Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. §
FreeRangeFrog
croak 02:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Pedro José de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Lack of notability per argument on
Talk:Pedro José de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé #Lack of notability
The Emperor's New Spy (
talk) 00:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete If this person is actually claiming to be heir to the Portuguese throne then he might be notable, but the article claims he supports the Duke of Braganza, and the claim that some people regard him as the rightful heir is completely unsourced.
PatGallacher (
talk) 01:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Comment, I don't vote Pedro. He doesn't even have a page in Portuguese yet so why one in English? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gregkaye (
talk •
contribs) 08:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith
(talk) 23:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- tentative keep - If more sources can be produced to establish notability, I will vote to keep. Otherwise, delete.
Bali88 (
talk) 04:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- There probably won't be any. The creator hasn't edited this article in while and nothing substantial has been added about him nor can anyone find reliable sources to support his notability. Whatever relevant information can be merged to
Duke of Loulé.--
The Emperor's New Spy (
talk) 02:17, 1 July 2014 (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. Consensus seemed clear that neither
WP:GNG or
WP:AUTHOR are met with current evidence.
j⚛e decker
talk 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Paul Driessen (lobbyist) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I could find no evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it. All my searching turned up only things written BY him; nothing ABOUT him. Unreferenced since 2005 (yes, really!) His books do not appear to be notable either, and I will also be AfDing
Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, the one book that has a Wikipedia article.
MelanieN (
talk) 22:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Environment-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or redirect. One book with 63 GS cites. Not enough yet. Too early.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 23:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
reply
- Comment As an alternative to deletion, this article could be redirected to
Eco-imperialism - a term he apparently coined and with which he is most strongly associated. --
MelanieN (
talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The term seems to have been around for a while before Driessen used it. In any case, it may be useful to merge some content from this article into
Eco-imperialism#Driessen's text.
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Huh? I don't believe anyone has expressed an opinion for or against the CONTENT of what this guy is saying. Just his lack of notability. --
MelanieN (
talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- This whole page is opinionated. Driessen is notable because I needed to look him up. Further he has challenged both climate change and Green Peace. Who are the bigger lobbyist advocates? Anyone in the midst of a witch hunt is notable.--
Kevobee (
talk) 05:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The article makes him out to be a non-notable fossil-fuel apologist (note: those are two separate things — it is entirely possible to be a notable fossil-fuel apologist, but there is no evidence here that he is one). He is certainly not notable for the originality of his ideas — they appear to be whatever is most expedient for his corporate sponsors. The one source in the current version of the article (the Mother Jones piece) mentions him but is not sufficiently in-depth in its coverage of him for
WP:GNG; anyway that's only one and its neutrality on this subject is questionable. We also don't have evidence of sufficient academic impact (per Xxanthippe's comment above) nor the multiple published book reviews that might allow a pass of
WP:AUTHOR. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Question. Removing '(lobbyist)' with the above search tool produces maybe a dozen or so newspaper articles from around the US over a 30 yr period quoting him, at least one book review (Moscow Daily News, Idaho), and a column or two by him. Is this sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria of
WP:BASIC? Thanks,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Most authors pass notability based on book reviews, per AUTHOR #3. And most authors have websites where they collect "Media" mentions and this is no exception.
[15] Driessen has done the work of finding the book reviews for us. However all of the "reviews" are really un-published comments from individuals, they are not published in reliable sources, so they can't be used to show notability. Unless there are reliable sources that discuss Driessen, or his works, it wouldn't pass notability. --
Green
C 00:44, 8 July 2014 (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
I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album. (
non-admin closure)
Armbrust
The Homunculus 09:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Fuck Him He's a DJ (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Previous AFD resulted in keep solely because of the fact that it charted. There does not appear to be any significant coverage of the song, and almost all of the info here right now is completely unsourced.
