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry but any all-conference college football players will receive alot of newspaper coverage. See NFOOTBALL#College_athletes where this is addressed. The above links by User:Cbl62 become irrelevant. Has Obi Egekeze won a national award or inducted into the Hall of Fame, No. So his college football days becomes non-notable. Bgwhite (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy, here we go again. All but one of those links provided are by a Washington, D.C. or Baltimore-based media outlet, which is the heart of UMD country. No kidding their football players are going to get coverage. Before this goes any further, I recommend everyone waiting to see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Watts turns out, because frankly it's going to be the same points of contention for this, too. Getting cut from a United Football League team before the season even starts is not grounds for notability either, so at this point the base of the "keep" argument is that he was a notable college athlete, which I don't think he satisfies. Again, that leads to regional vs. national media coverage, and we should wait for the Justin Watts AfD to proceed with this one. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy is right.
This is getting silly. It is well established that a college athlete article is fine if there has been sufficient non-trivial coverage in independent, verifiable sources. National news coverage is not and ought not be a requirement. Egekeze satisfies the WP:GNG standard, and that shouldn't be controversial in this case. The Washington Post and The Baltimore Sun are among the most respected major newspapers in the United States. We can't, don't and shouldn't ignore such coverage in assessing notability. And to suggest that this level of coverage is typical for every college football player is absolutely incorrect. Very few college football players are the subject of multiple feature stories in multiple major daily papers. Finally, this is completely different from Justin Watts, where the argument was made that Watts is a backup player who only gets covered because of the unusually rabid nature of North Carolina hoops fans. Egekeze was a two-year starter whose story garnered extensive coverage on is merits. Cbl62 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- How is this different from Justin Watts when you (Cbl62) voted to keep Justin Watts on the same arguments as to keep Obi Egekeze. If, a backup player deserves to be notable because they were covered by the local papers and a kicker deserves to be notable because they were covered by local papers, that means every member of a basketball or football team is notable. I'm a fan of BYU. They will be independent next year in football, thus no player on all-conference teams. BYU gets larger press than normal in Arizona, Nevada and southern California because alot of BYU's players come from there and the higher percentage of Mormons in the area. All four major local papers will have multiple stories about every mid to major contributor in basketball and football. That would me every BYU player in now notable. I don't think that is right. Also, women's gymnastics and men's volleyball is bigger in Utah than other places and draws alot of local press. So, now every volleyball and gymnastics person is now notable. There has to be a line drawn. If they are a great football player, they will be drafted into the NFL or for a basketball player, drafted or play oversees, thus becoming notable. Bgwhite (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The line has already been drawn at WP:GNG, and it does not mean (nor is anyone suggesting) that every college athlete is notable. When appropriate, I have voted to delete articles on many non-notable college athletes. (E.g., Bacher, Missant, Frischknecht, Davis, Clayton, Castillo, Gilchrist, Summers.) The line may not be a bright line which is what you apparently want, but bright lines aren't always best. The existing rule under GNG requires us to use our judgment and assess the significance of any non-trivial coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I for one never really bought the argument that "the subject is not notable because all that news coverage he gets doesn't count."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The line has already been drawn at WP:GNG, and it does not mean (nor is anyone suggesting) that every college athlete is notable. When appropriate, I have voted to delete articles on many non-notable college athletes. (E.g., Bacher, Missant, Frischknecht, Davis, Clayton, Castillo, Gilchrist, Summers.) The line may not be a bright line which is what you apparently want, but bright lines aren't always best. The existing rule under GNG requires us to use our judgment and assess the significance of any non-trivial coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this different from Justin Watts when you (Cbl62) voted to keep Justin Watts on the same arguments as to keep Obi Egekeze. If, a backup player deserves to be notable because they were covered by the local papers and a kicker deserves to be notable because they were covered by local papers, that means every member of a basketball or football team is notable. I'm a fan of BYU. They will be independent next year in football, thus no player on all-conference teams. BYU gets larger press than normal in Arizona, Nevada and southern California because alot of BYU's players come from there and the higher percentage of Mormons in the area. All four major local papers will have multiple stories about every mid to major contributor in basketball and football. That would me every BYU player in now notable. I don't think that is right. Also, women's gymnastics and men's volleyball is bigger in Utah than other places and draws alot of local press. So, now every volleyball and gymnastics person is now notable. There has to be a line drawn. If they are a great football player, they will be drafted into the NFL or for a basketball player, drafted or play oversees, thus becoming notable. Bgwhite (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy is right.
- Delete On the principle that a generally unaccomplished kicker who never played at the highest level is not notable and most of the coverage was WP:ROUTINE, I think we should delete per WP:GNG that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone" —Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's among the Top 10 scorers in Maryland history. Hardly "unaccomplished." Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would have though Marylands own website would at least impress me with its lead for Egekeze, but if the consensus really is that a player whose claim-to-fame is nothing more than he was a 2-year college kicker who was a two-time Academic All-ACC selection and is 10th on the schools scoring list, then to me that should be a red flag that we are looking to hard at the number of sources and not what the sources say this person actually did. Again, "presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." In any event, its up to the consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's among the Top 10 scorers in Maryland history. Hardly "unaccomplished." Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- the coverage in multiple reliable sources is more than enough to establish notability based on the WP:GNG, and I'm not seeing any compelling reason why we should ignore that. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep coverage is quite extensive, although I prefer to limit college athlete articles to All-Americans and All-Conference players from major conferences. With the press providing easily accessible WP:RS, even otherwise unnotable players can document the wikipedia definition of notability with some press clippings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bagumba and my comment on the Justin Watts AfD. Bamgumba is correct that satisfying the GNG establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. We, as editors, are still expected to use our best judgement. My judgement tells me that, based on the sources presented here and in the article, Egekeze is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. cmadler (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you agree he passes WP:GNG but are using your judgment to override the guideline? I really think that we ought not to be allowing subjective judgment to override WP:GNG and certainly not without a very strong reason to do so in a particular case. Cbl62 (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reason to keep using WP:GNG and not using Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL#College_athletes is known. You don't have to keep saying this every time someone comments to delete. Bgwhite (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesnt pass WP:GNG if it failed the presumption that the subject was notable. This is explicitly allowed by GNG if the consensus finds the subject to be run-of-the-mill per WP:ROTM —Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ROTM is a new one and plainly inapplicable. Some 2500 people have played football for the Maryland Terrapins program in the past 100-plus years, and Egekeze ranks among the Top 10 (top 99.9%) in career scoring. With all due respect, that's the very antithesis of "run of the mill." I frankly don't understand why some people try so hard to come up with arguments to delete articles on players who plainly satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reason to keep using WP:GNG and not using Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL#College_athletes is known. You don't have to keep saying this every time someone comments to delete. Bgwhite (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you agree he passes WP:GNG but are using your judgment to override the guideline? I really think that we ought not to be allowing subjective judgment to override WP:GNG and certainly not without a very strong reason to do so in a particular case. Cbl62 (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE A cut-n-dry case. As both Lady of Shalott & Dcoetzee succinctly state it, being an alleged child prodigy is not notable in itself & when young Jacob Barnett does something notable, then Wikipedia will have an article about him. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO and the only source is a sensationalistic piece of bad journalism. Negi(afk) (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What idiot would remove information without offering something better to put in its place? Just add a criticism that it seems to be supported by only one unverified source, for chrissake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.3.59 (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This article is poorly sourced, promotional/sensationalistic puffery. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: If it can be rewritten to conform to Wikipedia policies, I'll be happier than if it gets deleted. But the version as of when I'm writing this just doesn't meet Wikipedia's core policies. --KFP (contact | edits) 22:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. One giddily excited newspaper article does not equal notability: having a high IQ score and being the special kid in class does not equal "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" (WP:ANYBIO). —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Changed vote, see below)He has more than one newspaper article about him. He has a higher IQ than Einstein, for crying out loud. He hasn't made any astonishing discoveries (yet), but he certainly is notable. How many 12 year-olds tutor post-graduates and graduate from college—in math of all things? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The other source being the Daily Mail? Not really a WP:RS. They are pretty appalling at anything medical or scientific, and this definitely falls into the "human interest"/science category, at which they are about as reliable as tea leaves. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "smarter than Einstein" by some arbitrary measure is not notable in itself. However, if a properly sourced and neutral article on this subject is written, good. But as the article reads currently, it can't be kept. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Multiple newspaper articles doesn't imply notability either. As far as I can tell, all of these articles are pretty much copied from the original one. See Wikipedia:BIO#cite_note-note3-3. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "smarter than Einstein" by some arbitrary measure is not notable in itself. However, if a properly sourced and neutral article on this subject is written, good. But as the article reads currently, it can't be kept. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The other source being the Daily Mail? Not really a WP:RS. They are pretty appalling at anything medical or scientific, and this definitely falls into the "human interest"/science category, at which they are about as reliable as tea leaves. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. (modified vote from above): All the editors in favor of deleting this article have made some excellent points (with some notable exceptions). If it survives, great. If not, meh. If/when he does something great—other than being a child prodigy—it will be resurrected. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's been working on his own adaptation of the Theory of Relativity, which authenticity has been confirmed by Dr. Scott Tremaine. Professors at the Institute for Advanced Study have confirmed he's on the right track to debunking the Big Bang theory. Dr. Tremaine has also noted that his work, if successful, would put him in line for a Nobel Prize. This isn't just run of the mill BLP1E stuff. No single thing he's done has launched him into the limelight. He's not an event. His amazing abilities have been published repeatedly in newspapers around the world. The astrophysics world is quite literally being shaken by his theories. Reading through the various news stories, there's professor after professor after professor indicating this kid isn't just rare, but incredibly unusual. You can't describe him as a news story and feel comfortable deleting this article. The article might be poorly referenced, it might need reworking to become a better encyclopedic entry, but there's zero doubt this person requires an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm never keen on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, but List_of_child_prodigies#Physics might provide an interesting guide. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's ludicrous. The astrophysics world is not "being shaken by his theories". Some professors were asked by the paper to comment on a precocious lad, and they commented favorably. That's all. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, let's see. Theory of relativity being expanded, and the Big Bang theory being debunked; and professors say he's on the right track. Nah, just some geek kid playing with his Nintendo. Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're reading some of your own interpretations into the Daily Mail article. Tremain said "I'm impressed by his interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far." And went on to say: "The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics." These are the sorts of thing any physicist would say of a young man seriously interested in studying the big bang. It's not some validation of the kid's approach to the theory, like you seem to think. Validation of that kind requires publication, communication, and peer review at least. It is not settled by a few ambiguous choice quotes in a Daily Mail article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're crawling too far into my cranial cavity. As for the Daily Mail article; I didn't read it. Perhaps you're in the wrong cranial cavity :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same quote in the Indy Star article. Sorry for the mixup. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point there being, there isn't just one article being syndicated around the world. Multiple news outlets are writing about him. I read many original articles about him before deciding where I stood on this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, I wouldn't object to your claim about his new theory being revolutionary, if it could be backed up by peer-reviewed scholarly references. News fluff pieces just aren't reliable sources for this sort of thing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Peers have reviewed his work and indicate he's on the right track. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have they? It doesn't seem to me that Barnett has even published anything, let alone there being any commentary of the kind you suggest published in the scholarly literature (e.g., Physics Review Letters). Could you please give a list of peer-reviewed references that are relevant to your extraordinary claims above? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- I just want to back up the above and point out that CLEARLY, Hammersoft has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Peer-review is a semi-technical term, which stands for a very rigorous review of a scientific publication. But Hammersoft insists on quoting the literal meaning of "being reviewed by peers" in his argument. Obviously, Barnett HAS NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to getting anything peer-reviewed (let alone published), and to purport that his theory is currently advancing the field of astrophysics is simply gibberish from someone who is uneducated about the process of scientific publication. He's a smart kid (very very very smart), but let's just leave it at that for now. -bplloyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bplloyd (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "Peers have reviewed his work and indicate he's on the right track". It is absolutely impossible to confirm someone is on the right track to debunking a currently accepted theory, because it is impossible to tell if it is even debunkable until *after* it has been debunked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- I just want to back up the above and point out that CLEARLY, Hammersoft has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Peer-review is a semi-technical term, which stands for a very rigorous review of a scientific publication. But Hammersoft insists on quoting the literal meaning of "being reviewed by peers" in his argument. Obviously, Barnett HAS NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to getting anything peer-reviewed (let alone published), and to purport that his theory is currently advancing the field of astrophysics is simply gibberish from someone who is uneducated about the process of scientific publication. He's a smart kid (very very very smart), but let's just leave it at that for now. -bplloyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bplloyd (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have they? It doesn't seem to me that Barnett has even published anything, let alone there being any commentary of the kind you suggest published in the scholarly literature (e.g., Physics Review Letters). Could you please give a list of peer-reviewed references that are relevant to your extraordinary claims above? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same quote in the Indy Star article. Sorry for the mixup. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has anyone tried doing what I just did, and Googled him for more sources? [5][6] are highly reliable sources, to name a few of the search results on the first page. KirkCliff2 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those are both blogs (they aren't even science blogs!) Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Instead of bureaucratically debating the matter, edit the article to meet the established criteria that would allow it to be notable and good enough to keep. This kid is gaining notability quickly. KirkCliff2 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first and second sources are not reliable. The first one is a comment on a youtube video about the subject doing what they purport to be graduate-level mathematics (it isn't, and he also computes one of the integrals incorrectly), and the second one is simply a link to the daily mail article. Come on, don't just make stuff up, man. Those don't nearly meet WP quality standards. Negi(afk) (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It might be that sometime in the future, the subject "[will have] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", but it is obvious that the time has not yet come. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable coverage. Sure the kid may be smart but the tabloid articles show every sign that the journalist doesn't know what they are talking about and is trying to push sensationalism.©Geni 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hammersoft and I, being more neutral than Frecklefoot, have provided legitimate resources and proof (he was even on Glenn Beck's show earlier today) of his notability. You simply just are perpetuating blatant Wikilawyering, rather than actually attempting to do some research. The kid is gaining quite a bit of attention. I had posted a link to an article from The Examiner as well, but that publication's apparently blacklisted. Your main argument for lacking notability is the one article referenced. The internet is a pretty vast compendium of resources, which we Wikipedians can utilize freely, if we so desire. I just gave a couple of links I thought you might accept, because they were household names (Forbes and The Huffington Post). Those are certainly reliable sources. Daily Mail itself is quite a reliable source. The very fact that there's so many publications across a broad spectrum talking about him, even if some are simply mirroring another article, is proof of notability. The article as it is now is in need of copy-editing, in addition to needing more sources, which are widely available, but it's clearly worth keeping. