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.
KTC (
talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Dubiously recreated after initial AFD.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 00:31, 11 November 2015 (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. J04n(
talk page) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete poorly referenced
WP:FRINGE topic created by confirmed Orangemoody sock.
Brianhe (
talk) 22:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the references are about the subject. Given that the geo location is India there won't be much in easily reachable North American sources, but all I see are some videos on non-reliable sites.
LaMona (
talk) 03:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom and above.
Vrac (
talk) 17:24, 11 November 2015 (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.
Google search turns up LinkedIn, twitter, Pintrest, Facebook, and a number of listings in directories (Truelancer, Indiamart, etc.) as well as several hits to the company's own website, but I did not find non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. KDS4444Talk 22:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: Note that there is a Polish software consultancy of the same name
[1], established in 2010. As to this more recent Indian web development firm, searches provide no
evidence of
notability. At most it appears to be a firm going about establishing its business. Given the lack of claim to notability in the article (once the peacockery copied from their website was removed), I am also flagging this as CSD A7.
AllyD (
talk) 07:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Looking at the page history, it previously had an A7 notice, then was blanked, then content added again (without the CSD) within a minute. There could be a case for the unblanking of a page triggering unsetting of the Page Curation flag so that it returns to New Page Patrol?
AllyD (
talk) 07:31, 11 November 2015 (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. J04n(
talk page) 13:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. Negligible reliable sourcing and biographical content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP with no other edits.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 22:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 00:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete fails the notability criteria for pornographic actors.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:56, 17 November 2015 (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. J04n(
talk page) 17:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't really find anything that specifically references this as an actual thing. The only thing I found was a blog that mentioned the Wikipedia article and that's about it. There's mentions of similarly titled things like contests where you have to guess what book was shredded and placed in a jar or art pieces like
this one, but nothing that is specifically created like this article describes. I also have to question whether or not this is actually real. The article mentions a real publisher (
Humanitas (publishing house)) and claims that they published some versions of this that were well known, but I can find no record of this offhand. I've contacted the publisher to see if this was ever something they did or not, but since their website is only in Romanian I'm not sure if I'll get a reply. They should have someone that speaks English but whether or not the message will get to someone prior to the article's deletion (which seems likely) is in question. If they do reply and say it's a hoax, I endorse inclusion in the hoax archives but I wouldn't archive it until we have some confirmation that it's a hoax and not just an art project with little to no coverage.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I also found nothing better.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:08, 15 November 2015 (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. A2 of ko:Wiki
Not because it's foreign because that is not a valid rationale for deletion unless it has been listed at
WP:PNT for two weeks, and not under G1 because it is not nonsense
Jac16888Talk 22:21, 10 November 2015 (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. J04n(
talk page) 17:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as there's simply nothing better and this has exited since Feruary 2011 so there was time for improvements. Pinging users who may be interested with this
Yash!,
Human3015,
MichaelQSchmidt and
AKS.9955.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the "ping".
being neglected is a decent reason to tag for issues or even fix it yourself if so inclined, but a poor reason to delete. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Has had significant roles in various notable television shows, thus satisfies criteria #1 of
WP:NACTOR. Yash! 05:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:12, 10 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 01:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Searches turned up nothing to show they meet
WP:GNG, and based on what is currently in the article, they con't meet
WP:SPORTCRIT (there is no specific criteria for bodybuilders).
Onel5969TT me 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. No substantial coverage from
reliable sources provided or found. And from the article, no reason to suppose that there would be any. --
Hobbes Goodyear (
talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (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.
Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a
WP:FPL, thus fails
WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of
WP:N. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but
the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either.
GiantSnowman 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I also believe clubs playing in the fourth tier are notable.
GiantSnowman, I don't see a single AfD with a 4–3 outcome in favour of deletion as being community consensus (I hadn't seen that AfD but would have !voted to keep).