Despite how the last discussion was closed (inappropriately, in my opinion),
WP:NSONGS does not always grant notability to a song just for charting: "The following factors [charting one of them] suggest that a song or single may (emphasis not mine) be notable"; "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
For the record, the song's charting info is already present and sourced at
Kesha discography. –
Chase (
talk /
contribs) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note from nominator: All editors who discussed the last nomination have been notified of this discussion. –
Chase (
talk /
contribs) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete/Merge with "Blow"--
PeterGriffin •
Talk2Me 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect or merge to album. I don't see any signs of notability besides the fact that it charted. Normally, that's enough for me to vote keep, but I agree with the nominator that there doesn't seem to be enough coverage for an article. If someone can demonstrate coverage, then I'll change to keep.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. As I stated in the pervious discussion, although I am not a big fan of Kesha, the fact that the song charted indeed proves notability. Also, "
WP:NSONGS does not always grant notability to a song just for charting"? It doesn't? Erpert
blah, blah, blah... 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The only sourced info in this article are the chart positions, which as detailed in the nomination, are already covered in another article. And read NSONGS again: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." That is not the case. (A Google search for further info on this song only turns up lyric sites, MP3 downloads, and forum discussions.) Also, charting is one of "the following factors [that] suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." The "aforementioned criteria" includes "hav[ing] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," which is also not the case for this song. –
Chase (
talk /
contribs) 23:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- You do realize that subjects don't have to pass every single guideline, don't you? Erpert
blah, blah, blah... 09:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I'm also getting the feeling that this might be closed as "no consensus" simply because if it the article were to be merged (for example), everyone seems to have a completely different idea where it would be redirected to. Is there a reason why you would rather have this deleted instead of merged if that's what it came down to? Erpert
blah, blah, blah... 09:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- What is there to merge, exactly? Take a look at the article and see that besides the chart positions (already present at
Kesha discography#Other charted songs), all of the content in this article is presently unsourced and I could not find any sources that back anything in the article. And no, subjects don't have to pass every single guideline, but this doesn't pass the vast majority of them. If the only thing it is notable for can (and has been) easily summarized in another article, what's the point in keeping this around? And as other users have !voted for, I would not be opposed to a redirect to
I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album, this song's parent album. –
Chase (
talk /
contribs) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to I'm a Dance Commander. Except two chartings, there is no other third party notability. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ] 03:51, 29 June 2014 (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. On a simple headcount, this would be NC, but I feel the "Delete" arguments are substantially stronger and more based in policy than the "Keep" arguments, which largely are not based on policy.
Lankiveil (
speak to me) 10:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Saba Software (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article is sourced solely to press releases and is very much promotionally written. Jeremy112233 (
Lettuce-
jibber-jabber
?) 18:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It is promotional, but a check for sources
BEFORE nominating the article would show that the subject is notable and easily passes
WP:ORG. For example
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19].-
Mr
X 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The last one you point out could be RS, but the first two are self-published books, and the third is a tenuously RS, perhaps non-RS, blog. Definitely not enough to assert notability. Jeremy112233 (
Lettuce-
jibber-jabber
?) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:B2B: apparently I see no significant coverage above the level of routine market wire, and even if I am missing something, the article as it stands now is not worth saving anyway. Thus I suggest deletion per
WP:NCORP or rationale behind
WP:RED. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track) 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent references. As above, the refs in article are all PR, including the 'wall st journal' refs, which are in fact Business Wire Press releases, and clearly labeled as such. Of the refs added by MrX here, only the 2nd book, the Idea Group Inc/
IGI Global book, appears to be independent, and on its own is not sufficient to establish notability of the subject.
Dialectric (
talk) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
slakr\
talk / 03:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This article is basically a stub and should be listed as such, however the subject is notable. Seriously, you want to live in a world where you can look up publicly traded companies of this size on Wikipedia. Saba's Cloud software runs huge businesses like Virgin Airlines and Guitar Center (Also American Airlines, BP, and Kimberly Clark to name a few). Is that from press releases? You bet! ...but this is factual information, not opinion and the fact is that Wikipedia should have an article about Saba, a notable company. Right now, when people Google "saba software" the Wikipedia article pops up on the right-side in an info box. If the sources are bad, fix the sources. List the article as a stub if its too short. Deletion just takes this information, which happens to be accurate and also happens to be surprisingly unbiased, out of the hands of web searchers who need it.