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar: Being on Glenn Beck's show does not in any way imply any sort of scientific merit. I mean, come on, all of the things you have listed are low quality tabloid sources or blogs. It's clear to anyone who watches the youtube videos that this kid is not legitimately at a postgraduate level. I am more qualified than the reporter to judge his abilities, and whether or not you think that this is original research, I can tell you for sure that the kid is not even at the level of a second semester honors math major at, say, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, University of Chicago, or University of Michigan, to list a few programs with which I have some experience.Negi(afk) (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: I also don't appreciate the immediate conclusion that anyone here is wikilawyering. I get the impression that KirkCliff2 is a Glenn Beck fan (read: idiot) pushing an agenda. The suggestion that we take Beck seriously as a reliable source is completely beyond reasonable. Is the editor above suggesting that we cite Beck's rants about the secret jewish conspiracy run by George Soros? Beck's show is a reliable source for only one thing: The retarded fucking shit that Glenn Beck says.Negi(afk) (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Being the subject of a single flash-in-the-pan fluff story that was picked up by many different news outlets because of its popularity does not make the subject notable. The subject has received no scientific awards and honors, his research has not even been published yet, let alone evaluated by scholarly sources. It's hard to see how the subject is notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd like to point out that as a Senior Editor III, I pride myself on my neutrality. That being said, I'm probably not entirely neutral on this issue since I authored the last good version of the article, so I'll refrain from interjecting on the rest of the debate. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar: Being on Glenn Beck's show does not in any way imply any sort of scientific merit. I mean, come on, all of the things you have listed are low quality tabloid sources or blogs. It's clear to anyone who watches the youtube videos that this kid is not legitimately at a postgraduate level. I am more qualified than the reporter to judge his abilities, and whether or not you think that this is original research, I can tell you for sure that the kid is not even at the level of a second semester honors math major at, say, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, University of Chicago, or University of Michigan, to list a few programs with which I have some experience.Negi(afk) (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: According to the article, there is some effort to get Mr. Barnett a research position. That makes me think we should evaluate him as an academic. Our usual policy, per WP:PROF, is that people who are engaged in research aren't notable until they actually achieve "more than the average professor". The history of child prodigies is that not all of them actually turn into successful professionals. My opinion is that it is too soon to tell whether his work has had a "significant impact" on any field, which is the standard we would aspire to for a young researcher. Given that, I think that it is too soon for us to have an article on this person, and I think the article should be deleted until Mr. Barnett has established himself as a researcher. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, googling does turn up quite reliable sources: Daily Mail, Huffington Post, The Faster Times, Zeit. But yeah, the popularity seems to be more because it's a human interest story. He doesn't have any actual accomplishments yet. When he does, I think only then should he have an article.--Obsidi♠nSoul 09:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Huffington Post is not WP:Reliable, nor is the Daily Mail, as we've been saying. Both of them are prohibited under the tabloid rule. I suspect that since the other two are tertiary sources rather than secondary sources, we cannot include them either.Negi(afk) (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Time certainly isn't. Verifiability isn't the issue here, it's notability, so whether or not some of his references (they all say the same thing) are tabloidish (to which I would agree with heartily for Daily Mail, lol) does not matter. It's whether he really is worthy of notice or not. As I've said, the articles about him are human interest, of the 'awww lookit that!'/WP:BLP1E variety. So I guess I agree with the article being tabloidish, regardless of who published them. At the moment, I say no, he is notable.--Obsidi♠nSoul 12:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, all of these are just basically carbon-copies of the original "scoop" that was broken by the Indy Star, even the Time article (I don't know why I expected better). Talk about media echo chamber. Some of the blog posts aren't even coherent (the Huffington Post blog mentions a Youtube video theory of the Big Bang, but links to a discussion of integration by parts instead). What's wrong with these people? It also seems to be that the claims of the kid's genius get increasingly inflated, all based on the same thin second-hand evidence (an encouraging personal email correspondence with a physicist at IAS). Please, try to look at these articles with a more critical eye. It is transparent sensationalism, totally unencyclopedic rubbish. Let's try to find some sources that don't just "look" reliable (i.e., Time) but that actually are reliable (i.e., Science, Nature, etc.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, did you actually read my response? The energy you guys put into all this. I basically just said what you said in my first comment. And hey look, my vote is actually for deletion! Or would you rather not rest until I change it to strong delete and vow never to let that kid even be mentioned in Wikipedia again, forever and ever?--Obsidi♠nSoul 17:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, is there any way for me to nominate all of those sources as WP:Unreliable in general? Negi(afk) (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only coverage of this boy is by excited tabloid newspapers; more likely to be a slow news day than anything. If need be, make a note of him in a relevant parent article. 狐 FOX 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there are scores of "young geniuses" around the world. Until this person actually does something notable, I don't think he warrants a biographical article. wctaiwan (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are MANY Wikipedia articles about people much less notable than this boy. He is one to watch. This article will be added to years to come. 98.237.105.67 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic personal attacks
|
---|
**I'd also like to note that the editor above should stick to editing articles on Asia Carrera and Female Ejaculation and leave the editing of articles like this to people who have experience in mathematics.Negi(afk) (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Löschen, this article was only created in response to the subject's appearance on "The Glenn Beck Program", hardly a noteworthy event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.56.58 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it wasn't. It was created in response to the online article in The Indianapolis Star. I think Beck had him on his show in response to that article as well. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too soon, let the story develop. If it does, revisit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs)
- Delete I'm not at all comfortable with 'alleged' and 'purported'. I agree with other comments that suggest waiting. Wikipelli Talk 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen oder Userfy. All three of the "sources" presently in the article are quoting the first, the Indianapolis Star article, which, in turn, doesn't really support the notability arguments presented here. What Tremaine is quoted as saying seems to be Tremaine is impressed by Jacob's interest, and that the problems are interesting and signficant. Tremaine is not quoted as saying that Jacob has or hasn't made serious errors in analysis. Now, if the Jacob had published articles (even with a professor as co-author), as one of the high school students (grade 10) who I judged at the Orange County Science & Engineering Faire in the last decade, that would seem worthy of note. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also noted Tremaine isn't quoted as saying that Jacob has made progress. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Badly-sourced sensationalist hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete marginally notable BLP, being the subject of a short burst of human interest stories during a single news cycle does not make one notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 18:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Real-life Doogie Howser stories are a dime a dozen, a simple "only in the news for one event" that will expire when the next cute human interest story come along. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Here is a piece in Time magazine. Prodigies may be "a dime a dozen"--well, sorta--but so also are any other category of folks that are nonethleless notable, for encyclopedic purposes. IMO, what matters is if there are Reliable Sources to document such notability and to draw from to provide them at least a stub's worth of coverage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As already noted above, the Time article is not intellectually independent of the original Indy Star article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Or I will stop using wikipedia out of protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.88.121 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — 152.23.88.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's seems like a pretty empty threat. Nobody cares if you stop using wikipedia out of protest.Negi(afk) (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per NOTTHENEWS, ONEEVENT, or whatever. This sort of heart warming human-interesty stuff happens all the time, and gets a short burst of coverage before it's forgotten. Nothing personal against the kid though. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with CBM that he is probably best evaluated as an academic, i.e. WP:PROF. It doesn't appear that he has yet published anything, and the sources that have been presented present far more hype than substance. If he ends up publishing something that notably challenges the Big Bang theory, that would certainly be notable. Being profiled with puff pieces and going on the Glenn Beck show don't cut it. (I certainly don't think talk show appearances convey notability. I shudder to think of what would happen if we applied that standard to the Jerry Springer Show.) Kansan (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Woman with peculiar sexual interest in dairy products?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- nah, she'd probably fail Wikipedia:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles). --Jayron32 20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A putative "dozens" of such prodigies is interesting original research but must butt up against what is established from reliable sources: Show me an instance where a cosmologist such as Scott Tremaine has said something similar that what Tremaine said about Jacob about the theoretical thinking of some other 12-year-old wiz.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per his local newspaper:
"'Indeed, it would not be in Jacob’s best interest to force him to complete academic work that he has already mastered,'" clinical neurophysiologist Carl S. Hale of Merrillville wrote in a report. 'He needs work at an instructional level, which currently is a post college graduate level in mathematics, i.e., a post master’s degree,' Hale said. 'In essence, his math skills are at the level found in someone who is working on a doctorate in math, physics, astronomy and astrophysics.'"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Per his local newspaper:
- Temporarily ignoring the fact that Barnett is a child prodigy, say he was a graduate student who was doing exciting work on his still-unpublished thesis. That person wouldn't meet WP:PROF as a graduate student who had won no professional awards, published no professional papers, etc. WP:PROF is not about potential, it's about the established CV of a researcher. On the other hand, Arthur Rubin has pointed out above that we have to take Termane's comments with some caution and look at what Tremaine actually said. I think that the news coverage at the moment falls more into WP:BLP1E (the 15 minutes of fame effect) and does not reflect an enduring notability yet. Of course, Barnett may do great work, at which point we could have an article in the future. But at the moment I think it seems to be only potential. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But Jacob is not notable for his theorizing on a graduate-student level, he is notable for being 12-year-old and doing so--in the field of theoretical physics and even corresponding with a preeminent scientist in this field.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am arguing that age is not really relevant. I feel WP:PROF is the applicable standard for someone who is meant to be notable for their theorizing, and I don't think that standard can be met purely on the basis of potential. The fact that he is only 12 makes it seem more like this is of a human interest story - where is the coverage in the actual science media, if his theories have had an effect on practicing scientists? The age issue makes me think we should be more cautious in terms of notability, not more accommodating. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But Jacob is not notable for his theorizing on a graduate-student level, he is notable for being 12-year-old and doing so--in the field of theoretical physics and even corresponding with a preeminent scientist in this field.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The articles are unreliable, and the boy has not produced any work substantial enough for WP:PROF141.211.63.146 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: just noticed that the Time link is actually "Time NewsFeed", which has a subtitle: "What's vital and viral on the web, in real time". I don't think that the article on Barnett is actually in Time magazine as the citation claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. Certain aspects of this AfD are eerily similar to the AfD for Vinay Deolalikar (the guy at HP that claimed to prove P≠NP last year). They were both viral one-event news that propagated like a soliton through the blogosphere. Initially, there was a lot of hype in the non-science press that Deolalika had solved this major problem in mathematics, but then it turned out he hadn't and the whole thing died with a whimper. I feel like we could save ourselves a lot of headache by recommending in a guideline against covering "viral" news stories like this one. At the very least, such stories are typically much more prone to error than something covered in greater depth by a broader arrangement of good sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems eminently reasonable. I'd encourage you to propose it formally outside of this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nearly all the sources discussed appear to be unreliable in one way or another (e.g., tabloid, blog); and the same original story seems to be being re-vectored to other news outlets for reprint, sometimes with minor edits. The young man may very well amount to something Wikipedia-notable, but for now, this is just a blip of news. The point that he does not meet the Wikipedia notability bar takes nothing away from the fact that he's a remarkable young man, but that's not the issue. If he becomes notable (by doing something, not just being extremely bright), let's have an article at that point. There is no hurry. TJRC (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Too soon. We can recreate this article if and when he actually becomes notable in the scientific community. A few articles of the "gee whiz, look at this smart kid" variety do not lasting notability make. LadyofShalott 00:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sensationalistic and potentially damaging to 1E living subject. See also: William James Sidis and Kim Ung-Yong. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen No notable. Being smart isn't enough to be on wikipedia. You have to achieve something (good or bad) and be recognized for it. Don't think that's the case. -- Taku (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that "You have to be recognized for achieving something (good or bad)."? Whether the achievement actually occurred is a matter for WP:TRUTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I follows. But the "reality" does still count, no? The recognition in the public space is only "measurement". If someone is falsely recognized for doing something (say, your name happens to be that of a serial killer), then you're still non-notable. In other words, the assumption on which our notability policy is based is that the recognition must be the reflection of the actual achievement. -- Taku (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that "You have to be recognized for achieving something (good or bad)."? Whether the achievement actually occurred is a matter for WP:TRUTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - Even if the preponderance of we um experts writing Wikipedia from our mobile devices or vintage dial-ups in our Starbucks or basements are correct and Jake is a balloon boy, April Fools hoax factor alone qualifies him for encyclopedic notability. Per USA Today: "CBS' "60 Minutes." Fox News' "The Glenn Beck Program." NPR's "All Things Considered." ABC's "20/20." "The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." Those are just some of the programs that have invited Jake....to share his story."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E override "omg reliable sourcezzz!" arguments. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc, I've a sinking feeling that this episode in gathering topical info is gonna end up score 1 for genius boy, zero for the Asperger's sufferers editing the Wiki-pedia.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling that the brunt of this story is appealing to the Beck/Palin anti-science agenda than anything else, but I'm just a heartless cynic at the core. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Beck and Palin are Know-Nothing (or at least not much) partisans, it's agreed. Although what that cogent observation has to do with the matter at hand escapes me. As for credentialed-ly smart ppl, I'll admit that Jake's instructor's commentary, that of the eminent physicist Tremaine, or the episode being shot by the producer's of 60 Minutes, et al, seems a bit more convincing to me, personally, than the opinions of anonymous Wiki ppl that Jake's vid proves the kid dunnt no wat hez talkin bout. Still, either way, RSes establish he's considered, whether legitimately or not, a phenom, a celebrated boy genius, the latest smart kid meme, whateverwewannacallit.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling that the brunt of this story is appealing to the Beck/Palin anti-science agenda than anything else, but I'm just a heartless cynic at the core. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc, I've a sinking feeling that this episode in gathering topical info is gonna end up score 1 for genius boy, zero for the Asperger's sufferers editing the Wiki-pedia.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's a nine-day-wonder. Is there an article about every pre-teen who learns calculus? Is there an article about every person who's been the subject of a human-interest story and then briefly made the rounds of the talk shows? Is there an article about every person who claims to have problems with Einstein and with the Big Bang? Is there an article about everyone who's made a popular YouTube video? His notability consists only of a couple of journalists and talk-show hosts ASSERTING his notability. Anyone can win the media lottery for a few days -- it doesn't make them notable any more than winning the real lottery would. Until he has actually DONE something notable (or until there's an article about all the types I've described in my questions above): Delete, delete, delete.63.17.37.103 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a discussion of his incoherent "not enough carbon" argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#amount_of_carbon_created_in_the_early_universe 63.17.37.103 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hilarious. I didn't know that his "argument" was actually "explained" anywhere (quotation marks for added derision). That is friggin hilarious. Not only is this kid not a genius, it appears he's also a fool. Don't say I didn't tell you so! Negi(afk) (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if all the opinions you had when you were 12 would look good in print now. I too am skeptical about his notability for WP purposes at the current time, but there is no call to be unkind about it — remember that the subject may well be reading these comments. --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hilarious. I didn't know that his "argument" was actually "explained" anywhere (quotation marks for added derision). That is friggin hilarious. Not only is this kid not a genius, it appears he's also a fool. Don't say I didn't tell you so! Negi(afk) (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - The "too much iron" theory that got remarked on by the Princeton world-class physicist is a facinating story. Then, there is the statement about the kid being smarter than Einstein: But, what does that mean?