Number57 12:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I just want to point out that
WP:AFD explicitly states that "[c]onsensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Stating that the aforementioned AfD was decided on a 4-3 "vote" is incorrect. —
Jkudlicktcs 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - This team (unlike the Canadian team that
User:GiantSnowman notes above) is eligible to play in the
U.S. Open Cup. And it has played in US Open Cup qualification rounds in
2013,
2014, and
2015 thus meeting
WP:FOOTYN.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - is this still going? The club has played in USOC qualifying rounds in multiple years, satisfying
WP:FOOTYN.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 01:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Number 57 and 4th tier of US Football is notable ,the club is eligible to play in the
U.S. Open Cup and has played in qualification rounds.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 07:09, 17 November 2015 (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.
Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a
WP:FPL, thus fails
WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of
WP:N. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but
the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either.
GiantSnowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I also believe clubs playing in the fourth tier are notable.
GiantSnowman, I don't see a single AfD with a 4–3 outcome in favour of deletion as being community consensus (I hadn't seen that AfD but would have !voted to keep).
Number57 12:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I just want to point out that
WP:AFD explicitly states that "[c]onsensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Stating that the aforementioned AfD was decided on a 4-3 "vote" is incorrect. —
Jkudlicktcs 12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:11, 10 November 2015 (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.
Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a
WP:FPL, thus fails
WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of
WP:N. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but
the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either.
GiantSnowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I also believe clubs playing in the fourth tier are notable.
GiantSnowman, I don't see a single AfD with a 4–3 outcome in favour of deletion as being community consensus (I hadn't seen that AfD but would have !voted to keep).
Number57 12:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I just want to point out that
WP:AFD explicitly states that "[c]onsensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Stating that the aforementioned AfD was decided on a 4-3 "vote" is incorrect. —
Jkudlicktcs 12:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This club is notable in this country, as it was the ranked second in attendance last season among fourth or lower tier clubs. This club was even mentioned on the MLS website last year.
[2] And if participation in the national cup is a criteria for keeping it, it is only a matter of time before this team qualifies.
50.200.180.3 (
talk) 14:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
This point is that this team is eligible to participate in the national cup. The guideline WP:FOOTYN states that if a team is not eligible it should be removed, but this team is now eligible.
50.200.180.3 (
talk) 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - This team has received regular media coverage in the Grand Rapids area and has a lot of interest. Also, the attendance of this club would have ranked #8 in the third tier last season (
2015 USL season attendance) and #9 in the second tier (
2015 NASL season attendance). Regardless of what level on the pyramid this team is, we should keep this article because this is a club people care about and are likely to look up on Wikipedia.
Rungladwin (
talk) 21:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Each article is different. This team is eligible for the U.S. Open Cup - I'm not sure Oakland is. Leave separate.
Nfitz (
talk) 06:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:FOOTYN, teams which have played in the national cup tournament have presumed notability. Just being eligible does not provide notability. —
Jkudlicktcs 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Per Number 57 Fourth Division of US soccer are notable a single AFD is not a barometer further this club is eligible to play in the
U.S. Open Cup.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 05:13, 17 November 2015 (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.
Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a
WP:FPL, thus fails
WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of
WP:N. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —
Jkudlicktcs 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but
the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either.
GiantSnowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Posted on the talk page, maybe I needed to post it here?
Gremlyn1 (
talk) 15:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm a little unclear on the guidelines. AFC Ann Arbor has not played in, though is eligible to play in, the U.S. Open Cup as of the 2016 season. Some of the guidelines seem to say that eligibility is enough to meet WP:FOOTYN. Is that the case? It appears as though all NPSL teams have an entry on Wikipedia and from clicking through, it looks like only AFC Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids FC have been flagged for possible deletion, though I didn't look through all of them. I can see that the article may have been premature while they were in the Great Lakes Premier League, which itself may not meet WP:FOOTYN, but now that they have moved to the NPSL...? Gremlyn1 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep - AFC Ann Arbor (unlike the Canadian team that
User:GiantSnowman notes above) is eligible to play in the
U.S. Open Cup. And their transfer to NPSL has received media attention
[3]Nfitz (
talk) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:11, 10 November 2015 (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.
Keep. I have no idea why someone think the company is non-notable. The company basically served the Greater China region, so it's normal that foreign people don't know it. However, it's doesn't mean that the company is not notable. The other pages named "Eternal" on Wikipedia are also non-notable to me, but people including me should keep neutral and objective because of the limited knowledge.