Christopher Lotito (
talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- You basically say that the article should be kept because Saba Software inherits notability of its clients.
It does not. If you think there are good sources, please add them to the article, or at least list them here. Until one does it, they don't exist. Actually, I tried doing so, and ended up !voting "delete". —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The article is a stub and requires improvement, but the subject merits an entry in Wikipedia, and certainly merits improvement. Per previous comments, the material is factual, and relevant, if incomplete. Arrived here following a search for Saba and finding little independent review on the Web. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.103.167.20 (
talk) 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- You just stated that you could find few sources on the web about the company. The company needs to have had lots of sources in order to qualify. Jeremy112233 (
Lettuce-
jibber-jabber
?) 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I am in the process of doing some cleaning on the article. I'm not sure at this point whether it should be kept or removed ... stay tuned and stay cool. --User:Ceyockey (
talk to me) 01:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith
(talk) 21:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - no sources to establish notability.
SPACKlick (
talk) 13:48, 10 July 2014 (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
Foreign_relations_of_Tonga#United_Kingdom. Anyone is free to merge in material if desired.
Lankiveil (
speak to me) 11:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
High Commission of Tonga, London (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable, there is also no bilateral article to redirect to. article looks like someone's photo essay of a trip to the outside of the building.
LibStar (
talk) 07:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see how that is an argument for notability.
LibStar (
talk) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NorthAmerica
1000 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - individual High Commissioners might be notable and a list of them might be okay but the building/institution itself is not inherently notable and needs to meet
WP:ORGDEPTH. This doesn't.
St★lwart
111 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I still say keep - If the mission to Tonga is notable (and it seems to be as we have a list article on it), the mission from Tonga should be too.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- That's not really an accurate reflection of bilateral relations, though, is it? As far as Tonga are concerned, the mission from Britain represents one of a handful of incredibly important relationships with other countries. As far as Britain is concerned, the mission from Tonga is that of just another Pacific island nation. The notability requirements here are the same for any other organisation, group or entity - it must meet
WP:ORGDEPTH or
WP:GNG and there's no evidence it does. Diplomatic missions, embassies and consulates are not inherently notable. Again, aspects of the relationship might be notable and those can be noted at
Foreign relations of Tonga#United Kingdom or at the not-yet-created
Tonga–United Kingdom relations (which should be created far sooner that articles for individual non-notable buildings).
St★lwart
111 23:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith
(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2014 (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. —
MusikAnimal
talk 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Babylon 5: The Passing of the Techno-Mages – Casting Shadows (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Entirely unreferenced pulp sci-fi book. Fails
WP:NBOOK.
Mikeblas (
talk) 14:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 19:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 19:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 19:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Much like the other book from the same trilogy also up for AFD right now, this book fails
WP:NBOOK. It consists of plot only information, with no claim of notability, and I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing or reviewing it.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 16:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I did the usual range of searches, and don't see the sourcing we'd need to meet
WP:GNG. --
j⚛e decker
talk 05:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Strong delete Can't find any review of the book. The
article on ruwiki was deleted last year.--
180.155.72.174 (
talk) 07:42, 6 July 2014 (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.
j⚛e decker
talk 01:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Kyline Alcantara (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Autobiography, unreferenced claims, seems like a promotion —
Ascii002
Let's talk! 14:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Non notable. No coverage. Clear COI as it's an AUTOBIO. Written like a promotion.
Cowlibob (
talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- tentative delete - It appears to be self written, so it would need an extensive rewrite, but she does have a few acting roles. I'd like to make sure these aren't notable shows in the Philippines. Just because the article was written by an 11 year old doesn't mean she isn't notable. I'd suggest getting some feedback from those familiar with Asian TV before we delete.