In a way, Einstein "isn't a person but a SYMBOL"; and It is simply impossible to be smarter than EINSTEIN-THE-SYMBOL--even the real Einstein wasn't as smart as that! However, commenters here are so flummoxed by this kid's hubris (if such a thing is possible for a 12-year old physics student) that these commenters end up making a comparing-apples-to-oranges mistake: When reporters say Jacob is "smarter" than Einstein was, this assertion has nothing to do with Einstein's theoretical achievements and everything to do Einstein's natural abilities in math. A famous Einstein quote is, "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." Einstein started studying math AT TEN YEARS OLD.... Plus, Einstein never aced all his math exams during his academic career; instead, he was good at math but not spectacular at it. (I'm sure most of you science-and-math people out there are aware of this, though.) But, in any case: Jacob happens to register a higher IQ than what it is estimated Einstein's would be, due to this fact. And that's all the IQ comparison entails. What does a higher IQ mean? After all, a, quote unquote, high IQ or even a, quote unquote, photographic memory doesn't necessarily translate to higher attainments, at the end of the day. Which would be a fine argument to make. But it is a fallacy to claim that reporters said that Jacob is smarter than Einstein because of Jacob's "too much iron in the universe" theory, which the reporters simply never said.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of Order: Hodgson-Burnett, you have misunderstood most of the arguments here, which deal with the fact that the subject simply does not have a post-graduate level understanding of mathematics. Please stop lecturing us on your uninformed viewpoint. If you have some new piece of evidence to add, by all means, please add it. If you are just going to repeat the same tired straw-man argument that the other commenters are judging intelligence by achievement rather than by intrinsic aptitude (nobody has suggested that!), I respectfully request you to please cease and desist posting in this thread. Your arguments are falling on deaf ears precisely because they are fallacious. Negi(afk) (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Negi(afk), you are arguing about "the Truth." Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources. Eg
You counter such assertions by your own and other editors' assertions that Jakob's understanding of math are "not so much." But, your and these others' assertions are original research, at this point."At eight, Jacob enrolled at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) and was taking advanced astrophysics classes. According to one of his professors there, he‘s the most brilliant student he’s seen.
“'Is he a genius? Well, yeah,' IUPUI physics Professor John Ross told the paper. 'Kids his age would normally have problems adding fractions, and he is helping out some of his fellow students.'
"He could soon be helping out the university, too. 'We have told him that after this semester . . . enough of the book work. You are here to do some science,' Ross, who’s committed to helping Jacob find some grant funding, said.
"'If we can get all of those creative juices in a certain direction, we might be able to see some really amazing stuff down the road.'”
And by the way, your comment just above mine said, "Not only is this kid not a genius, it appears he's also a fool." So, if I counter that argument of yours, and others like it, by emphasizing reports that the kid is indeed a genius, I'm putting up strawmen? Isn't it you that is putting up a strawman in this instance?!
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IUPUI doesn't seem to offer courses on astrophysics at all, so there's gotta be something wrong with the assertion that he's taking advanced astrophysics courses there. (I've already questioned the reliability of this news story in other ways: it's clearly time to reconsider whether this is a reliable source, or just sensationalist hot air.) Also it doesn't seem to me that John Ross's assessment goes very far towards establishing notability: he bases this on the fact that Jake is helping kids much older than he with their homework. That's pretty clearly not anywhere close to a sufficient condition for an encyclopedia article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hodgson-Burnett weirdly refers to "Jacob's 'too much iron in the universe' theory, which the reporters simply never said" -- They didn't say it, and neither did anyone else in this discussion. The kid said "not enough carbon," NOT "too much iron." Hodgson-Burnett MADE UP "too much iron." What is he/she talking about? There is NO reference to "too much iron" ANYWHERE. As for "not enough carbon," see the reference desk discussion linked above.63.17.37.103 (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! sorry, IP. Too much carbon existing. Jake:
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]"The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon? Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth. Made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't gonna happen. Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We'd have to be 21 billion years old – and that would just screw everything up."
- He is NOT QUOTED AS SAYING: "Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth. Made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here...." (Implying that "WE" are made mostly of carbon.) He IS quoted as saying: "Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon ...." (Implying that "THE EARTH" is made mostly of carbon.) H-B is DELIBERATELY misquoting THE ACTUAL SOURCE. And, no, it's not a "too much carbon existing" argument -- he says nothing about the present day. The argument is "NOT ENOUGH CARBON" at the time the earth formed, six billion years ago. H-B's bad faith is clearly demonstrated. 63.17.39.192 (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What transcript do you believe authoritative? Jacob's posted YouTube video is unaccompanied by a transcript thus a commentator must rely on one by a third pary or supply hi/r own.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The transcript IN THE ONLY SOURCE -- the newspaper article (REMEMBER? ... uh, um, it's WIKIPEDIA? ... Not your diary?) What part of this don't you get? YOUR transcript is not reliable. The SOURCE transcript clearly has him saying "EARTH is made mostly of carbon," NOT "human beings." You cannot replace the transcript with your own. Yes, your hero (as demonstrated by your edits of two stories related to him) Glenn Beck is at the right hand of God -- but nevertheless, you are not a reliable source, even if you will be Saved by Him (Glenn), along with the Christian fundamentalist young-earthers exploiting this child. 63.17.39.192 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspaper is a third-party--not a journal that coordinated with its author. And yes, I believe that, say, a semi-colon would make more sense in that spot than a comma.
- Btw, I do not agree with Glenn Beck on just about anything. Both myself and my parents together voted for Carter then Mondale then Perot (sorry; but, actually, my folks that time voted for Clinton) then Clinton again then Dukakis then Gore then Obama--ie not a Repub among em.
- Furthermore I am not "saved," as they say, my not being Christian--either practicing or believing.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a look at this "carbon" claim, and it's clearly an ambiguous transcript of the kid's actual spoken words - as such, we can't tell what punctuation is appropriate, and it's impossible to decide with any degree of confidence whether he was in fact claiming that the Earth is made mostly of carbon or whether that claim was describing "us". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: But actually, for our purposes here, it's irrelevant either way - whether he's offering valid claims about the amount of carbon in the universe, or whether he's opining that the Earth is made of lemon jello, all we're looking for here is whether his opinions are notable, not whether they are scientifically credible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the answer is no. His opinions have not even been assessed by people qualified to examine them (aside from an ambiguous quotation by Dr. Tremaine which I have already thoroughly discussed). Notice that science blogs and the science press have been totally silent about this news story. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! sorry, IP. Too much carbon existing. Jake:
- Negi(afk), you are arguing about "the Truth." Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources. Eg
- Point of Order: Hodgson-Burnett, you have misunderstood most of the arguments here, which deal with the fact that the subject simply does not have a post-graduate level understanding of mathematics. Please stop lecturing us on your uninformed viewpoint. If you have some new piece of evidence to add, by all means, please add it. If you are just going to repeat the same tired straw-man argument that the other commenters are judging intelligence by achievement rather than by intrinsic aptitude (nobody has suggested that!), I respectfully request you to please cease and desist posting in this thread. Your arguments are falling on deaf ears precisely because they are fallacious. Negi(afk) (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic personal attack
|
---|
After your blatant fabrication of a quote, as opposed to A GOOD FAITH transcription of the ACTUAL quote from the ONLY source, why should anyone believe your weird little make-believe family history? You are a Mormon fundamentalist young-earther who adores Glenn Beck. 63.17.39.245 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Delete; resolutely fails WP:BIO. Nothing unique and the only thing that sets him apart from the thousands of other child prodigies is that he has had some "tabloid" coverage; which is fine, but not really worthy of notability. The story is... "here's a smart kid who some professors have patted on the head and encouraged him". I see no deep coverage of his theory or anything else ot satisfy WP:BIO --Errant (chat!) 11:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen, clearly an April 1 prank. We are likely dealing with a real child prodegy, but the hype about his theories appearing just before April 1 is obviously a joke. Note also NGC announcement that Atlantis has been found in Spain on March 30, which was also covered on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be in the business of producing April 1 pranks itself, instead of falling for April 1 pranks of others :( . Count Iblis (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. This article appeared several days before April 1. Appeared in a reputable newspaper. If it is a joke, paper has to print a retraction or explanation. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. A healthy dose of Hanlon's razor needs to be applied. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comments. This April 1 prank clearly originated from within academia (It is likely that Scott Tremaine is pulling everyone's legs here) and the media fell for it. So, don't expect a retraction from "the media". Look, if e.g. Phys. Rev. D had been duped, they would publish a clarification, but there isn't anything to be found in such peer reviewed journals. Count Iblis (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In any event, the story is lacking on credibility. Whether that's the result of an intentional prank or journalistic incompetence doesn't seem to be that relevant to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. This article appeared several days before April 1. Appeared in a reputable newspaper. If it is a joke, paper has to print a retraction or explanation. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a BLP1E, minus the event. While I would like to see more inclusionism in these decisions, I can't bring myself to start that argument here. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, utterly non-notable. Tom Morris explains why rather clearly. Can be recreate if this guy is remembered in 6 months. Which I doubt will be the case. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ephemeral human interest story of (most likely) little long term impact. If he later has substantial contributions to the field he can have an article then. Dcoetzee 03:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Normally an inclusionist, and lately trying to 'rescue' AfD'd articles, if kept, would likely be under the requirements of WP:BoldNewTheory. Dru of Id (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Delete. A couple of "Doogie Howser Goes to College" human interest stories and an appearance on Glen Beck doesn't really speak to why this person is notable. Worst part: we have a lead which implies some sort of fundamental challenge to the Big bang theory based on a fluff piece in the Indianapolis Star. So bad on so many levels... Carrite (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - No, the theory isn't new to Barnett. Here is the first sentence of an article on ScienceAlert.com from 2009:
"An international team of astronomers has discovered the oldest and most distant carbon in the Universe, but there's not enough of it to support standard theories of how the Universe lit up, a member from Swinburne University of Technology has calculated."
So, the likely chronology runs:
According to the article on ScienceAlert.com:• Barnett reads up on current problems in astrophysics. • Barnett follows the argument along, performing some calculations agreeing with the findings thus stated.
• Barnett's mom turns the camera on him and, during one of Barnett's impromptu mullings, Barnett mentions this tidbit--about there being, quoting from the Swinburne Univ. of Technology researcher, not enough [carbon] to support standard theories of how the Universe lit up.
• Barnett's mom or someone else sends Barnett's video to the Institute for Advanced Studies.
• Scott Tremaine e-mails back to the effect that, Hey, yeah, the question is the type that whoever solves it would earn a Nobel in physics. (Tremaine wrote, "Thе theory thаt [Barnett's] working οn involves several οf thе toughest problems іn astrophysics аnԁ theoretical physics."
• The local newspaper, the Indy Star, misconstrues what Tremaine's wrote to mean that Barnett had formulated a ground breaking theory.
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]"Adding up all the 13-billion-year-old carbon detected, Dr Emma Ryan-Weber and her collaborators came to the conclusion the amount of carbon, and therefore the number of massive stars, was insufficient to lift the fog. 'So light must come from somewhere else, perhaps an unknown population of quasars, or stars that lock-up more of their carbon, or carbon hidden in unobserved states.'"