Leehsiao (
talk) 01:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete If there are sources in Chinese then they need to be provided. Source #1 on the article is a dead link; sources 2 & 3 do not mention the company but are about Jolin Tsai, not the company.
LaMona (
talk) 03:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect or merge to its parent company,
Era Television. There are just not enough
in depth sources in English to justify its own article.
Bearian (
talk) 17:08, 17 November 2015 (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.
Probably could have been a quick (
cheap) redirect to
Resident Evil 3: Nemesis#Gameplay, where it's mentioned. There's no apparent explanation why this should be covered separately from the main game. czar 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:10, 10 November 2015 (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.
Non-notable small-city politician who was briefly mayor; fails any test of notability I can think of.
Orange Mike |
Talk 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong keep, was mayor of a non-trivial population (70k+) who has been covered extensively in multiple reliable sources (
[4][5][6][7][8]) thus meeting
WP:GNG.
Antrocent (
♫♬) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There is no significant coverage outside the local area. The local mayor will be mentioned in the local paper. If that made for notability, every local mayor would be notables. But WP:BIO says that is not the case.
John from Idegon (
talk) 06:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Per WP:BIO#Politicians there is insufficient evidence of significant press coverage, most of what is sourced is obituary type coverage.
JCO312 (
talk) 19:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
On a shoestring budget of $200, James Delgrosso won a council seat in 1981, largely on the reputation of his father and his own political base after years of teaching in the Bethlehem Area School District.
Today, he steps away from city politics, possibly for good, after losing the most expensive and one of the nastiest mayoral campaigns in city history, one that introduced the high-finance world of modern politicking, with television ads, consultants and attack mailers.
Delgrosso, appointed interim mayor nine months ago, will pass the top post to a political rival, 34-year-old John Callahan, who beat Delgrosso by 245 votes in the May 21 primary.
Bethlehem City Councilman James Delgrosso, a 20-year council veteran, formally announced his candidacy Thursday for both the interim appointment to the vacant mayor's seat and to seek election to the remaining two years of the unexpired term.
...
Delgrosso pointed to his record leading the rezoning of the Bethlehem Steel land six years ago as a key to the revitalization of the expansive South Side brownfields property.
Democrat James Delgrosso could become Bethlehem's most experienced councilman if he's elected to a fifth consecutive term this year.
Delgrosso, 53, of Johnston Drive, announced his candidacy for re-election yesterday.
He is the only councilman whose term expires at the end of the year who is interested in returning for another four years.
Delgrosso said he considers himself to be a fiscal conservative, stressing the need for government to do more with less while maintaining essential services and not increasing the financial burden on residents.
Although Delgrosso frequently challenges the need for increased fees, taxes and loans, he said he supports projects that will bring growth and economic development.
Delgrosso, who has been a driver's education teacher at Liberty High School the past 32 years, had been considered as a mayoral contender to replace Ken Smith.
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.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as there's not even much as it is but there's also nothing to suggest better. Pinging tagger
Josu4u.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Improved:
Nickinglis addressed the issue of references to own site by adding two additional external references, one from the IG Initiative which is the leading thinktank with regards to Information Governance and one from Iron Mountain, one of the largest companies in the industry referencing one of Optismo's Open Source models. I'm looking to make this article as useful as possible for Wikipedia visitors and there are similar companies (competitors) in the space have all been granted entries. Optismo has had noteworthy creations, The Information Governance Conference, The Information Governance Model, etc. which make it more noteworthy than similar companies and deserving of its' entry in Wikipedia.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The references added were mainly to a conference that the company participated in, in its product area. Another reference is from the Iron Mountain company web site, where they promote "solutions." Cite #2 didn't mention the company. This means that there are still no third-party sources.
LaMona (
talk) 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - non-notable, run of the mill
WP:ARTSPAM by editor with undeclared conflict of interest. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on
neutral point of view and
what Wikipedia is not. The promotional tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement.
Citobun (
talk) 09:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass either
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP. LaMona's assessment of the new sources in the article is spot on.
Onel5969TT me 12:38, 18 November 2015 (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.