Bali88 (
talk) 04:06, 29 June 2014 (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; good discussion though.
Mojo Hand (
talk) 03:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Kvikkalkul (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Programming language based on a Usenet post, article has gone unreferenced for 13 years, couldn't find any reliable sources that mentioned it, does not seem to meet notability criteria. Prior AfD said a book mentioned it in a joke; does not sound like significant coverage.
Agyle (
talk) 12:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by
WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing useful. Truly nothing.
Msnicki (
talk) 06:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - a bad usenet joke that isn't notable. --
Whpq (
talk) 17:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment This is an early esoteric language. It is documented in reliable sources like
FOLDOC and
The Retrocomputing Museum. Based on a Usenet post in 1994, it has become a minor part of computing folklore, like
Intercal. These RS are enough to establish verifiability and some notability, but I am not sure there is enough depth to declare notability according to
WP:GNG. The stub itself needs refs, but the prose is fine and seems accurate relative to my knowledge. I am on the fence in terms of a recommendation. If there was a good place to selectively merge, maybe
Esoteric programming language#Examples, I think that would be the best option. --
Mark viking (
talk) 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Mark viking, I don't consider either an indicator of notability; they're self-published personal websites, lacking editorial oversight, and FOLDOC seems to be written by a non-expert (see
WP:QUESTIONABLE). One of the two "curators" of The Retrocomputing Museum is well-known computing author/activist
esr, so TRM could arguably be considered a reliable source, but its coverage of Kvikkalkul is just two sentences, falling short of
WP:GNG's requirement for "significant" coverage.
Agyle (
talk) 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Foldoc has been around for nearly three decades; it is the original dictionary/encyclopedia of computer jargon and folklore; it and the jargon file are nearly canon for early computer folklore and culture. Kvikkalkul on the
The Retrocomputing Museum has a two-line definition, but the entry is also an active link to an archive containing a manual, grammar, compiler and programming examples. What is your criterion for expert in computer folklore? --
Mark viking (
talk) 23:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia's criterion is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There are gray areas and areas for interpretation (e.g. how broadly to interpret "relevant field", what constitutes a "reliable third-party publication"). Personally, I also consider the breadth/depth of the work(s), where they were published, and the author's standing within that profession, cutting slack for say a full professor or well-known/influential figure in a field who's published only one paper but in a reputable scholarly journal. Some people are more inclusive, satisfied if an author got one work published on a remotely related topic in any third-party publication.
- In the case of FOLDOC, I just checked, and Denis Howe is in what's a gray area for me: he had two CS-related papers published in conference proceedings while in graduate school, in
1992 and
1993, on Spineless Tagless G-Machine programming. In general I don't think I'd consider him an "established expert" (in the Wikipedia sense) in computer science (which I'd broadly extend to cover FOLDOC). On the other hand, FOLDOC itself is widely cited. On the third hand, FOLDOC borrowed from other questionable sources, had 2000 contributors, and 150 guest editors, with unclear editorial oversight. On the whole I'd probably not count it toward notability, and treat it very cautiously as an authoritative source about a particular subject...it seems a bit like relying on Wikipedia. :-)
- Regarding TRM's link to a gzip with other material, I'd only consider esb's work reliable, not third-party materials that he archived or linked to. (I didn't download the file to check). ––
Agyle (
talk) 07:52, 1 July 2014 (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.
j⚛e decker
talk 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Paulie Ayala (featherweight boxer) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable boxer - does not meet
WP:NBOX
Peter Rehse (
talk) 11:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.
Peter Rehse (
talk) 11:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
The first AfD was only recently closed as Keep however during the course of the AfD this boxer was confused with a notable boxer of the same name
Paulie Ayala with references and information added to the AfD subject. The confusion wasn't caught resulting in what was essentially a Keep vote for the wrong boxer. Please see the subjects
Talk page.