- Kommentar - No, the theory isn't new to Barnett. Here is the first sentence of an article on ScienceAlert.com from 2009:
- Question. Why is this debate still open? It looks like the votes are overwhelmingly to delete. It's unlikely that enough editors will come by to vote to keep it. How long do debates rage on? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Read WP:DEADLINE. Come back if you still have another question. --Jayron32 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, if you prefer an actual answer...AfDs usually run for 7 days, and we appear to be at the 6d 23h mark. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- David Walker (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Couldn't find any sources; unsourced BLP since 2009. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Found lots of David Walkers, but not this one. Lack of RS dooms it. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. His common name made searching particularly difficult but searches combining his name with each of his groups listed in the article yielded no results. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Death Threat (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unreferenced article on non notable band, sources (if any) extremely difficult to locate , due to the commonality of this groups name WuhWuzDat 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per nom and WP:MUSIC. Tarheel95 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails all the tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy (deleted outside of AFD). article speedy deleted while discussion was in progress. tedder (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Book of Pure Logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable self-published book. Wikipedia is not a webhost where you can publish your own research. For this book to have an article, it must meet the notability guidelines - see Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also WP:FORUM, WP:NOTWEBSPACE, WP:COI. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom Barte (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find a shred of coverage in any third-party sources that would allow this to be considered a notable book. Looks more like an individual's try to use Wikipedia to push their POV. SoWhy 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being published by a vanity press doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. The COI doesn't help. tedder (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete attempt by the author to use Wikipedia to promote the book. The only significant coverage I can find (apart from Amazon reviews) is [7], which appears to be a site where you can pay to get someone to review your books for you. Fails all notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question - If the article is deleted, should User:Forever true/Pure Logic also be deleted as a contravention of WP:NOTWEBSPACE? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic. But a userspace draft has much weaker guidelines, it could be argued that's a userfied version, especially if the author continues to work on it. tedder (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MFD is the place for evaluating whether user pages should be deleted. The author has linked to the userfied version from his personal website so he arguably is just using it as his personal web space, and there's no prospect of an encyclopedic article being written about this subject, so it may well get deleted there. Hut 8.5 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic. But a userspace draft has much weaker guidelines, it could be argued that's a userfied version, especially if the author continues to work on it. tedder (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is an obviously non-notable and unlikely-to-be-notable work of non-orthodox opinion. After AFD closes, the userspace version can be deleted via MFD as a WP:FAKEARTICLE; I can take care of the nom if no one beats me to it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NBOOK (I don't think it satisfies any criteria for notability), and unhelpful as promotion by the self-publisher. The fake articles in user space should be handled at WP:MFD. 23:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - self published, non notable. Even the Amazon listing for the book is a mess. SeaphotoTalk 04:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete...can we snow delete? clarification, I know we can't, i'm just trying to express how clear it is that this needs to go I've offered the user some help on xyr talk page, but I don't think the message is getting through....Qwyrxian (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - spectacularly fails WP:NBOOK and probably speediable per G11, end of story. ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - now tagged (by me) for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- JP Licks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete -- along with J.P. Licks (redirect) -- as promotionalism (G11). [email protected] (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Restaurant articles are problematic, since they frequently can muster press reviews as "evidence" of notability and almost always devolve into self-promotion. I favor a high bar here. This seems to be a local chain of ice cream parlors with no significant regional, let alone national, presence. The purpose of the article in practice is more or less a directory of shops. Therefore, this article should be removed. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Odyssey Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about three totally unrelated schools of the same name--one in Minnesota, one in Florida, and one in Georgia. All three are elementary/middle schools (K-8), and appear to be totally non-notable. (The one in Minnesota has <200 students, and the one in Florida is a Montessori school, which emphasizes small classes. The one in Georgia, whose website is not linked in our article, has about 240 students.) Additionally, the entire article is unreferenced, as is typical for non-notable elementary and middle schools, and it's unlikely that many references could be found. Since there are three separate schools in three separate states, I'd suggest deleting the article because a simple redirect is not possible. Horologium (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No assertion of notability by any of the above. Delete or merge to their school districts, per standard WP practice. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article was about one school in Minnesota until anon IP editors added the other schools in September 2010 and March 2011. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect the first school to Osseo Area School District 279 per usual practice. No drama. TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and don't merge or redirect, since there are multiple schools by this name. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- National Black MBA Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization, only references are first party external links WuhWuzDat 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This 1990 article in the Boston Globe is strong evidence of notability: Diversity and growth: Black MBA group has come far since its '70 beginning. Though much is hidden behind a pay wall, the title and opening paragraph certainly indicate that it is in-depth coverage. Here are other examples of what appears to be in-depth coverage: [8], [9], [10], [11]. There are many similar examples. I see a consistent pattern of coverage by major newspapers of a period of decades. Cullen328 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - NBMBAA is a professional society that has been around for four decades. It is a non-profit organization with numerous chapters around the United States — a google search returns page after page of links to local and regional chapter sites. This is clearly a keeper from the get-go. Article needs to be sourced out and improved, which is something that can happen through the ordinary editing process. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found by Cullen328. However, the article itself needs sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed as moot. Article was a misnamed attempt to create a template. Article has been moved to Template:KomerčníbankaAwardOpera. Since it was trying to be a template and is now a template, AfD no longer has jurisdiction. No opinion on whether the template is useful or the award notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KomerčníbankaAwardOpera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First it's a template not an article. There is no corresponding awards article. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, looks like a webcomic if it even exists, no assertion of notability, author blocked for repeat creation of hoax articles, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crazy 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs, does not adhere to notability policy. MobileSnail 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – lacks Ghits and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darkeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a fictional character that doesn't assert any notability whatsoever. The André Nunes is obviously not the same person as the one we have an article on. Contested PROD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no notability asserted, zero coverage online, clear WP:COI by creator. I only prodded it because there's no appropriate speedy category for comics characters. Shire Reeve (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN fictional element not associated with any notable work or creator. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen. Dark Guardians should also be deleted. (Created by same user and references Darkeye. --Fang Aili talk 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now PRODded it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: due to lack of reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- William Byron Webster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:COMPOSER and WP:ACADEMIC, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Shire Reeve (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. This says it all: "Webster's operas Cyrano de Bergerac and The Little Match Girl are the object of extreme appreciation by a small group of admirers." --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find sources of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Healthy Child Healthy India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There does not appear to be any significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Judging from its website, the organization's primary activity is serving as a platform for its founder's books and seminars. Ningauble (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent coverage--Sodabottle (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. The arguments for keeping reasonably assert that market size is relevant to baseball, but no one has supported that census-defined metropolitan areas are coterminous with team markets, such that census figures define market size, and none of the sources make this comparison either as Bagumba notes below. So although an article on defining and comparing baseball market size may very well be written, this list is an original synthesis. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Major League Baseball teams by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reason to have a list of MLB teams by metropolitan population...population plays no significance in attendance, or stadium size CTJF83 11:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the article says, "While population determines market size, The New York Times and the Cincinnati Business Courier commented that it is not directly related to fan support or team contention.[5][6]" Market size isn't everything; ask Billy Beane and Andrew Friedman. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clear case of indiscriminate information, not an important or notable classification or categorization. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It could be better, but the fact that there are market studies on the business of baseball, and that members of the media are taking note of them, would seem to be notable in and of itself. Market size doesn't have to be everything, and I think that the fact that there are studies showing accomplishment in spite of having a small market shows that it apparently is something deemed worthy of study. That said, I think that there's more that could be done with the article besides assembling the data, such as showing the 13 markets that don't have an MLB team, and looking at the television market data rather than (or in addition to) the SMSA information. Sports marketing itself is notable, less fun, perhaps, than watching the sports themselves. In Major League Baseball, of course, it's more important given that MLB has been slow in warming to the idea of revenue sharing among the teams, and the teams in the larger television markets are going to have more capital with which to work. Mandsford 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fact that "market size isn't everything" hardly shows that market size isn't important. I don't think there are any Wikipedia ordered lists that would satisfy the implied "this is the one-and-only determining factor test. The article could use a slightly more specific title, and it would probably be useful to identify those "missing" from the top 25 list, but this is an accurate, encyclopedic article related to a matter that is widely and reasonably to be influential in assessing the main subject. Neither unanimous belief in influence nor perfect evidence of correlation should be required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is zero discussion in this article about what market size does mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The same can be said about List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll. Maybe that's an argument for expansion, but not deletion. Some list articles include textual discussions, but it's not a requirement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That one could prob be deleted too, but more notable than this, as payroll directly relates to the team, their profits, ticket prices, etc, (I'd think), but metro size effects nothing it appears. CTJF83 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The same can be said about List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll. Maybe that's an argument for expansion, but not deletion. Some list articles include textual discussions, but it's not a requirement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is zero discussion in this article about what market size does mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOT. This seems to be very much akin to a comparison of William of Orange and Fiona Apple. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If market size of MLB team is important, then an article about that should be written. This list makes no sense to me because you can't rank teams by population. Team does not and cannot have population.—Chris!c/t 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is WP:OR with misleading information based on non-verified synthesis. Anaheim Angels are in Orange County, California and not Los Angeles County as the Dodgers are. Oakland and San Francisco are on two different sides of the bay in San Francisco Bay Area and are very distinct markets. MLB also has a concept of territorial rights in terms of which markets are owned by specific teams, which could be confused with this article. Being that there is no reliable source that combines the teams and Census population together, this is also WP:IINFO —Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. – Ajltalk 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fallen Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:Crystal – Ajltalk 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - reliable sources search turns up coverage at GameTrailers, 1UP, Joystiq, Eurogamer, Shacknews, IGN, and GamesRadar, all with significant coverage to pass WP:N. Unreleased != non-notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see plenty of links to the "announcement trailer" but not a great deal of coverage. 1UP looks like the most viable - were there any others? Perhaps a redirect would be better until more information comes out? Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GameSpot interview, Shacknews preview to name a couple. Not really interested in hunting them all down; rather I just want to prove notability. --Teancum (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, those look good, keep. Marasmusine (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GameSpot interview, Shacknews preview to name a couple. Not really interested in hunting them all down; rather I just want to prove notability. --Teancum (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Keep Roe, Withdrawn Boggs, Delete others, based on notability with respect to the general notability guideline. joe deckertalk to me 19:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Edward Hayhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unfortunately I bring these Silver Star recipients. The Silver Star is the 3rd highest military honor of the U.S. Per WP:MILPEOPLE, regrettably they are not notable. All of articles contain the same format of only listing the citation. Elaine Roe maybe notable as it includes a sentence where she and her fellow nurse companions where the first women silver star recipients. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following related pages are also nominated:
- Donald Joseph Bresnahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kenneth Leroy Boggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Withdraw, found to have been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross- Dell Geise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Michael Keehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Donald Kirkham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Claude R. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Leonard W. Ochs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Robert J. Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Elaine Roe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete - Individual articles of these multiple subjects are not sufficiently referenced by multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:SOLDIER. If there is significant coverage found elsewhere to support each subjects individual notability, it should be included in the article, and that specific case should be discussed. Thankfully mention of these individuals will not disappear from the internet. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep for Elaine Roe, Delete, per reasons given above; however the statement that she is the first woman recipient would be incorrect. I searched and the subject appears to be one of four that were presented at the same time as a batch awarding. See 1 2 3 --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps an article about the four recipients that were awarded the Silver Star for the same action should have its own article with Elaine Roe, and the four others, being redirected to that article much the same way the article regarding the four chaplains is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Elaine Roe. Delete remainder. Recipients of a single third-level award are not considered notable by default. The first woman to be given an award is notable, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional split !vote: At first, I was tempted to be snarky and denounce a mass nomination, but closer investigation shows that these all were made in a series by one editor: Packerfansam (talk · contribs). She seems to be a serial bio-stub creator (with a strong emphasis on sports players, but plenty of military bios as well). There is nothing particularly wrong with creating lots of articles, or even lots of stubs (in fact, that's commendable, IMO), but the volume and rapid succession does suggest that she's going off of a list or database without a lot of individual consideration to each person and thier suitability. I haven't seen any discussion about such a mass creation, so please let me know if there is one. I've said in the past that I strongly disagree with the provision in WP:SOLDIER that a third-tier valor award isn't enough, and I still stand by that conviction. However, these articles are essentially nothing but the text of the citation, which isn't enough (and violates WP:NOT in trying to make a repository of citations rather than biographies). I feel that means we should improve these articles to something more significant by the end of the AfD, or else transfer the citation text to Wikisource, with one exception. The nominator himself casts doubt on the non-notability of Elaine Roe, and I think we should keep her as a significant female first. I've also notified Packerfansam of this AfD. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Boggs per Dru of Id. A DFC and SS are certainly notable. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all but Roe. Roe may have something as the first female recipient (and infact I seem to remember reading something about that the other day) but the others are not notable. Did not receive a notable military award per the MILHIST guideline, and more to the point these articles are nothing but stubs with little but the official citations used as a primary source. With no reliable sources to show their notability they should be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Elaine Roe, unconditionally, as above. Keep others, conditionally, until such time as Wikipedia implements more uniform standards for assessing the notability based on awards. It's ridiculous that tenth-class porn awards, reported only in advertising and trade-promotional magazines, are enough to guarantee notability, while third-level military awards, typically well-documented in independent, reliable (if geographically limited in circulation) news media don't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If subjects are notable, even if due to said third-level (or even lower) awards, in such a manor to meet WP:GNG, then the subject would pass WP:NN even without resorting to WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge into a single article if there is nothing but the citation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The list at Silver Star#Notable recipients is already longer than it probably ought to be. The consensus was that only recipients with articles should be listed, so unless somebody starts List of Silver Star recipients, then deletion of these articles would probably mean they won't be listed anywhere on Wikipedia. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Roe, delete all others: lack of significant coverage per WP:GNG. If all that exists is the primary source document (the citation), that is not enough for a biography. Conversely, if significant coverage exists, then there is no reason why a Silver Star recipient can't be considered notable, however, unfortunately where it doesn't exist it is not enough to be considered automatically notable per WP:MILPEOPLE. In the case of Roe it appears like significant coverage might be possible, hence my keep rationale for that article. I found the following: Google web search Google Books search. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except Roe - per AustralianRupert. The subjects of these articles appear to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore are likely not notable under the WP:GNG. Regardless, I have no problem with recreation of some or all of them at a later date if new sources come to light. Finally I think more context needs to be added to Rowe to make her notability clear. Anotherclown (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Geise, Kirkham, Ochs - posthumous awards + Purple Heart - two were medical; no further achievements were possible; Keep Hayhurst - also POW/Medal; Keep Jones + Purple Heart; and, since no on else checked the references, Keep Boggs + Purple Heart & posthumous Distinguished Service Cross (insert snarky mass nomination denouncement here), and this article needs an upgrade; Bresnahan & Roe I will refrain from voting; for the non-posthumous awards I did search for further accomplishments and obituaries; even for the uncommon names I found nothing. Dru of Id (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure why Boggs has been withdrawn. The DSC is a second-level award, and this is not generally considered to make one notable either (although two such awards would). Only first-level awards make one automatically notable. And why should posthumous awards, Purple Hearts and POWs be notable? We're beginning to step into WP:Memorial territory here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiavideo.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The website fails the general notability criteria. Shovon (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent coverage--Sodabottle (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - per CSD G11. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 12:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Beautiful Darkness (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous AfD was all delete votes but didn't get enough input, so I'm renominating it for failing the same criteria. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete (Per prev. AfD.) Article does not demonstrate any notability (and lacks major points such as who the author is), however some RS may exist about the book. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)See below.[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found some coverage, please, check the article again. I think there's a possibility to compile a decent article based on reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, bordering on strong keep. New York Times bestsellers typically get significant coverage, even though such book coverage often isn't web-indexed very well, but requires access to specialized databases or print sources. Worldcat search shows the book is held in nearly 1000 libraries. Amazon listing shows multiple RS reviews -- PW, SLJ, Booklist, Kirkus, etc. Even MTV covers the series it's part of [12], with more enthusiasm than it shows for most music. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck out my actual vote, I'm neutral now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep New York Times bestseller means probably notable. (Although WP:NBOOK doesn't seem to mention it?) OSborn arfcontribs. 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this can be closed now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 19:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cagot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet Wikipedia standard for notability. Spin0zist5 (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite notable. Cf., e.g., articles cited. OP is CAG. Del3uze666 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Looks like perfectly decent article on an important subject. Strong keep. PatGallacher (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A well-referenced article on an important and little-known historical topic. Cullen328 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject's notability seems obvious, and its references to reliable sources seem more than adequate to establish notability. The subject seems to have clear historical importance. 1000+ Google Scholar hits. 25000+ books hits. Nominator has few edits outside of this AfD. Suggest speedy or snow keep. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Referenced well enough to establish notability. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable subject, explained well by article. The current number of references and range of reliable sources used might be inadequate if we were considering the article for GA, but they are significantly more than enough to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Sources make the article easily pass WP:GNG. The bibliography of the French article is impressive, which reflects the amount of google books and google scholars search results. Comte0 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - thoroughly referenced. Subject of significant external commentary including http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-last-untouchable-in-europe-878705.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgaffney2000 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is definitely notable.Philip.marshall (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Both sides deserve a trout slap for making this much more interminable than it needed to be. If/when this comes back to AFD, state your case and move on, don't labor it. Getting the last word ≠ winning the discussion. It might also make it easier to take some of the proffered sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for individual discussion in advance rather than futilely headbutting "it's reliable/no it isn't" in the midst of an AFD again. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Swami Nikhilanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person. There are no reliable sources that state that this person is notable, or for what reason. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- per nominator Wikidas© 07:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Not to be confused with Swami Nikhilananda, who is a notable person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nikhilanand and Nikhilananda are not different words. Either of these people's name can be spelled either way. The Swami Nikhilanand mentioned in this article is also spelled as Swami Nikhilananda in many places. Maybe there is confusion about the spelling of Indian languages. For example, the subject of this article is mentioned and pictured in Times of India with the caption Swami Nikhilananda [13]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. He's the spiritual leader of the largest Hindu temple and ashram outside India. He's mentioned as a prominent figure in several articles. He regularly speaks as the presiding religious leader over high profile Hindu events in USA. There's almost an entire article about him in a Hamilton College journal. He has his own radio show on Radio Masala, Houston - the only prime time radio show which deals with Hindu religion. He's not a rock star - he's just a notable Hindu religious leader.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.42.74 (talk)
- Reply Please provide reliable sources that state that the subject is notable. To say that "He's the spiritual leader of the largest Hindu temple and ashram outside India" needs to be cited by reliable sources, otherwise it is just original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the opening of this discussion, there are still no reliable sources that state that the subject is notable, much less for what reason. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. Could you please detail which of the many sources in the article you have read, and which you have not, so that the rest of us can evaluate your assertions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Actually, all 21 refs are not reliable, as none are reliable sources that state that the subject is notable. Some don't even mention him at all. While there are references, these should not be mistaken for reliable sources that establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't answer my question. Have you read all 21 of those sources to determine that they are not reliable? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have read all sources available. None of them are reliable sources that state that the subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't read all the sources. The Desi Talk Cover Story (which is all about Swami Nikhilanand) doesn't even appear to be online, and which is exclusively about the subject. So, saying you have read all the sources is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply All the sources are reliable third party sources. They don't use the exact word "notable" but the content establishes his notability. He is the spiritual teacher at the largest Hindu temple complex in America (a few sources mentioned), he has a journal article where he is the main subject (sources given in article), he has presided over a number of conferences and high profile events of the Hindu community (sources given), his lecture series info are mentioned on dozens of Hindu temple websites (sources not given in article though they could be added), he has his own radio show on a major Indian American station (source not given in article, but it could be added eventually) - he is also held in high esteem in the American Hindu community, and invited as chief guest to national events (sources given in article). He also seems to be a patron of another Hindu American organization, "the Vedic Foundation".