Looks like a PR piece for the company. Neither the text nor the references give any indication of notability, and a web search turned up nothing worthwhile. Of the 6 references in the "awards and media" section, the Skilledup.com "award"
[9] has no substance, the Forbes and VentureBeat mentions
[10][11] are only in passing, and the other three
[12][13][14] are all (
advertorials?) about Fullstack's 2015 "hiring day".
Delete - blatant advert in the the typical sickly-smooth tones of a software promotion brochure. Artspamat its best. --
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 10:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Significant coverage in these three cite sources:
[15][16][17]. "Advertorial" assessment is subjective and these sources are generally considered reliable. Although they may be primarily covering the "hiring day", the are also giving significant coverage the organization. ~
Kvng (
talk) 20:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
A couple of points. First,
WP:NRV says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest ...". So, even if that one event was significant and the coverage was genuinely independent, that would not make the organisation notable, and in fact there is no other coverage of the organisation. Second, do you not think it's strange that an organisation which has had no coverage to date (and no coverage afterwards) suddenly has several media sources covering its "hiring day"? And, not one of those reports makes any suggestion that either the event or the company is any way unique, significant, or notable; they're all just there to have a look around at something they happened to came across. Amazing coincidence. Looks like
advertorials to me.
Rwxrwxrwx (
talk) 22:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The topic appears to meet first-order notability requirements. If you're right and there's a scam, this will become more apparent over time. I don't feel a need to try and read the tea leaves here. There is no urgency to delete. ~
Kvng (
talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as spam, the newly added sources are not significant mentions or are simply press releases and the one that might, Buisness Insider is a very dubious source for reliability. Nothing else that indicates it meets GNG
73.138.114.150 (
talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now until a better article can be made as I see nothing currently better and convincing.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Fullstack Academy, one of the top coding boot camps, is launching a second school, but unlike many coding schools, this one will focus solely on training women interested in entering the tech field. Grace Hopper Academy, as the school is called, is the latest effort by the tech industry to close the gender gap between men and women in tech roles.
There is sustained significant coverage of the subject. It received coverage in July 2014 from New York Business Journal. It received coverage in July 2015 in
WNYW. In October 2015, it received coverage for its Grace Hopper Academy plan in International Business Times, SD Times, and Business Insider.
Yes, Business Insider and the article you cite, qualify as
reliable sources. It has editorial overright.
[18] It's been cited by other
reliable sources such as New York Daily News,
[19] The San Francisco Chronicle,
[20] Bloomburg,
[21] and Reuters
[22] which indicates that it has a reputation for accuracy and fat-checking. It's been cited by as many as 377 articles
[23] which indicates that many other editors in the community find it reliable.
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.
Keep this poor stub, as
sources exist to meet
WP:NF and the thing is improvable. In an aside, a lack of BEFORE is a not a good reason to take improvable topics to AFD. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:45, 10 November 2015 (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.
Keep. In my opinion, the combined weight of the non-trivial references is sufficient to establish notability. --
Lambiam 01:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:44, 10 November 2015 (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 soft delete. Because of low participation, even with two relistings, I'll restore this article on demand, but I'll most likely just start a new AFD on it.
Deor (
talk) 10:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weekly newspaper with a circulation of 1055 (
Nebraska Press Association), serving
Elgin, Nebraska, population 661. Article contains no assertions of notability. A Google search for ("elgin review" nebraska) turns up no evidence of in-depth coverage by independent sources. An
online history of Elgin includes one sentence about the newspaper. Nebraska governor
Val Peterson (served 1947–53) published the Review from 1936 to 1946 (see
online bio) but Google search for ("val peterson" "elgin review") doesn't turn up any evidence of coverage meeting
WP:GNG. Unless weekly newspapers automatically meet notability standards, this one apparently doesn't.
Ammodramus (
talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete not much to show notability besides maybe it being a newspaper, a quick look through lists of newspapers by state shows that many do not have articles, a listing on a state list may be all that can be guaranteed. It's also already mentioned in its city article.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:44, 10 November 2015 (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. Keep - sourcing issue seems to be resolved at this point. (
non-admin closure)
Onel5969TT me 12:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:CREATIVE -- but one article in The Hindu to source this. Note that there is a person in the United States Chicago area with the same name
[24].