Peter Rehse (
talk) 11:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I'll admit to being fooled/confused at the first AfD. The sources for the two fighters were even mixed between them. It's true that a WBA title meets
WP:NBOX, but it's the other Paulie Ayala that has that. This fighter does not meet any notability criteria.
Papaursa (
talk) 00:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not a notable boxer.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I also was confused about the first AfD discussion; that two boxers, both named Paulie Ayala, from the same area, only about 10 years difference in ages, well, what is the chance of that. My sense is even the boxing media made similar mistakes too. As per
PRehse and above.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure)
DavidLeighEllis (
talk) 04:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
IPEV (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Only sources are primary; notability of group has not been established.
McDoob
AU93 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Per
WP:BURDEN and
WP:BOLD, be my guest and add whatever is needed to improve notability. Not sure why it wasn't done at the outset when the article was started, but that's a discussion for another time. --
McDoob
AU93 18:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- BLPs apart, there is no iron law that says that all unreferenced material automatically have to be deleted. When encountering an ill-written or poorly referenced article, improvement is a better first move than deletion. --
Soman (
talk) 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
j⚛e decker
talk 07:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Most of the text in the article was the same words as on the COMNAP site so has been removed. I've added revised text linking to other articles on their projects, with book references. There is enough evidence for this as a worthwhile stub which can also be cross-linked on these other articles.
AllyD (
talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per above. Notable institute. --
Vejvančický (
talk /
contribs) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (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. Nominator withdrawn. §
FreeRangeFrog
croak 02:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Richard Lee (Canadian politician) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:NPOL.
TheQ Tester (
talk) 05:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Bit confused at this nom. Point 1 of
WP:NPOL clearly states that someone who's held sub-national office (provincewide) meets it. He's a member of the BC legislative assembly which is the government of the province of British Columbia in Canada.
Cowlibob (
talk) 09:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep As Cowlibob says he does meet the notability guideline as a member of the British Columbia legislative assembly.
Davewild (
talk) 18:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Article does need some sourcing improvements (two of the three citations are to a
primary source), but serving members of a provincial or state legislature do meet
WP:NPOL. Flag for refimprove, but keep.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Clear keep: 100% unambiguous keep in line with policy. Can this discussion be closed now?
Flaming Ferrari (
talk) 15:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Clearly meets point 1 for politicians. --
Whpq (
talk) 17:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Obviously as a member of a sub-national legislature. The nominator clearly hasn't actually read the guideline he's cited as a reason for deletion. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Keep - He's a MLA of the British Columbia Provincial Assembly, the equivalent of an elected US state representative. Instapass of
WP:POLITICIAN.
Carrite (
talk) 17:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I see that the User page for
User:TheQ Tester declares "This account is used to carry out harmless experiments for example: testing out some Welcome notices and talkback templates." One person's "harmless experiment" is another person's "pointless disruption," I reckon... Was there a purpose behind this flagrantly bad nomination? If so, what???
Carrite (
talk) 17:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The user in question most likely just forgot to sign out of his "testing" account and into his "editing" account first, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. And in all likelihood, the user also just misunderstood
WP:POLITICIAN rather than having an ulterior motive to actively undermine it.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- withdraw - and yes, I've read
WP:Politician wrong. Sorry for all the mess I created. And the only testing going on is on my talk page, not on another namespace.
TheQ Tester (
talk) 04:00, 4 July 2014 (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.
j⚛e decker
talk 01:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
D'ron Forbes (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The subject does not meet
WP:MUSICBIO due to a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The article has been deleted four times at
Focus the Producer (three for advertising and one for notability), the article creator has not moved this article around various places, and the subject still does not meet the notability guideline. The main contributor is obvious a SPA, it appears his only editing concern is this not yet notable producer. All references are to random low level blogs, that are not considered reliable sources and extremely low selling on
Amazon.com is not even worth mentioning per
WP:SINGLEVENDOR, let alone provide any notability at all.