- Kommentar. Could you please detail which of the many sources in the article you have read, and which you have not, so that the rest of us can evaluate your assertions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. He is the spiritual teacher at one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in the Western Hemisphere, and the largest in North America. He's mentioned as a prominent figure in several articles. He regularly speaks as the presiding religious leader over high profile Hindu events in USA. There's almost an entire article about him in a Hamilton College journal. He has his own radio show on Radio Masala, Houston - the only prime time radio show which deals with Hindu religion. He's not a rock star - he's just a notable Hindu religious leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Again, if you state that, "He is the spiritual teacher at one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in the Western Hemisphere, and the largest in North America," this needs to be cited by reliable sources. So far there are none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Check Google News, Books, and Scholar - you will see that this person is not notable. However there is a person with a similar name Swami Nikhilananda, who is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nikhilanand and Nikhilananda are not different words. Either of these people's name can be spelled either way. The Swami Nikhilanand mentioned in this article is also spelled as Swami Nikhilananda in many places. Maybe there is confusion about the spelling of Indian languages. For example, the subject of this article is mentioned and pictured in Times of India with the caption Swami Nikhilananda [14]. This wikipedia article cites several publications where he is mentioned as a prolific or prominent leader. The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you haven't read any of the sources, or have personal reasons to want it to not be on wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- please do not be deceived by the casual mention of the subject in what seems to be reliable sources, none of the sources are specifically about the subject, and mentioning someone in a photo caption does not make one notable either. Wikidas© 07:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note He's mentioned in the body of the article as well as in the main picture - I just meant that his name was spelled both ways in the same article. Although the article mentions that the event had 100 vetted invitees, and "brought together prolific leaders, rabbis, monks, and activists from several influential synagogues, temples, and organizations in this city", Swami Nikhilanand is one of only two leaders that are actually named specifically. He is also one of the only leaders pictured in the main photo. But this is just one article on the subject - another being a journal article almost entirely about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Not sure if there needs any more proof of notability, but he was interviewed in several popular TV and radio shows, including ITV Gold [15] and on Radio Salaam Namaste [16] but they are not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort My rabbi also gives interviews to TV and radio shows. Most religious leaders do. He also attends conferences, some of which have led to his picture in a paper or two. However, this does not make him notable. It just proves that he exist as a religious leader. The subject at hand is not notable, as there are no reliable sources that state that he is notable, or for what. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. His main notability stems from the fact of his being the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America, and one of the biggest in the western hemisphere, and is demonstrated by many additional sources. The article already has sources to back that up. It would be the equivalent of your rabbi being the rabbi of the largest Synagogue in America, and one of the largest outside Israel; having a journal article written about him; being the presiding leader at a number of significant Jewish events; having his own radio show; being the chief guest at a national Jewish celebration; being a well know speaker who is constantly invited to speak at Synagogues throughout America etc etc. If your Rabbi has all these things, please let us know who he is, and we can write him an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 April 2011
- Comment You keep repeating the phrase "The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines." Yet, the article does not pass any notability guidelines at all. The article fails Wikipedia Notability. What guidelines are you talking about - specifically? I see none that would allow for a keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply He is NOT "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America." You have provided no reliable sources to confirm this, and as such it is Original Research. You have had a week to provide reliable sources that state that the subject is notable, and you have not done this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort How does it not meet wikipedia guidelines? You flagged it, and as yet have not given any reasonable cause to believe it doesn't pass the notability test. Look at the first line: "Swami Nikhilanand is a prominent (Kulkarni, 2010),[1] Canadian born Hindu Spiritual Leader (Dutt, 2010).[2] He is the spiritual teacher at JKP Barsana Dham, [3][4][5] one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in the Western Hemisphere,[6] and the largest in North America. [7][8][9]". Everything is backed up by reliable 3rd party sources. The article has 25 sources, only 2 of which don't mention his name (you previously said many of the sources don't even mention his name which is untrue). A few of the sources mention him in passing as a prominent person, but there are enough sources where he is the main topic. You are implying that a wikipedia guideline is that there should be sources that say the exact phrase "he is a notable person" - not to mention there is one that says he is "prominent" which means the same thing - however wikipedia guideline basically says that notability should be shown, which it more than is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Just because it is referenced does not mean it is backed by reliable sources. Your references DO NOT back up your claims to notability. They are rather misleading, and as you have even stated "2 of which don't mention his name." Also, his personal website pages you listed above - those are not a reliable source. Also, this claim to be "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America," is false and misleading at best - and there are NO reliable sources to back it up! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than saying that there are no reliable sources to back things up, you seem unable to back up your argument. His personal website is obviously not reliable, except that it hosts some material from independent 3rd party sources - TV and radio show. All the main points of the article are backed up by journal articles, and articles in major news sources in relation to many different events (India Tribune, Indo American News, The South Asian Times, Jewish Herald-Voice, The Times of India) and major Indian American magazines (Desi Talk, Salaam Namaste Magazine, Lokavani, ICC NEWSLETTER) and a Hamilton College journal, and major Hindu American websites not related to his own organization (VHP America, Hindus of Houston etc) and university websites. Its not a valid argument, but from looking at other articles for deletion pages that have been kept, I haven't come across anyone else who has had so much coverage and demonstration of notability. I think you are basing his lack of notability on the fact that you haven't heard of him, not based on the article content. To say he's not notable, or that notability hasn't been demonstrated here, or that he's not the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America, is just being dishonest - I'm not sure if whether you are referring to the same article that I am.
- Reply What reliable source says that he is "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort The article and it sources show that he is the spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham, which is one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in North America. There is no need for a source that says the exact phrase: "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America?" Where does wikipedia say that you need a source for that exact phrase. Its not possible to always find exact phrases like that - e.g. "Swami Nikhilanand is a notable person". The requirement is that it is demonstrated in reliable, 3rd party sources that it is true. Having a source for that exact phrase is not a requirement, and not having it doesn't seem like a reason to delete the whole article. And you haven't read all the sources, the Desi Talk Cover Story (which is all about Swami Nikhilanand) doesn't even appear to be online, and which is exclusively about the subject. So, saying you have read all the sources is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Please answer my question - What reliable source says that he is "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America," which I assume you mean Barsana Dham - which is not "the largest Hindu center in America," nor is this individual its leader. Your info is not sourced and very misleading - and wrong. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Here are some sources that demonstrate that he is the spiritual teacher at Barsana Dham [17], [18] and [19], [20] and [21] but there are many more. And here are some sources that say that Barsana Dham is the largest Hindu temple complex in North America or one of the largest in the western Hemisphere [22], [23] and [24]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply NONE of these sources state that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham - NONE!!! Also, the other sources only mention the individual - if at all! These sources do not state how this individual is notable, and in no way show that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham. This is quite a stretch - and misleading at best - as are some of these sources you listed! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The leader of Barsana Dham is Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj but he lives in India. If you knew about the temple, you would know that it also has local leadership. You say that none of these sources state that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham - what else is he? Is he the caretaker? It is reasonably obvious from the context that his association with Barsana Dham in the capacity of its spiritual leader. As I already said, the article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines - he is a prominent figure in the American Hindu community, spiritual teacher at the largest Hindu center in North America, has a presiding role over major events and functions of the American Hindu community etc. - the wikipedia article shows that. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. As I already showed, you hadn't even looked at the sources before nominating this article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Many Indian sources use the word "pracharak of Barsana Dham" which is somewhat equivalent to a spiritual leader... e.g. [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You continue to make statements without backing them up with reliable sources. The spiritual leader of Barsana Dham is Prakashanand Saraswati. If you state that your guy is, then please provide evidence that says otherwise - supported by reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Prakashanand Saraswati is not the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham. He was the founder. The leader is Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj. The president is Diwakari Devi. Other than that, Swami Nikhilanand is the main local spiritual leader of the temple. I can't find sources which directly say this, but his role in the temple and in Hindu American society is more than demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Please provide reliable sources to support your statements. Otherwise, they are just Original Research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Here: [26] - Barsana Dham's own newsletter describes Swami Nikhilanand as the spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham. It also says that his speeches are broadcast on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort This is very misleading, and does not say that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Whether he is the "spiritual teacher" or "spiritual leader" or pracharak doesn't matter - they amount to the same thing. He is a notable figure in the Hindu American community, as shown by the article, and the there would be a major loss in the body of knowledge if this article is completely deleted. He is also the spiritual teacher of the largest Hindu temple in North America (which you surely agree with). As I showed, you hadn't read the sources before nominating this article for deletion, obviously you wouldn't change your mind now. As for BLP, the article has neutral point of view, verifiable information and no original research. He's not notable for just one event - but the combination of many events and topics. He is referenced in many diverse publications, including a journal article about him. Thanks.
- Reply So, is he no longer "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America?" Are you changing your position? What is going on here? And where are the reliable sources? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You just said the same thing, but using different words. As his website says: "JKP, Barsana Dham sanyasi teacher Swami Nikhilanand is offering several ongoing programs in the New York City area." Using other diverse sources, I showed that Barsana Dham is the largest Hindu center/temple/complex in North America and one of the largest in the western Hemisphere. See following sources: [27], [28] and [29].
- 1. The "Encyclopedia of American Immigration" calls it the "largest Hindu temple in North America".
- 2. The "Insiders' Guide to Austin" calls it "one of the largest Hindu temples in the United States".
- 3. Hindu University of America Newsletter calls it "one of the largest Hindu temples in the Western Hemisphere."
- The subject is referred to in numerous articles as a notable figure and as being some sort of leader (teacher, pracharak, different words) of Barsana Dham who presides at major Hindu American events. Thanks.
- Reply And he is not the leader of the community. There are no reliable sources that state this - so it is Original Research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Not every source has to say everything about the article. The 3 references above don't mention any leader or teacher. And obviously every organization would have a leader. Wikipedia articles are built by piecing together numerous sources and that has been done here. You nominated the article without looking at the sources (e.g. one of them isn't even online although you maintained for the past week that you read all the sources). In your comment below, you said that one source just had a picture of him - you didn't even read past the picture to see what the rest of the article said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Whether he is the "spiritual teacher" or "spiritual leader" or pracharak doesn't matter - they amount to the same thing. He is a notable figure in the Hindu American community, as shown by the article, and the there would be a major loss in the body of knowledge if this article is completely deleted. He is also the spiritual teacher of the largest Hindu temple in North America (which you surely agree with). As I showed, you hadn't read the sources before nominating this article for deletion, obviously you wouldn't change your mind now. As for BLP, the article has neutral point of view, verifiable information and no original research. He's not notable for just one event - but the combination of many events and topics. He is referenced in many diverse publications, including a journal article about him. Thanks.
- Antwort This is very misleading, and does not say that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Here: [26] - Barsana Dham's own newsletter describes Swami Nikhilanand as the spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham. It also says that his speeches are broadcast on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Please provide reliable sources to support your statements. Otherwise, they are just Original Research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Here are some sources that demonstrate that he is the spiritual teacher at Barsana Dham [17], [18] and [19], [20] and [21] but there are many more. And here are some sources that say that Barsana Dham is the largest Hindu temple complex in North America or one of the largest in the western Hemisphere [22], [23] and [24]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Please answer my question - What reliable source says that he is "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America," which I assume you mean Barsana Dham - which is not "the largest Hindu center in America," nor is this individual its leader. Your info is not sourced and very misleading - and wrong. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than saying that there are no reliable sources to back things up, you seem unable to back up your argument. His personal website is obviously not reliable, except that it hosts some material from independent 3rd party sources - TV and radio show. All the main points of the article are backed up by journal articles, and articles in major news sources in relation to many different events (India Tribune, Indo American News, The South Asian Times, Jewish Herald-Voice, The Times of India) and major Indian American magazines (Desi Talk, Salaam Namaste Magazine, Lokavani, ICC NEWSLETTER) and a Hamilton College journal, and major Hindu American websites not related to his own organization (VHP America, Hindus of Houston etc) and university websites. Its not a valid argument, but from looking at other articles for deletion pages that have been kept, I haven't come across anyone else who has had so much coverage and demonstration of notability. I think you are basing his lack of notability on the fact that you haven't heard of him, not based on the article content. To say he's not notable, or that notability hasn't been demonstrated here, or that he's not the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America, is just being dishonest - I'm not sure if whether you are referring to the same article that I am.
- Antwort Just because it is referenced does not mean it is backed by reliable sources. Your references DO NOT back up your claims to notability. They are rather misleading, and as you have even stated "2 of which don't mention his name." Also, his personal website pages you listed above - those are not a reliable source. Also, this claim to be "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America," is false and misleading at best - and there are NO reliable sources to back it up! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. His main notability stems from the fact of his being the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America, and one of the biggest in the western hemisphere, and is demonstrated by many additional sources. The article already has sources to back that up. It would be the equivalent of your rabbi being the rabbi of the largest Synagogue in America, and one of the largest outside Israel; having a journal article written about him; being the presiding leader at a number of significant Jewish events; having his own radio show; being the chief guest at a national Jewish celebration; being a well know speaker who is constantly invited to speak at Synagogues throughout America etc etc. If your Rabbi has all these things, please let us know who he is, and we can write him an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 April 2011
- Antwort My rabbi also gives interviews to TV and radio shows. Most religious leaders do. He also attends conferences, some of which have led to his picture in a paper or two. However, this does not make him notable. It just proves that he exist as a religious leader. The subject at hand is not notable, as there are no reliable sources that state that he is notable, or for what. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - After more than a week of discussion, I feel that Wikidas' statement, "please do not be deceived by the casual mention of the subject in what seems to be reliable sources, none of the sources are specifically about the subject, and mentioning someone in a photo caption does not make one notable either," really sums up this discussion. We are dealing with a person who is not notable, and whose article has attributed non-existent titles to him - without reliable sources. In addition, as this is a BLP with unreliable sources making false claims, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article just has a picture of him?? As I said to wikidas, he is mentioned in a times of India article alongside other "prolific" leaders of major religious organizations. See [30] . That's what I mean - you nominated the article without looking at the sources. You didn't see past the picture - even after discussing it for a week - and don't seem to be interested in reading the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As stated above - "Mentioning someone in a photo caption does not make one notable." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort We can agree on that, but he's mentioned in the article body too, not just the picture. Out of 100 prolific leaders from prominent religious organizations, he is one of the only people to be mentioned in the body of the article - more than once. See [31] . That's what I mean - you nominated the article without looking at the sources. You didn't see past the picture - even after discussing it for a week - and don't seem to be interested in reading the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort No - you are making misleading comments! He is mentioned in the article but is not the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America as you say he is... still without reliable sources. And, this minor reference within an article of which he is Not the subject, does not show notability by any Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort You are just reading the first paragraph. There are two pages to the article. You still can't see past the picture... [32] We are unnecessarily arguing on the semantics of one article at at a time - the wikipedia article should be evaluated based on the whole body of sources, not just individual ones at a time. Wikipedia guidelines state that notability can be established through many independent, reliable sources. You say that he is not notable - but what else would you say considering the fact that you nominated the article for deletion before looking at the sources? At this stage, I am going to leave it to the judgment of whoever judges these kinds of things.