Brianhe (
talk) 19:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep – A notable actor who has also directed a couple of films. Sourcing needs work though. —
Vensatry(Talk) 14:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So how do we know he is notable without sourcing? –
Brianhe (
talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, he certainly meets
WP:ENTERTAINER. You can always consider
WP:ATD before nominating articles for deletion. —
Vensatry(Talk) 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Kitty is a famous actor in South Indian films and adequate references are added, so please remove the page deletion tag.
Rajeshbieee (
talk) 03:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Bit puzzled on why a bloke goes by the name "Kitty" but we'll leave that for another discussion!
, That aside I'm finding everything to do with cats but nothing on this bloke, Meets NACTOR but fails GNG, I can't find anything so clearly non notable actor, Fails GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 00:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Chennai: Survival of the fittest might soon become the mantra of the bygone era, as it is now time to say, survival of the multi-faceted. And it is our Tamil film actors who are standing true to this, the best examples being Arvind Swamy and Raja Krishnamoorthy (popularly known as Kitty) who are successful entrepreneurs too.
...
Raja Krishnamoorthy working as a HR consultant, has made his way up in films and management.
...
Fondly called as Kitty, Raja is an actor, writer and director with more than 65 films to his credit. He does not miss opportunities even in small screens and continues to concentrate in different spheres, it is learnt.
Keep, but move to his proper name Raja Krishnamoorthy.
Stifle (
talk) 09:44, 18 November 2015 (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.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
This association has only recently officially registered in Thailand, so perhaps that is why there is so little mention of it; or perhaps it because all the coverage is in languages I can't read. In any case, with all due allowance for
WP:CSB, it appears not meet our notability requirements, either
WP:CORP or the GNG.
WP:TOOSOON, perhaps.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. No evidence of real-world impact or notice. --
Calton |
Talk 11:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - searches turned up a grand total of zero hits. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG.
Onel5969TT me 13:01, 18 November 2015 (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.
Musician who does not meet
WP:MUSIC or
WP:ENTERTAINER. He has released songs on a label which may or may not be major, but
WP:MUSICBIO says that the person should have released two or more albums, not just songs. (I can't find his name on Trend Def's website either.) bonadeacontributionstalk 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Added: the article now seems to indicate that he is a lyrics writer rather than a musician, so
WP:COMPOSER would apply instead. I can't see that any of those criteria are met either, but maybe if it becomes clearer what he has actually written lyrics for, it might be the case that he's written for something notable. It doesn't look like it, though. --bonadeacontributionstalk 19:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Hi friend , he has done lot of albums. Details are added in wiki . Please see . He has done albums with famous celebrities.
Alwayssmileguys (
talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
But has he released his own albums? It looks like he's written the lyrics for songs released on other people's albums which is a different thing. Since you are the article's author and added the "Albums/songs" section, could you please indicate for the entries there which are individual songs and which are album titles? Are any of the songs he's written the lyrics for notable, according to Wikipedia's definition of notability? Also note that if you add references, the information in the article has to be supported by the reference - there's several of the existing references that don't mention Nittoli at all. --bonadeacontributionstalk 19:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep His albums are updated in the article.
/info/en/?search=Jackie_Tohn person is 7th in Platinum hit and within 36 position in Americal Idol and acted in one movie , released 2 albums. Very similar to Nick Nittoli - > So I think Nick Nittoli is equally important . Also
/info/en/?search=Melissa_Rapp was 8th in Platinum hit. Released 3 albums has a live wiki page as well. Nick stands a bit higher to these two.
Alwayssmileguys (
talk) 03:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Duplicate "keep" comment has been struck out - each participant in the discussion should make only one "keep" or "delete" comment. Regarding the comment above that "[h]is albums are updated in the article" - there are three albums listed, but none of them is actually "his album". Twilight Goes Punk is an album by "various artists" with seven tracks, one of them by Nittoli ; Platinum Hit:The Winning Songs, Season One has ten tracks, one of them co-written by Nittoli; and In the Studio Now - Single is clearly a single, not an album. Once again, please address the notability question by looking at the relevant criteria for notability. There is no sign of them having been met, and there are still no secondary sources at all. iTunes links and other commercial links are not reliable sources.