STATic
message me! 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: The subject of this article is notable for being the owner of one of the largest music production companies in the Unites States. He is the owner of dirtyscopebeatz.com which is ranked in the top 75,000 websites in the Unites States. It is also ranked in the top 400,000 websites in the world which if you consider there are an estimated over 600 million websites in the world that is a very notable factor. The subject of the article
D'ron Forbes is also one of the only widely know music producers from his birth place making him some what of a corner stone. He has also placed very highly in major competition. During his run on the battle circuit which was hosted by Grammy award winning producer rockwilder, he ranked in the top 40 battle winning producers and the top 50 selling producers of all time.
I think this information alone makes this subjet (
D'ron Forbes) notable. Maybe the article could be worded differently but I am new and have no help as people would not want to help me. Thank you for your time. Look and you will see that this is the real Focus The Producer right here. :(Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
--
LennyPerez44 (
talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Which of those search results constitute the significant independent coverage in
reliable sources that would establish
notabaility. I can't speak for other editors, but I did search under both names, and fiddled with search parameters and was unable to find any of the needed coverage to establish notability. --
Whpq (
talk) 14:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I actually just wanted to clarify that there is a Focus... and a Focus The Producer, just as there is a Chance The Rapper. So many people are confused, but the professional name someone goes by is everything. --
LennyPerez44 (
talk) 15:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed formatting to be in line with AFD standards.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀
- Yes everyone understands that, there is no confusion going on at all. There is a notable producer named
Focus... and one with a similar name, "Focus The Producer" who is not notable per our notability guidelines of
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO.
STATic
message me! 21:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
Some people feel different than you do StaTICVapor. If not the article would be gone already right? --
LennyPerez44 (
talk) 17:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I would have to disagree since every vote on here is for deletion. Just wait a day or so. This time please do not try to repeatidly recreate an article for this person, as it will be deleted on spot per one of our
speedy deletion criteria.
STATic
message me! 17:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
Keep Delete and Userfy see below for reasoning A simple Google search points to
this source many sources which validates notability. I'll be honest I know absolutely nothing about hip hop music, but
manymany are pretty well established, not the New York Times, but established nonetheless. All a subject has to do is meet one criteria of
WP:MUSICBIO to be notable this one meets at least three.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Striked through my own comments,
Focus... is a different person.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀
- As much as it pains me to say so and given all the work that was put into this, I spent all weekend going to libraries, looking at trade magazines, anything to validate this article's subject. While he is more notable than your average artist/producer trying to make it, he just doesn't quite meet the hump required at
WP:NMUSIC. @
LennyPerez44: When this get's userfied, I will work with you to try and get it to where it needs to be.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀ 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. This is not a ridiculous, "I'm well known in my immediate circle of friends" type of article. There are plenty of mentions, esp. in non-RS sources, and being non-RS does not make them bad or evil, just hard to use for our purposes. Obviously, given my "salt" vote, I don't think a good case can be made now, or is likely in the immediate future. But, perhaps once some time has passed, better sources will emerge, or the reliability of existing sources will become more obvious. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
Solarra thank you very much... I understand the code of Wikipedia better now. I appreciate you being willing to help. Hopefully we can make it happen, this guy has talent and I really like his work. I honestly thought it would be cool to be a wikipedia author as well lol... --
LennyPerez44 (
talk) 02:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment It is true the article is written by one individual, but this one is acting purely in good faith. He is new to Wikipedia and has shown an eagerness to learn and understand Wikipedia policy. To me, this is not a case of a SPA, just a new user trying to write about a subject they are passionate about. He has a good established history of asking for help and trying to learn, in my opinion this is not a SPA, but a good-faith editor trying to write an article on something he's passionate about.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Addition The article was deleted
four times for various CSD criteria to include A7, and G11. It was nominated in this current form and was declined, (userfied), then moved back into the article space when it was more in line with guidelines.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
Solarra: You are completely mistaken, the producer those refs are discussing is
Focus... a widely known and notable producer, not this person.