- Antwort Your response is quite odd. I have read the sources. None say that the subject is notable, or how, or even possibly why. I do not disagree with you that this person exist. He probably does. Though, he is not notable - for anything. You have stated that he is the leader of Barsana Dham - this is not true, and your sources have shown this. Your comments are very misleading, and tend to promote this individual far beyond his position as an ordinary religious personality. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Everything in the article is written from NPOV. There are no outlandish claims, nothing strange - he is an ordinary religious teacher, who just happens to be notable in the Hindu American community. The article describes him as a spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham, which is no doubt one of the largest Hindu complexes in America. The newsletter of Barsana Dham describes him as "Barsana Dham sanyasi teacher". You keep looking for exact phrases, but I don't think that's what wikipedia guidelines state. It says teacher, but in the article is shows that he is a spiritual teacher. What more can be said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply So, we've gone from the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America to only a teacher. That is a big difference. How many teachers are there? He clearly is not a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort I don't know how many teachers there are in the world. There are plenty of sources that describe him as prolific, prominent or otherwise. He one of only 2 or 3 teachers of the largest Hindu temple in the western Hemisphere. He's obviously not a high school teacher. All the references mention him in the capacity of being a spiritual teacher or leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply He might be a nice person, but he is not notable. He has done nothing notable. He is not written about in (reliably sourced) religious studies articles as a teacher, nor in any other scholarly articles. No reliably sourced books mention him. This is just a person who exist, but is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort The article has enough sources to mention him as being notable, as well as being a spiritual leader [33][34], spiritual teacher [35], pracharak of Barsana Dham [36] - just some of many sources cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Per Wikipedia standards - none of these are reliable sources. This individual is still not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort They are noteworthy publications which, along with the combination of all the other sources, backup everything that's said in the article and show that the subject is notable. You said they were not reliable sources before even looking at them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Please show me. Aside for the articles you provided that only mention (at best) this individual, there is no reason to believe that this individual is notable. Your attempts to say that he is the leader of Barsana Dham has failed, as it is not true. There is not much left to say about this individual, aside from that he is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort There are 28 sources - many mention the subject in a significant way. I think that if I went through each one, you would keep asking for more sources. The threshold of eligibility to be included in wikipedia has at least been passed in my opinion - to evaluate that, you would have to actually read it. The fact is that I was correct when I first said that you must have a personal reason for this article not to be here. And I have already established that you hadn't read any of the sources before you nominated this article for deletion. Thanks.
- Reply 28 sources - its not about numbers but reliability - sources that establish notability that are verifiable. You have stated that, "The threshold of eligibility to be included in Wikipedia has at least been passed in my opinion," but you have not stated how, nor have you provided reliable sources to back up your claims. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort There are 28 sources - many mention the subject in a significant way. I think that if I went through each one, you would keep asking for more sources. The threshold of eligibility to be included in wikipedia has at least been passed in my opinion - to evaluate that, you would have to actually read it. The fact is that I was correct when I first said that you must have a personal reason for this article not to be here. And I have already established that you hadn't read any of the sources before you nominated this article for deletion. Thanks.
- Antwort Please show me. Aside for the articles you provided that only mention (at best) this individual, there is no reason to believe that this individual is notable. Your attempts to say that he is the leader of Barsana Dham has failed, as it is not true. There is not much left to say about this individual, aside from that he is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort They are noteworthy publications which, along with the combination of all the other sources, backup everything that's said in the article and show that the subject is notable. You said they were not reliable sources before even looking at them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Per Wikipedia standards - none of these are reliable sources. This individual is still not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Everything in the article is written from NPOV. There are no outlandish claims, nothing strange - he is an ordinary religious teacher, who just happens to be notable in the Hindu American community. The article describes him as a spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham, which is no doubt one of the largest Hindu complexes in America. The newsletter of Barsana Dham describes him as "Barsana Dham sanyasi teacher". You keep looking for exact phrases, but I don't think that's what wikipedia guidelines state. It says teacher, but in the article is shows that he is a spiritual teacher. What more can be said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Your response is quite odd. I have read the sources. None say that the subject is notable, or how, or even possibly why. I do not disagree with you that this person exist. He probably does. Though, he is not notable - for anything. You have stated that he is the leader of Barsana Dham - this is not true, and your sources have shown this. Your comments are very misleading, and tend to promote this individual far beyond his position as an ordinary religious personality. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort You are just reading the first paragraph. There are two pages to the article. You still can't see past the picture... [32] We are unnecessarily arguing on the semantics of one article at at a time - the wikipedia article should be evaluated based on the whole body of sources, not just individual ones at a time. Wikipedia guidelines state that notability can be established through many independent, reliable sources. You say that he is not notable - but what else would you say considering the fact that you nominated the article for deletion before looking at the sources? At this stage, I am going to leave it to the judgment of whoever judges these kinds of things.
- Antwort No - you are making misleading comments! He is mentioned in the article but is not the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America as you say he is... still without reliable sources. And, this minor reference within an article of which he is Not the subject, does not show notability by any Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article just has a picture of him?? As I said to wikidas, he is mentioned in a times of India article alongside other "prolific" leaders of major religious organizations. See [30] . That's what I mean - you nominated the article without looking at the sources. You didn't see past the picture - even after discussing it for a week - and don't seem to be interested in reading the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar -- I actually never seen such a long discussion with an Ip on AfD discussions in years. But in any case, instead of that what is required is to advertise this discussion on Hindu related WP boards and see if an additional opinion is found. For some reason ip did not convince me that he knows the policy of WP on deletion, but there are sources, poor and in passing, but they exist. So there is a need to build a consensus. Wikidas© 06:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Ya I'm familiar with the entire deletion policy of wikipedia and have no dount that this page doesn't merit deletion. There is room for improvement in the article obviously, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. Advertise the page if you want, but people should realize its not a majority vote where you can invite your friends to join. As wikipedia says: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." I have proved that the article at least meets the threshold of every wikipedia guideline. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort Just added another reference of his writings having been published ([37]) in the April/May/June 2011 edition of Hinduism Today Magazine. There are many more sources if people are willing to look. I would call this a safe keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Again, that is not a reliable source. The author wrote it himself, and it in no way shows notability. Please provide reliable sources to demonstrate notabilty; so far there are none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, it was written by the subject of this article - and published in the foremost global journal on Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE ALL. postdlf (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vladan Đogatović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer. Has not played in a fully professional league and has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the criteria stated above. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ibrahim Arifović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Elhan Bejtović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Elvedin Škrijelj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Admir Kecap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Salih Hamidović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Edin Selimović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Amar Plojović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Elvis Holić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dino Caković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 03:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom, they fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - per nom. None of them have played in a fully pro league, and all of them fail WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all None pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom; Although a couple have been with Serbian SuperLiga club FK Javor Ivanjica, none appear to have actually played any higher than Serbian First League which is not fully professional according to sources.--ClubOranjeT 10:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Enlisted commissioning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
At best, this is a list of requirements to enter some undefined armed forces program, and should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An unencyclopaedic list of military procedures. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mustang (military officer). There are implications for this in nearly every military in the world, not just the USAF. The concept is notable enough, but the current article is just a dump of resources. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the existing page is meritless. I agree that it is a notable topic. I am not in favour of a redirect to Mustang (military officer) which has nothing particular to say on the process. Better to keep a red link to encourage article creation - see WP:Red. TerriersFan (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Mustang (military officer), useful information can be saved and placed in article. Redirect not required as other nations also have enlisted commissioning programs. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Content does not fit the title, that's for sure. Content would have to go under 'List of USAF scholarship and commissioning programs and their entrance requirements', and still be missing any content about the actual programs other than their entrance requirements, so I recommend that not be created. I have to say, though, Enlisted commissioning seems like a valid title, but all the coverage I can find in a quick search is trivial, mentioning that 'A was a graduate of the X enlisted commissioning program at Y'. Would not object to a Keep of the title with entirely new sourced content. Anarchangel (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced article, and WP:NOTDIR+WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thisistimothy (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Harbans Jandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All the citations are to track listings that don't even verify authorship. None of the citations are significant coverage of the article subject. I haven't located any significant coverage either. The one hit I do get is to a facebook page where he says that his Wikipedia article was "started by some mates". Gigs (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true, I added a book with an ISBN number thant listed Bhangra artists and a bit of info a about them. Here is a video on youtube. If you delete Jandu Littranwala, then you will have to delete sections from other Bhangra artisist such as Jazzy B, DCS (band), Apna Sangeet]], A S Kang etc too. Also try searching his stage name, which is Jandu Littranwala. Also the link you added lists songs attributed to him. Thanks--SH 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you can provide references for some of those awards, you've sold me - it seems that the subject has an impressive body of work, with prominent awards to boot. Can't keep in its present form, but some references would do the trick. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as copyvio from this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Salvation Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ironically I was going to add sources to this article as Larry Norman (my first pick) is well-sourced. So i started looking fo sources, then any sources and found only a mention in an article about Norman. The band leader is still active and may be worthy of an article but i simply couldn't find anything about the band which is astounding for how many years they played. Haley 02:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to meet WP:BAND 5. I added one citation confirming the band was signed to Myrrh Records. Argolin (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Hi Argolin, thank you for finding that link. It only shows one album listed so my concern is the same, for a group that has been active for nearly three decades there is still a lack of reliable sources.Haley 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meet WP:BAND. Released an album in 1977 for Myrrh records. Entry in Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Was one of the most prominent representatives of a Christian rock in Vancouver, BC. Several North American tours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They were formed in the early 1970s and ceased to exist as SAF in the late 1980s, but performed as Michael Leon Gossett band. From the article "SAF recorded a few more tracks in the summer of 1980 but Donnie determined it was time to formerly end the band although the studio partnership continued till 1984." Their work in the 2000s was again primarily local and received very little national or international coverage. Article should be pared-back but not deleted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you following me here has nothing to do with your deleting sourced content off several articles or trying to delete a redirect, in any case the timing is still interesting. Like I stated, I looked for sources because I wanted to add them to the article. So far I have found next to nothing and searching for "Michael Leon Gossett band" has also turned up nothing. I don't understand what point in WP:BAND this could meet? If we can't verify anything but one album licensed then what is there?Haley 15:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it does have to do with finding out what other ways you've inserted your opinion into Wikipedia much like the way you inserted Lonnie Frisbee into two articles that were completely unrelated to the subject (Maranatha! Music and Christian music festival). However, I have also watched the SAF article since October 2006. I was away on the weekend when you added the request for deletion but would have seen it eventually this week.
- I have no doubt you wouldn't find anything on the internet about the MLG band since they were around in the early 80s before the Internet really took off. Does this mean that they were not a prominent Christian band in Vancouver because of this? What about Noah's Nook? That was a prominent venue from 1980 until 1989. Only one entry on the Internet for that. They have coverage in the Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music as well and had national tours and so clearly meet WP:BAND.
- Granted the article needs to be copy-edited since it's too large for the prominence of the band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for assuming your timing was directed at my editing. As to Lonnie - I thought I had explained all this but will try to do it again. In short, Lonnie converted those musicians as well as the vast majority of all the hippies in the early years of Calvary. Lonnie help dictate how the services ran and that music, the language of the youth culture, was predominant in the services and was used to praise and worship. It was the House of Miracles chain of coffee houses - whose success was due to Lonnie's work at recruiting and converting more hippies that populated and help structure these communes. The same communes who were then setting up outreach Christian rock concerts, the first of their kind, with Lonnie's guidance. There very well would have been no huge growth in Calvary and by extension the House of Miracles and the hippie musicians who formed the first Christian rock bands who then became Maranatha Music. Chuck Smith was a businessman, Lonnie was pure evangelism, he never got paid for his work. Haley 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lonnie had nothing to do with the founding of the label. Period. End of story. It would be like suggesting the Timothy Leary be listed as a reference to any musician who experimented with LSD. The label formed because one of the members of one of those bands asked Chuck for some money to record some music. Out of that request came the first Maranatha! album and Children of the Day's Come to the Waters.
- Apologies for assuming your timing was directed at my editing. As to Lonnie - I thought I had explained all this but will try to do it again. In short, Lonnie converted those musicians as well as the vast majority of all the hippies in the early years of Calvary. Lonnie help dictate how the services ran and that music, the language of the youth culture, was predominant in the services and was used to praise and worship. It was the House of Miracles chain of coffee houses - whose success was due to Lonnie's work at recruiting and converting more hippies that populated and help structure these communes. The same communes who were then setting up outreach Christian rock concerts, the first of their kind, with Lonnie's guidance. There very well would have been no huge growth in Calvary and by extension the House of Miracles and the hippie musicians who formed the first Christian rock bands who then became Maranatha Music. Chuck Smith was a businessman, Lonnie was pure evangelism, he never got paid for his work. Haley 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you following me here has nothing to do with your deleting sourced content off several articles or trying to delete a redirect, in any case the timing is still interesting. Like I stated, I looked for sources because I wanted to add them to the article. So far I have found next to nothing and searching for "Michael Leon Gossett band" has also turned up nothing. I don't understand what point in WP:BAND this could meet? If we can't verify anything but one album licensed then what is there?Haley 15:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who posted the above comment?
- I'm pretty sure it was Walter Görlitz. We sharply disagree on some history but I will let the sources speak for themselves and really it has little to do with this article.Haley 09:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who posted the above comment?