The existence of articles about less notable people cannot be used as an argument to keep this article - quite possibly those two should be deleted as well (frankly I see little notability for either of them at a quick glance, but again that's irrelevant for this discussion) --bonadeacontributionstalk 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:43, 10 November 2015 (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.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to have met
WP:BIO. Article is not in
NPOV and has many
peacock terms. Should be deleted I guess. —
UY ScutiTalk(pka, JAaron95) 14:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Peacock terms removed and more references added for validity. The subject is a TV celebrity on live soaps like Razia Sultan and Siya Ke Ram, also one of the biggest filmhouses in India, YRF Studios had cast her in the lead role of Kismat which was a landmark achievement for YRF to enter soaps. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Husain Seyd (
talk •
contribs) 15:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Major commercials which feature the subject are live on online as well as TV, brands include Mortein, Kisan, Paperboat which are big in India. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Husain Seyd (
talk •
contribs) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
— Note to closing admin:
Husain Seyd (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
AfD.
Delete as I simply see no convincingly better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Blatant promotionalism, with at most very borderline notability DGG (
talk ) 02:11, 16 November 2015 (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.
Poorly-sourced article about a DJ. Fails
WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. -
MrX 12:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Page seems to be legit now with verified sources. Perhaps someone can add more of his discography
Bluesey (
talk) 04:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:42, 10 November 2015 (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. Mojo Hand(
talk) 02:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Not
notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources.
Promotion from blocked spammer sourced to press releases and a passing mentions. Note that the first three are the same despite different bylines.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 10:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now as I see no better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with rationale of
duffbeerforme. No actual source that conforms to guidelines.
JCO312 (
talk) 19:45, 10 November 2015 (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 subject gets only brief mentions in a small number of sources. She purchased Dutch bonds that (long after her death) became the oldest ones ever traded in North America. I'm not seeing any significant coverage here.
EricEnfermero (
Talk) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The endurance of the bonds seems remarkable, but the person is notable only for that. If anything the article should be restructured to be about the claim in 1938, more than the 1620s purchase.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:41, 10 November 2015 (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.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I thought about it some more, but in the end I concluded that The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." Sources mentioned in the first AfD are not accessible to me (
[25]), and were removed in the rewrite that does not seem to have made the article more notable. Looking at modern Google News hits, I find primarily mentions in passing and PR/preess release stuff. There is
[26], but setting outside how reliable and non-local the
Austin Business Journal is, the scope of the coverage seems very limited and local (AS taking over "The Chilton Consulting Group, which was founded in 1997, employed 12 workers."). Coverage by trade journals such as
Meat & Poultry[27] is problematic (see discussion at talk of NCOMPANY). Yes, it exists, and generates some local/trade journal coverage, but I don't think this is sufficient to merit an entry in an encyclopedia. Oh, and there is also the likely COI-issue related to the article creator, a SPA
Alchemy.guru (
talk·contribs). As I discussed in my
Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam that we have to curtail. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete In reading some of the articles that appear in a Google search (e.g.
this) it looks like there should be something interesting to say about this company. However, I was not about to find any in depth reporting on the company's work, such as the impact on food service safety. Nearly all sources I found are in some way related to the company (creator of their app, for example). Even the award is from an organization that the company is a member of. I'd change to keep if someone can find better sources.
LaMona (
talk) 16:24, 11 November 2015 (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.
Fails GNG. There were thousands of clubs established by British officers during the British Raj and most of them are still open these days. What notability does this club have except the fact that Britishers built it? I fail to see any RS mentioning it in detail.
FreeatlastChitchat (
talk) 11:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I couldn't find anymore significant coverage than
this. Fails GNG and
WP:GEOFEAT. —
UY ScutiTalk 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:37, 10 November 2015 (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.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'm just not seeing a strong claim to passing
WP:NPOL here. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being an unelected candidate for political office — if you cannot provide credible and properly sourced evidence that a person already passed a Wikipedia inclusion guideline for some other reason before running in an election, then they have to win the election, not just have their name on a ballot, to clear the inclusion bar. And for referencing, I see a lot of
primary sourcing and passing namechecks of his existence, with just one article ("Right to Life Candidate Sees Moral Ills") that actually has him as its substantive subject — but one article does not make for a
WP:GNG pass either. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the feedback. I will gather more
secondary sources to add to the entry. I understand the parameters for a a
WP:GNGTowernyc2003 (
talk) 05:28, 12 November 2015 (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.