STATic
message me! 06:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
STATicVapor: Easy mistake to make, that source is about the Dr Dre producer (as I said I know nothing about hip hop). However there are
still
many places out there that talk about this guy (at least I'm pretty sure they're talking about him, not
Focus...).
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
Solarra: Of those two sources, the first is a press release website and the second is a personal marketing website, most certainly not anything that would fall under
WP:RS, or be considered significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
STATic
message me! 07:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Solarra as you remember when we entered into this discussion last night, I mentioned
STATic had interest in another producer by the name of Focus of whom he claimed to know nothing about but yet here he is speaking of him. That proves my point exactly that he only wants the article on D'ron Forbes deleted because he has personal interests at hand. Claiming to have never worked on that article when I saw his name in the edit log of the
Focus... article. That is proof that STATicVapor is in no way acting in the better needs of wikipedia but of who may be a close friend in this other producer. When someone has ran one of the top companies in the world as
D'ron Forbes has for over 5 years and remains in top rankings all over the world, I think that is a notable aspect. When I decided to write begin writing articles on wikipedia I chose this guy because I saw people speaking very highly of him and many other things such as his high ranks in the
Rockwilder battle arena. He is a top seller and a top battle producer in the world, the grounds for notability states that in major competitions if a person does not have to be ranked in the top 10 but make it to a notable point in that specific competition.
Also when it comes to notability wikipedia also mentions being the top in the country of origin for the profession, can you name another record producer from The Bahamas as big as this guy is? --
LennyPerez44 (
talk) 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Yes I know of the other producer, most hip hop fans have. My only single edit to his article was on March 6, 2011 and have made tens of thousands edits since then, the article has never even been on my watchlist. You are acting quite ridiculous Lenny, I am no friend of him, but I am certain to believe you must be of D'ron Forbes to care this much about such a seemingly unknown producer and have such a vendetta against the similarly named producer.
STATic
message me! 00:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
STATicVapor: I simply spent a whole lot of time creating the article and building up the facts and would hate to see it deleted. Can you seriously tell me the owner of a website ranked in the top 75,000 websites in the united states is not notable?... Do you also mean to tell me that being a top selling and top battle winning producer on a powerhouse network ran by another notable entity is not notable within itself either? I can not understand why it would not be notable.
- I have given you references to the facts that matter the most as well as references to the back up facts. You cannot really tell me there are grounds for eliminating this article. I am learning more about wikipedia everyday and will get into writing other things. Just as I learned how to ping you in this comment by paying attention I will learn how to create better articles. --
LennyPerez44 (
talk) 02:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Do you suggest that every owner of those 75,000 websites should have a Wikipedia article? I am sure less then 100 of them do. That is such a minor achievement it is hardly even worth mentioning. As for top selling and top battle winning, no reliable third party sources have been cited for that information. None of the references you cited are reliable, they are just minor low-level blogs and
primary sources. I also like how you completely dropped the Focus... thing once I proved how wrong you were, you lost all credibility after you were grabbing at straws like that.
STATic
message me! 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I see no significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources that would establish
notability. The sources in the article are a mix of primary sources and unreliable sources. I do not see that "there are still many places out there that talk about this guy" as asserted by @
Solarra: above. My own search shows only more unreliable sources. I also concur with @
STATicVapor: that the two sources offered are a press release, and marketing and fail to be independent. --
Whpq (
talk) 17:51, 30 June 2014 (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
Karaoke Superstars. (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010 •
(talk) 15:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Barlow Girls (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Does not appear to meet
WP:NSONGS.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 01:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Karaoke Superstars, the album on which it first appeared. Borderline notability--plenty of stray mentions in reliable sources, sometimes referring to it as "a hit", but I did not see substantial coverage or actual evidence that it was a hit. But, even puffed out with some dispensable trivia, it is a stub, and per
WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I don't think there is anything worth salvaging that's not already in the album article, but if anyone disagrees, "merge" is also fine. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 02:47, 4 July 2014 (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, at least until reliable sources have been found--
Ymblanter (
talk) 08:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Babylon 5: The Passing of the Techno-Mages – Invoking Darkness (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Completely in-universe treatment of non-notable pulp-fiction sci-fi book. FAils
WP:NBOOK
Mikeblas (
talk) 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Keep At least two reliable sources review it. Amazon.com quotes these editorial reviews, and says they are also quoted on the back of the book.