- Comment. Looking at the band's discography, I'm surprised that Library and Archives Canada had only one entry (worldcat.org had the same entry with OCLC 24021592 here [38]). However, I shouldn't be all that surprised as finding on-line sources for bands 30+ years ago is difficult. With that said, "reliable sources" per User Haley I guess you mean WP:RS? This guideline says nothing about sources having to be on-line to meet it. I still maintain that this article meets WP:BAND. I believe this article is weak in meeting WP:BLPSOURCES. Someone with access to this off-line source: Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music should provide inline citations for the article as opposed to listing it as "Further reading". Argolin (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my!!! The WP:COPYVIO pointed out by Walter Görlitz 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC) shines a completely different light on the article. Now I know why there were calls to pare back the article. Can I ask contributors to this discussion to help me out a little bit? If you a referring to a wikipedia guideline/policy/ etc please say so and link to it. Per Haley above to what Calvary are you referring? a place, a band, a wikipedia guideline, a thing, a New Testament reference? I'm not being impolite, just trying to keep up with the discussion. Argolin (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Argolin, Walter Görlitz and I disagree on several other articles but I have plenty of sources to back up the content I was adding. I accused him of following me here which I regret and will try to avoid from now on. Calvary Chapel is one of the articles we were referring to. Haley 09:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Much of the content of the article is condensed, or refactored from http://www.donniegossett.com/SAF/Bio.html So as I said, the article needs to be copy-edited, likely because of copy-vio issues now that I found the source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the only available sources are his own website and one reference that an album was licensed, that would seem to be quite a reach. I found nothing in the books, scholar or news archives either. Those can go back as much as a hundreds years, the 1970s and 1980s should at least pop somewhere if sources were there. Based on the sources all we can confirm is that they existed and had one album. If you can find a lot more sources then great, otherwise I don't see it being kept without them. Haley 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are listed in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. They have a full column or half of a page. Page 788. They are also one of the most prominent representatives of a Christian rock in Vancouver, BC from the late 1970s. They also were on several North American tours. Stop pushing your minor issues. Salient points from the entry follow:
- Salvation Air Force was a Christian pop duo formed in 1973 during the heyday of the Jesus movement. Although they played at Billy Graham crusades and even did a tour in South Vietnam, they did not get around to recording for five years. The group consisted of two brothers who were sons of the evangelist Don Gossett ... The 1978 album features assistance from a number of well-known Christian musicians, including Sandra Crouch, Tom Howard, Larry Norman, Al Perkins, and Randy Stonehill. Of even greater interest to Jesus music fans, however, is the presence of Dana Angle and Bruce Herring, both of The Way, who had been MIA for a few years (Alex MacDougall, drummer for The Way, Daniel Amos, and The Richie Furay Band makes a showing as well). With all this firepower, the album itself comes off a bit muted, probably (in the opinion of Jesus Music) because Myrrh Records was in a mellow doldrums at the time. So, Jesus Music reports, “most of the album is innocuous soft rock with a light jazz touch ... only ‘Complete and Alive’ has any real crunch to it.” Of historical interest, however, is a complete version of Larry Norman’s “If God Is My Father,” which had only appeared in a truncated version on Norman’s own In Another Land. The Gossetts actually took a rough mix of the track that Norman had recorded (but not used) for So Long Ago the Garden and dubbed their own voices and instruments over it. The original version (sans Salvation Air Force) was eventually included as a bonus track on the CD of So Long Ago the Garden, but for many years, the SAF recording was the only full version of the classic song available to most audiences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music sounds promising, which author and version? From the above context it's all notable sounding but I still don't see how they meet WP:Band, so I think they still fall below the bar because there are not enough WP:Reliable Sources so we can WP:Verify how notable they are.Haley 09:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's all moot since someone incorrectly assumed that Donnie copied the material from his web site listed above and edited it and placed it on Wikipedia. It was the other way around. It's been deleted as a copyright violation without discussion and without proof. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Given the socking involved, I'm not seeing how any additional discussion of the NN book is necessary. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Drown (Young Adult Fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable e-book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to improve the article but not sure how. This is the author's first novel so she is not very well-known; but the book is definately notable and it has already sold many copies. Open to advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC) OH and I tried to include the author's website as a reference; but the system would not let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC) i want to add to the article (character info, author info etc) but i'm not going to bother if it's just going to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seriously, no references or sources i can find besides the amazon kindle title listing itself, which does not establish notability. theres really nothing more to say. good luck to the author of course. There's no content here to userfy, if it ever does become notable. article creator just needs to wait and see if it actually becomes a bona fide bestseller or cult novel, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete the article. I'm still getting used to this whole process and am doing the best I can to improve. This is a great article that gives a lot of information on a book taht people CAN buy and read. I only wrote the article becuase I was being asked about different places one could get information on the book. This article answers all of the questions that people have been asking; and I have already been thanked by several who have viewed it. I am still working to fix it and bring it up to code , I just don't know how. I want to add the author's website as a reference, because it is a good source of info but the program keeps thinking its spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) — Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - Hi K219. Sorry about the bad way that you're meeting Wikipedia. There are a pretty strict set of policies about what "can" and "can't" be included on Wikipedia. It's a quality control mechanism. Anyway, for this article to be retained you will have to show how this novel was significant. Did it win a major award? Has it been extensively reviewed in publications like the New York Times Review of Books, etc.? Is the author the subject of independently written news stories? And so on. So start digging for provable awards and such if you can. Unless that can happen, this article, useful and well-written though it may be, seems to be on the wrong side of the train tracks. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OUTCOMES for more information. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've blocked this account for the duration for sockpuppetry, and am striking the next two !votes as sockpuppets. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, I found it helpful as I was really interested in buying this book prior to reading it. This article gave me just the information I needed to make a decision. I found it very well-written and informative. Definately a good piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaLayne (talk • contribs) 04:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — JessicaLayne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock, now blocked. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I agree with the prior two entries. This article is very well-written and helpful to anyone looking to learn more about the book. The author provides plenty of references and links and the article seems to be free of bias. The only issue would be awards; but from reading the other comments in this section, it seems like the article is about a new author who has written a book that has already been recognized to the point where someone would be asked to write about it. And it is clear from the comment above me that Wiki readers are referring to the article and finding it quite helpful. This article should be given a chance. What's the harm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren64 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Daren64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock, now blocked. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets Got Owned While I disagree with the skitzophernia-ish acts of sock-puppetry, this article seems ok, I mean sure promoting a book through multiple fake personalities is kinda pathetic, but still obviously this person is dedicated. (Probably never gonna stop, I worked with people at this level of immaturity.) Kijoda (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)— Kijoda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yasotha Somasundram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N: Can't find reliable, secondary sources providing significant coverage of this musician, necessary to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. joe deckertalk to me 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011 ITF Women's Circuit: Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have never seen such a poor article with bias. Anyway, this is for a 10 K tournament, Wikipedia, do not do these types of pages for tournaments of this value. We draw a line with the challengers and any joint woman's tournament with the challengers. We do not create articles for what is essentally a bunch of non notable people, if this article stays then we might as well do every tournament that the ITF/ATP and WTA sanction. Creating endless pages of crap KnowIG (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notwithstanding overuse of the phrase "I have never seen such a poor article" (three times so far today). However, this is already covered-- and covered better, in fact-- in 2011 ITF Women's Circuit. Mandsford 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I've seen many articles worse than this, and I'm not detecting bias. However, unless there's a general agreement that ITF events are notable (doesn't sound like it), the article is on a non-notable topic and should be deleted. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is necessary to keep pages on the women questions (... and also women sports). There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it. Thanks, --Geneviève (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place nor the time for some feminist/gender marking arguement. KnowIG (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry,It not feminist position...It is necessary to write on sports so women as men. The different Tennis tournaments include men and women. Best regards and thanks for all your support. --Geneviève (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I get your point, hence if you really want to go treking but i'll advise against it and you'll assume good faith here. I am a male and an advocate for gender netural stuff. E.g. when we have men's challengers which are a joint tournie I am the one who pushes people into including the women on these articles. However the gender of the subject is not what I am worrying about. The point is we have so many tournaments by the ITF/ATP and WTA each year that doing tournament pages and draw pages would be a very bad idea for all of them and we need to draw the line somewhere. So we do with the challengers on the men's side which go from 50k to 100k in money. So on the womens I don't have a problem with individual tournament pages if they are between 50 and 100k. And if someone wants to do a general tournament page for these smaller ones I won't object, but I do object to these yearly pages for the small ones as most of the players involved and the tournaments themselves are not notable. Mean the Bournemouth tournament on the ITF tours hardly gets a mention in the local rag. KnowIG (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThanks to explain your opinion. I have a suggestion: why do not to merge in a one single page (.... Asia tennis women Tournements ), the following pages 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi, 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Doubles, 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Singles, 2010 ITF Women's Circuit- Hatyai , 2011 ITF Women's Circuit: Mumbai . I notice that all there pages are proposed for deletion !!! The best way: Merge all the pages in one page. Bonne chance, --Geneviève (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To some extent, they are well covered in 2011 ITF Women's Circuit, 2010 ITF Women's Circuit and 2009 ITF Women's Circuit. Certainly, I don't want to see any contributor discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia, and you are correct that Wikipedia has fewer female contributors (and for that matter, very few contributors from India). I can describe the average Wikipedian in three words-- "American college boy", usually a guy in his early 20s, who didn't read the newspaper until after 2000, pretty much reads the sports section only, and who has never set foot out of the United States. I used to be one of those, thirty years ago. However, I don't see that these were nominated because they were women's tournaments or because they were played in India or Thailand. The overwhelming majority of this year's 500 events on the ITF Men's Circuit are not notable enough for their own article. Most $10,000 ITF tournaments are not notable at all. The $10K ones have a purpose, because the winners increase their rankings and their chances to play in $25K, $50K, $100K tourneys, and then to the really big WTA and ATP tournaments. But there are hundreds of tournaments every year, and they aren't all worthy of an article. Mandsford 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to problems with the nomination. This article may be about a not particularly notable tournament, but it doesn't have any problems with bias, and looking at the edit history, I don't think it ever did. And saying that one "has never seen such a poor article" seems like a gross exaggeration. The page can be renominated later if it is determined that the article cannot be improved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination may have been overly dramatic, but as others have pointed out, there's no indication that this, one of the hundreds of $10,000 ITF tournaments this year, is at all a notable event. That would still be true whether the article or the nomination were to be reworded. The comments of the rest of us shouldn't be disregarded merely because of one person's choice of words. Bad writing is not a reason to delete, nor to keep. Mandsford 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete there are usually never ITF tournaments articles and I think Wikipedia doesn't have any, because the ITF tournaments are the lowest tennis tournaments. Also the prize money is only $10,000; the lowest for any tennis tournaments, even for ITF. Strong delete.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This level of tournament is simply not notable. Even the 100k level tournaments seldom receive substantial coverage even at a local level. That said, there is clearly no bias in the article and I do not know where that assertion came from. Ravendrop 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} oder {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Noteworthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. This singing club seems, despite its name, to be not very noteworthy at all. Plenty of references but most are to blogs or other unreliable sources, and the albums, while carried on iTunes, are self-released. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - just another of the many dozens of WP:UPANDCOMING a capella groups on campuses across the U.S.A. in recent years, each hoping to break big. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noteworthy fulfills more than three notability requirements set by Wikipedia to have a page. Most of the reverences are not blogs. In the past 24 hours I have added about 10 references, none of which are a school newspaper (which is usually the only reference college a cappella groups give on their wikipedia pages). Noteworthy has performed on NBC's The Sing-Off, which averaged over 7 million viewers and Noteworthy was seen on three of the four 2-hour episodes and in the commercials. Noteworthy has one the International Competition of Collegiate A cappella, a world competition that in decided in New York City at the Lincoln Center.
I have gone through and cleaned up the quality by taking out what others have put in (opinionated and emotional statements).