Declined speedy, but for the life of me I cannot see a credible claim of non-inhereited notability here.
TheLongTone (
talk) 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep likely as there seems to be enough coverage and attention to suggest a better and keepable article at this time.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong keep The subject of the article is well known among the musical members of the Ransome-Kuti family in Nigeria, not mentioning her successful foray into other fields.
Eruditescholar (
talk) 12:19, 13 November 2015 (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.
Deor (
talk) 11:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
This list lacks sufficient sourcing (mostly unsourced, and no suitable sourcing exists). We'd have to rely on
original research to determine the "last game" released in almost every case, and even with that we'll struggle to find the actual release dates to verify the claim. Previously discussed at WT:VG#List of last games released on video game consoles. czar 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete simply because it is impossible to cover this topic without resorting to original research 90% of the time. This list knows no scope where we can mostly make use of reliable sources. Also, I do doubt the correctness of many of the listed games (Brazilian games released for Sega systems, for instance), but it seems impossible to find out what the latest game per console is. Also unclear distinction between "published" games, "released" games and "created" games. ~
Mable (
chat) 16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per sourcing issue identified by Maplestrip. In the rare case where a game is established as the final game for a platform, that can be noted in the the game's article and the platform's article, but as that's going to be the exception and not the rule, a list to document those is not appropriate. --
MASEM (
t) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per sourcing issues and agreement with other thoughts expressed above.
BcRIPster (
talk) 23:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Userfy and delete, it's not impossible to verify, just very difficult. Maybe someday it'll be covered in textbooks or museums.
Axem Titanium (
talk) 02:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. While this is a list of "officially" released games, a lot of these games released last are redlinks that I don't see being created anytime soon. So by that logic, those games aren't notable by themselves to have an article. Also, it isn't clear what "last released" actually means. See PSP games in North America: Sweet Fuse: At Your Side (last retail game), Class of Heroes 2 (last physical release), StreetKix: Freestyle (last original game), Brandish: The Dark Revenant (last digital release), Summon Night 5 (last localized game). --
Soetermans.
T /
C 11:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I was discussing this some too in the discussion that led to the deletion discussion. There are a lot of factual errors regarding the PSP entries. I'd clean it up, but I figured it looks like its moving towards deletion, and I wasn't sure if there were the sources to do so, so I didn't bother.
Sergecross73msg me 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as a non-notable topic. This is fairly arbitrary criteria where many factors affect a "release date". While "useful" is not a deletion criteria, I don't see how this list is helpful in encyclopedic manner. Not to mention verifying the individual items would be
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Truly "final" game by some criteria can be mentioned in game's and console's articles. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Reliable sources just don't seem to consistently document this. I'd be fine with someone recreating/restoring it if sourcing can ever be found, but I've looked into this before, and it can be hard to find conclusive answers on this.
Sergecross73msg me 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator —
zziccardi (
talk) 00:43, 15 November 2015 (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.
What is the point of a page for a book which was never published (or presumably even completed for that matter)? —
DeeJayK (
talk) 14:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge to
2007 New England Patriots season - found a few humorous articles
like this, but not enough to meet GNG for its own article. It was kept in previous AfD back in 2008, but I think hindsight shows lack of notability. I can see an article about an unpublished book being notable if it had persistent coverage (ie If I Did It - which had an article long before it was eventually published) or reached iconic status, but this never has.
—МандичкаYO 😜 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepMerge and redirect - this is going around in circles. It was redirected to
2007 New England Patriots season, I restored the article after it came up at Rfd (see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 28#19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots). This is never going to be more than a stub, but mentions of this book do keep coming up even in the current year (e.g.
[29]), which suggests GNG is satisfied. I'm speculating, but I feel that the particular irony of this title is enhanced by the fact that the 2007 Patriots were (or would have been) among the only teams in history to (almost) achieve a perfect record in the NFL, and the fact that the Giants' win is considered one of the greatest upsets in sports history (
[30]), so this title will be a lasting part of football lore. Sports is silly sometimes.