[24]
Dream Focus 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Marketing reviews aren't regarded as reliable sources unless they can be directly sourced. OBviously, the quotes on the dust jacket are primary sources and similarly not reliable. --
Mikeblas (
talk) 02:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I assumed a quick Google search for the official sites would show that, but not all newspapers allow their archives to be freely searched. I doubt they'd lie about being reviewed in The Sunday Telegraph.
Dream Focus 09:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration.
Dream Focus 10:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The problem is, however, that those two reviews listed on the Amazon page are not for the right book. They are reviews for "The Shadows Within", a completely different Babylon 5 book that happens to be by the same author. Its pretty much one of those "Hey, this older book by the same author got these good reviews, so this one might be worth checking out" kind of marketing, and says nothign about this particular book having any sort of critical reviews.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Good point. I have struck out my keep vote. If no reviews can be found at all, no proof it is notable.
Dream Focus 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Per nom. It does indeed fail
WP:NBOOK. The entire article is nothing but plot summary, and there is nothing to indicate any kind of notability, nor are there any reliable soruces that discuss it. As I commented above, the two reviews that Dream Focus pointed out are, in fact, for a completely different Babylon 5 book, and this actual book itself has no reviews that I can find.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 19:02, 30 June 2014 (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
Adithya Srinivasan. (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010 •
(talk) 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Tu Hi Dilruba (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The references all seem to talk about the artist and only mention the song in passing, and notability is not inherited.
Jackmcbarn (
talk) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
j⚛e decker
talk 00:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Adithya Srinivasan, the artist. This stub has no info worth keeping that is not already on artist's page. Substantial coverage from independent reliable sources is quite lacking. And per
WP:NSONGS, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Frankly, the notability of the artist himself is a little shaky. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 14:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010 •
(talk) 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
MazaCoin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable cryptocurrency. The only claim to notability is that it is "the official currency of the Lakota people", which is not true per the WSJ, and the other sources provide no evidence whatsoever of this claim.
The entire premise of the articles is that it is an official currency or will be used by the Lakota people, and none of these have hweappened.
The sources are clearly questionable due to their inconsistencies and lack of evidence. The media coverage was sensational and short lived. --
Surfer43_
¿qué pasa? 00:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I disagree with nominator's premise that notability was based on its official status; notability was claimed based on its attracting notice and significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. While many sources mentioned the official status, not all did (
Christian Science Monitor and
CoinDesk, for example). Different views of the cryptocurrency's official status, and of the tribe/nation's status, are discussed in the article, and provide a good example of why Wikipedia requires multiple independent sources to establish notability.
- I also disagree with the nominator's deletion rationale that coverage was short-lived and sensational. The
WP:Notability section
"Notability is not temporary" says "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It does allow for exceptions, in particular for otherwise low-profile people associated with a single event, and allows for reviews of past decisions "from time to time", but I think the previously-established notability is still valid. An essay at
WP:NOTTEMP gives an example of non-notability with a topic that was covered for 2 days and never covered again, while Mazacoin attracted significant coverage over a 2-3 month period (the currency launched in February). Ongoing coverage has definitely diminished since March, when the subject was last nominated, but it has attracted some coverage since then (e.g., in mainstream news sources like
Fortune,
Scientific American,
L'Express (brief coverage), and dubiously-RS bloggier sites like
Bustle,
Absolute Rights, and
Новости по-русски).
Agyle (
talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, nice amount of source coverage. —
Cirt (
talk) 15:03, 30 June 2014 (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.