- Please do not delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by NWearly (talk • contribs) — NWearly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Noteworthy is one of the many collegiate a cappella groups in the United States. Noteworthy performs for thousands of people all over the country each year. Noteworthy has received national recognition in the International Competition of Collegiate A Cappella and was featured on NBC's The Sing Off in 2009. Millions of viewers watched and supported the group on this show and voiced their support on their website, facebook, and on many YouTube videos. Noteworthy continues to perform all over the country and expands their fan base with each performance. They put on sold out shows in Utah and have even traveled to Hong Kong to perform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.5 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If not deleted, move to Noteworthy (vocal group) or similar. Convert Noteworthy to a redirect to Noteworthy (disambiguation), which needs to then disambiguate. Can be confused with Notable, Notability, wikt:Noteworthy and Wikipedia:Notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with a rename as suggested by SmokeyJoe. I normally vote against inclusion for college a cappella goups, but this one won the Intercollegiate Championship of A Cappella, as documented by (of all sources) NBC Sports. That's the equivalent of a national championship and makes them (pun intended) noteworthy. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 ITF Women's Circuit- Hatyai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have never seen such a poor article with bias. Anyway, this is for a 10 K tournament, Wikipedia, do not do these types of pages for tournaments of this value. We draw a line with the challengers and any joint woman's tournament with the challengers. We do not create articles for what is essentally a bunch of non notable people, if this article stays then we might as well do every tournament that the ITF/ATP and WTA sanction. Creating endless pages of crap. Note the user has done some good stuff with the 100k tournies, just they have gone a little OTT by doing Indian 10k tournies KnowIG (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Regardless of whether it's a poor article with bias for a tournament of non-notable people and crap, etc. etc. this is already described in 2010 ITF Women's Circuit (July–September), and it's done much better, including things like when it happened (spoiler alert: July 12) and a link to the results. There are few $10,000 tournaments that I can think of that are notable enough for their own article, just as there are few individual NFL regular season games that merit their own individual page. I don't have a problem with an article about the history of an annual ITF event in Hatyai. Mandsford 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge - I have a suggestion: why do not to merge in a one single page (.... Asia tennis women Tournements ), the following pages 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi, 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Doubles, 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Singles, 2010 ITF Women's Circuit- Hatyai , 2011 ITF Women's Circuit: Mumbai . I notice that all there pages are proposed for deletion !!! The best way: Merge all the pages in one page.It is necessary to keep pages on the women sports. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it with merge with the another pages of Tennis women Tournements. Bonne chance,--Geneviève (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the article is not biased and is no worse than the last article for which the nominator said he had "never seen such a poor article with bias". Article can be re-nominated later if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete there are usually never ITF tournaments articles and I think Wikipedia doesn't have any, because the ITF tournaments are the lowest tennis tournaments. Also the prize money is only $10,000; the lowest for any tennis tournaments, even for ITF. Strong delete.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This level of tournament is simply not notable. Even the 100k level tournaments seldom receive substantial coverage even at a local level. That said, there is clearly no bias in the article and I do not know where that assertion came from. Ravendrop 01:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have never seen such a poor article with bias. Anyway, this is for a 10 K tournament, Wikipedia, do not do these types of pages for tournaments of this value. We draw a line with the challengers and any joint woman's tournament with the challengers. We do not create articles for what is essentally a bunch of non notable people, if this article stays then we might as well do every tournament that the ITF/ATP and WTA sanction. Creating endless pages of crap KnowIG (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they will have no context and will be random orphans when main page is deleted:
- 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge to 2009 ITF Women's Circuit provided there is proper sourcing to show that it happened.While I don't see the "bias", I think it's equally odd that there's no information about the dates that the tournament would have taken place. The 2009 circuit article doesn't list any singles tournament where Poojashree Venkatesha was the winner; it has one in Hyderabad where she and another person won the doubles. There is a listing of a tournament in New Delhi where Venkatesha didn't reach the quarterfinals, if she played in it at all. Mandsford 16:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Looking at Emily Webley-Smith's page on the WTA Tour site, it appears that multiple ITF tournaments were held in New Delhi in 2009. Webley-Smith apparently played in two different tournaments there in consecutive weeks; the latter one ("New Delhi 4") is the one this article appears to be about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge - I have a suggestion: why do not to merge in a one single page (.... Asia tennis women Tournements ), the following pages 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi, 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Doubles, 2009 ITF Women's Circuit- Delhi – Singles, 2010 ITF Women's Circuit- Hatyai , 2011 ITF Women's Circuit: Mumbai . I notice that all there pages are proposed for deletion !!! The best way: Merge all the pages in one page.It is necessary to keep pages on the women sports. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it with merge with the another pages of women Tournements. Bonne chance,--Geneviève (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the article is not biased and is no worse than the last article for which the nominator said he had "never seen such a poor article with bias". Article can be re-nominated later if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this one is probably worse than any of the other ones nominated. Forget the over-the-top wording of the nomination, and forget for a moment that $10,000 ITF tournaments are not notable. As noted above, I don't see any proof that it actually happened. There's no source to verify it, and it isn't mentioned at all in the article 2009 ITF Women's Circuit, which kept track of such things. V for Verifiable is the #1 requirement for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the WTA Tour lists it in the relevant players' activity listings. At WTA's page for Poojashree Venkatesha, it is stated that she won the New Delhi 4 ITF $10,000 tournament on August 10, 2009, defeating Emily Webley-Smith in the final 7-6(8), 6-2, exactly as this article says. Similarly, the WTA Tour page for Venkatesha's doubles activity in 2009 also lists her as winning the doubles event of this tournament with the same partner and opponents in the final as listed in this article. There may be reasons to delete this article such as non-notability, but we shouldn't delete it based on spurious grounds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this one is probably worse than any of the other ones nominated. Forget the over-the-top wording of the nomination, and forget for a moment that $10,000 ITF tournaments are not notable. As noted above, I don't see any proof that it actually happened. There's no source to verify it, and it isn't mentioned at all in the article 2009 ITF Women's Circuit, which kept track of such things. V for Verifiable is the #1 requirement for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete there are usually never ITF tournaments articles and I think Wikipedia doesn't have any, because the ITF tournaments are the lowest tennis tournaments. Also the prize money is only $10,000; the lowest for any tennis tournaments, even for ITF. Strong delete.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This level of tournament is simply not notable. Even the 100k level tournaments seldom receive substantial coverage even at a local level. That said, there is clearly no bias in the article and I do not know where that assertion came from. Ravendrop 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and striking out my prior suggestion of a merge. If it happened, then mention it in the article about the 2009 ITF women's season. A $10,000 ITF event, whether involving women or men, no matter where it took place, is not presumed notable and there's no reason to believe that this one would be. Mandsford 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete without prejudice. Content will be provided on request. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of professional tennis players from India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We have a category for this. Why do we need a list. Who would be interested in this. India are not a superpower of tennis. Not interesting or notable to a lot of people. List cruft imo KnowIG (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar "We have a category" is usually one of the weakest arguments against having a list, and often ends up with even bad lists being kept simply because the subject is notable enough for a category. I see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, and truth be told, I don't like it either. I think it will be impractical to maintain a list of where professional players from India rank currently (this info was apparently derived from a list of world rankings so far). Generally, I see no reason to list tennis players by nationality, since the focus is on the individual rather than where they're from. Do people root for or against Rafael Nadal because of his nationality? Mandsford 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is - Does a tennis player coming from India get any special coverage that a tennis player coming from anywhere else in the world wouldn't? The list doesn't seem to be List of Indian tennis players. Bulldog123 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The list is currently in poor shape, but given the great number of entries in Category:Indian tennis players, it could obviously be expanded, and per WP:CLN it's justified as an alternate mode of article navigation and organization in addition to a category. Further, the subdivision of the category into subcategories provides an additional reason for a list, as the list can maintain all entries on one page. Plus lists can annotate, sort by means other than alphabetical, etc., etc., etc. I agree with Mandsford that the deletion nom seems to just be a list of IDONTLIKEIT examples, pretty much expressly dismissive and scornful of the topic. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen. While the topic is a legitimate one for a list, the article as currently written is poorly formatted and organized. Furthermore, no improvements have been made since the AfD period began, indicating a lack of interest in improving this particular article. This deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation of a better list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would take a complete rewrite, so I wouldn't oppose delete without prejudice to recreation. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I too think the topic is legitimate. But since this is in such a poor shape, that a category can do a better job here. So, I don't see why this needs to exist.—Chris!c/t 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Topic barely legitimate -- only insofar as being "interesting" to a select few. As nom stated, there doesn't seem to be a relevant article-worthy connection between India and tennis and so the list feels entirely indiscriminate. Bulldog123 00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Art of Problem Solving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been around for a long time, but I don't really see notability established. Nearly all the sources are self-published, one is a bookstore, and one is a broken link. I can't find much with a Google search (though the name doesn't make it easy). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. Article is about a mathematics education company... It markets and sells mathematics textbooks and online courses for middle school and high school students. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's also about the AoPS website. But if you dont think the W sort code is appropriate, feel free to change it. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the allied Art of Problem Solving Foundation should also be considered. TerriersFan (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To a casual user, the current title of the article might suggest it deals with heuristics, so if the article is kept, it should be renamed to Art of Problem Solving (company). While the article as it stands doesn't seem to establish notability, it has quite a few inward links from other articles - one or two which probably should be to Heuristics, some just mentioning the company in passing but several substantive. However, as the company gets its own section in the article on its founder Richard Rusczyk, I'd suggest rename and redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PWilkinson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist on this company, therefore this should be deleted. Mtking (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was userfy for now. If and when additional sources are available, the page may be moved back into article space. As it stands, it appears to have only been the subject of a single newspaper article, which is not enough for the 'significant coverage' threshold. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- International Be a Gentleman day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable "event" lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Google is not the arbiter of notability. The Sydney Sun Herald seems to consider it worthy of mention and, as previously discussed on the article's talk: page, there are a number of other media mentions. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – No one says that Google is the final statement in notability; however, each article must provide adequate reliable sources. A single local article is, simple put, trivial in nature. The article lacks the reliable sources needed to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment - There are hundreds of similar made-up "days" and "weeks" and "months" like this which are given passing mention in the periodical press. Not everything can be an International Talk Like a Pirate Day, however... Delete without prejudice against recreation in the event that this "day" gains traction and becomes noteworthy in the future. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The original editor is still at work on this article fixing a content flag. That's a good thing, with implications for me and for us under DON'TBITE, in my opinion. I'm not sure whether this article is really worthy of inclusion, but it's got at least some sourcing. Maybe this is a "keep and improve" situation. Delete vote stricken, now no opinion. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Last edited: Carrite (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and the consideration - as a point of interest an interview and photo shoot has just been completed for inclusion into Woman's Day (second largest magazine in Australia with a readership of over 2 million), the article is on the creation of International Be a Gentleman day - the issue is due in a couple of weeks. I would be keen on feedback on how to improve the listing. (User talk:Pweeta)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Per Andy Dingley, Gnews is no real indicator of non-notability or notability. I choose to believe notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – No one says that Google is the final statement of notability; however, each article must provide adequate reliable sources. A single local article is, simple put, trivial in nature. The article lacks the reliable sources needed to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with you. Gnews is no indicator at all of notability and cant be used to claim delete or keep for that matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I suggest you reread my comment and tell me where I said that. I said, "each article must provide adequate reliable sources" to establish notability. Rather than misquote me, I sugget you focus on issue at hand, the lack of reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy for the time being. If an when the promised Woman's Day feature comes out, that'll be different. As it stands, we have one article in the Sydney paper. The other refs are blogs and don't count.
The article Woman's Day (Australian magazine) says that it's the 2nd-largest mag in Oz. If that's true (there's no ref given) then it's major media. I don't think WP:GNG says anything like this, but as a rule of thumb, I think that one article in a major paper (or mag) is not enough, but if you have two, that's another story. Unfortunately, we probably really can't keep the article on the promise of the Woman's Day article - they might well decide to kill it or whatever. So userfy, to be returned to mainspace when it has more support. Herostratus (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The refs listed on the article at present might be mostly blogs, but those listed on the website's "in the media" page are more than this. In particular, they have articles in both the Sydney Herald and the Brisbane times. Both of these are (AFAIK) sizable newspapers and although one of them might be discounted as "local", if two cities' newspapers are both picking up on it, then that's more than local coverage. Especially in Australia, where cities are hardly adjacent. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Live And Learn (Crush 40 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most likely a non-notable song. Logan Talk Contributions 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to meet criteria for WP:NSONGS. Enfcer (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sonic Adventure 2. 75.142.54.211 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. Notability not established, and no consensus in favor of keeping it on the presumption of notability at this time. Find sources and we'll talk. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plaza Tasek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable business/location. Promotional wording. Author contested prod. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spammy nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable mall; I couldn't find any reliable 3rd-party sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral but I'm inclined to think a 5-storey mall would be notable in most parts of the world, and that sources probably do exist if only in Malaysian papers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Though readily available sourcing is limited, there are indications this is sufficiently notable for inclusion. If anyone has free online access to archives of Malay Mail, etc., that might help.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:29, 30 March 2011 (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.
- This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clickbooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced advertisement for a non-notable online business. Contested proposed deletion (old, not mine). Google News finds only PR sources. "References" are talking about its business model generally rather than about the named business specifically. Article says that The network was founded by John Lemp in September 2002 who is also the current acting CEO of IntegraClick, Inc. and the originating user was User:Johnintegraclick, suggesting conflict of interest. Hardly any of the text is about the business; most of it is about how its business model will help you make money fast on the Internet:
Performance based advertising also known as CPA advertising has become increasingly popular throughout the past year as major online players... have entered the space ....
The popularity of such networks is due to the increased focus on the actual worth of each user and the ability of CPA to combat both click and impression fraud
- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
- Delete- no coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases abound, including rehashed press releases, but no substantial independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The content in the article fails to state a claim which indicates notability and I failed to find a source providing more information in a Google search. Blue Rasberry (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page is currently undergoing edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.129.210 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Website Magazine and Technorati are notable website publications independent from the business which are included in the article. Duelfx (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Upon research for the business, I have found independent coverage coming from Wall Street Journal and Tampa Bay Business Journal as well as other reliable sources with local news coverage. Business is a member of the Direct Marketing Association and the Performance Marketing Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.58.160.55 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - A lot of references have been added. Looking at the version as of this moment, there are 15 references:
- Website magazine just ranks a bunch of companies with no commentary about the company. Not significant coverage.
- Keep - this was also included in the print magazine and was a worldwide impartial #1 traffic rank in the affiliate marketing field, a field with players such as Google and Yahoo in it and that news and noteworthiness of a company is considered insignificant? We should delist Google as well then.
- Inc. is just providing a company profile from its list of top whatever companies. Not significant coverage.
- Keep - coverage was ran in the August 2009 Inc magazine article featuring this company. Also Inc._(magazine)#Inc._500_and_Inc._5000 fastest growing companies list is the equivalent of the Fortune 500 list - this is extremely significant news..
- Link is dead for me. The headline is about Google.
- Technorati is blog aggregator and does not represent a reliable source.
- Keep - this article is not a blog article but instead an article written by the editorial news staff. Are we simply not including online news organizations as credible, because that logic would de-credibilize Wikipedia which I know and love.
- Adotas article is just a passing mention. Not significant coverage.
- WSJ is using Clickbooth as an example for the article. Coverage is more than a passing mention but still not very substantial.
- Keep - Wall Street Journal major worldwide coverage that specifies a company to model is not considered significant in your eyes? Nothing would be left in Wikipedia?
- This is the same reference as #1 which is not significant.
- This is just a big list with no actual coverage about the company.
- This is the same reference as #2 and is not significant
- Here is a link the the article online. It is an article written by a Clickbooth employee. As such, it is not an independent source.
- Here is a link to the article online. I can find no mention of Clickbooth. In any event, it's a mish mash of minor items so any appearance in such a list does not represent significant coverage.
- The Up and Comers article is about a Clickbooth employee, and not about Clickbooth
- This Florida Technology Journal article is actually about Clickbooth, and represents a reliable source covering the company.
- Another list of something article with no significant coverage.
- A minor mention going over the state of the regional economy. Not significant coverage.
- So after 15 references, we have one article that represents significant coverage in a local business journal. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to disagree. To be listed in those references give them notability. These are third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.219.53 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 15 references where all have credibility and only include information that has been backed by thorough research and fact-checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.219.53 (talk)
- comment - Aside from one, none of them represent significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Contrary to above, news on Clickbooth was found by doing a Google Search. Substantial coverage in Adotas article linked here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.95.46.120 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: keep votes are suss here. don't have time to evaluate merits at the moment.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think this articles needs a few changes to make it a bit neutral other than that company has a alexa rank of 2,108. I did a few checks on the reference links and it seems to be most of them are reliable.I feel this deserves to stay on wiki.--Criketfan —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- You think regular editors don't realize votes like this are poo-poo?--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: OK, i looked hard for sources, this is a nice little growing internet ad-pushing company located somewhere in Florida, United States, it is not notable. The keep vote are all suspicious from non-regular editors.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I was originally against it but the recently added references make this a no brainer. According to the Wikipedia guide for notability Wikipedia:CORP - A source must be recognized by an independent source by... "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". This company has been recognized internationally, nationally, and regionally with very depth centric, independent articles in the Wall Street Journal (International), Fox News (regional), ABC News (regional), Tampa Bay Business Journal (regional), Gulf Coast Business Review (regional), Sarasota Herald Tribune (Local - X), Technorati (national staff writer), Inc Magazine (national), And others on that list. The other criteria before deletion is to speak to an industry source prior to deletion to find out if the company is noteworthy. I noticed The many National Industry specific rankings and articles for Affiliate Marketing so if they were our source that would be a positive however I'd like us to have an Affiliate Marketing admin weigh in?
The purpose of these deletions is to remove companies of nothing notable from utilizing wikipedia to spam search engines and resulting in zero additional information that can be shared among the community. The purpose of saving an article is because it reports on something of note that someone else will be able to learn or gain new credible knowledge from. I feel this easily weighs more towards the second statement - I found a negative article and added it as well to ensure the impartialness of the article. --User:Rogerwabbit —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- John Silke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this video game sound designer to establish notability under the general notability guideline. joe deckertalk to me 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is notable in the gaming scenario (voice scripting, design and acting), a preliminary research got me the two sources needed and also a reference that makes him passes WP:GNG. [1] [2] [3] With the correct sourcing and a good writing skill this article can be improved. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - After a further research I could find that he has worked on several notable video game titles, including Perfect Dark, Perfect Dark (Game Boy Color), Conker's Pocket Tales, Banjo-Tooie, Jet Force Gemini, Mickey's Racing Adventure, Donkey Kong 64, Mickey's Speedway USA, Kameo: Elements of Power, among others, he either contributed by voice acting, or by designing sound effects. This could be included into his article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. The one cited article mentions him only trivially. The three Eduemoni cites are all IMDB, which is not a WP:RS, and, which, alone, do not signify notability. The fact that he worked on notable video games doesn't make him notable either, per WP:INHERITED . Ravendrop 03:15, 30 March 2011 (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.