Ivanvector🍁 (
talk) 15:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It shouldn't be redirected, it should be merged. Yes, everyone knows about the 15-1 season. The coverage just sort of says the same thing - (book about Patriot's projected perfect season cancelled) and almost fails
WP:NOTNEWS, but there's nothing in-depth. The mention in the recent article is just a joke but it's not like it's still getting headlines. It's sort of an ironic footnote to the season, and since it's only a paragraph or so, is fine for the article on the season.
—МандичкаYO 😜 15:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree that this aborted book merits mention in the
2007 New England Patriots season article, but I simply don't see the need for a stub article on a non-published book of which we know little more than the proposed topic (drawn from the title) and a cover image. —
DeeJayK (
talk) 15:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Well I'm fine with that treatment too.
Ivanvector🍁 (
talk) 16:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge and weak redirect – I agree with the previous bit of discussion. It's notable content, but the book's near-existence and cancellation can be described in two sentences and when that's the case it's better to put it in the parent article. I think I'm only baulking at the redirect because the book has such a pompous name, but I couldn't give a strong reason for not redirecting the the appropriate section of the season article.
Aspirex (
talk) 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
While I completely agree with you re: the pomposity of title of this proposed book, as long as it appears to be the correct proposed title I don't see why the page shouldn't be maintained as a redirect. —
DeeJayK (
talk) 16:52, 12 November 2015 (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.
Non-notable series of childrens' educational books. I can't find substantial third-party references which demonstrate notability.
Mikeblas (
talk) 14:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, no evidence here of notability & search comes up with zip.
TheLongTone (
talk) 17:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. A search for SLJ and Horn Book Guide sources brings up multiple reviews. (
[31])
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It looks like this was part of a larger series with the basic title of "A Child's First...", so this could probably be turned into an article for the larger series, which would potentially be easier to summarize and overall source. I have found reviews from three different outlets, though.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not set for a better notable and acceptable article yet.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:06, 15 November 2015 (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 withdrawnJMHamo (
talk) 01:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. This was (incorrectly in my view)
WP:A7 tagged 21 minutes after creation with no indication either on the talk page or edit summary of
WP:BEFORE due diligence. This is a vice-president of a major corporation. There are a number of editorial articles in notable publications eg
[32][33][34] as well as very many news mentions that can be found by Google News and HighBeam searches. A straightforward pass of
WP:GNG.
Just Chilling (
talk) 19:00, 10 November 2015 (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 deleteDeor (
talk) 10:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
How can we ever define or identify who are the youngest inventors. By definition there should be just one right?
Legacypac (
talk) 13:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Nothing to suggest better and keeping.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Inclusion criteria is too subjective. I guess it could be retitled, but it would still be problematic, as "list of inventors under the age of 18" is really quite arbitrary. We've got a
list of inventors, so if these people are notable, maybe they could be added there.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 09:52, 12 November 2015 (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. Leniency is given to Indian subjects as compared to the UK sourcing in India is pretty poor, I've found a few sources by searching "Borosi Prodyut" so I'd say notability is there. (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010Talk 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Subject of article does not appear to be notable per
WP:GNG. Would have nominated this under CSD but there is no category for "unremarkable movies". KDS4444Talk 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
There's no speedy category because CSD rarely applies to films that
true diligence finds covered in
multiple sources, even if not currently used... and no sourcable topic ever HAS to say "I am important because" (chuckle). And as for same reason at AFD, an unfounded claim of "unremarkable movie" is
opinion and not a
deletion rationale. That's not the way its supposed to work here, thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Isn't the time for adding sources usually before the article gets posted to the mainspace? or perhaps during the deletion discussion? A promise to take care of it in the future isn't terribly helpful where we are standing right now, which is on a ledge looking at an article with no references and no claim of notability, which is an old theme and the moss is growing on our toes. KDS4444Talk 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Sure, you can go ahead and add some just as
WP:NPP suggests... that would be great. Unlike some, I actually have a life away from Wikipedia, and
WP:IMPROVE what I can as quickly as I can (you've been keeping be busy). Apparently it is a lot easier to ignore
WP:NOTCLEANUP,
WP:BEFORE and
WP:NPOSSIBLE and send improvable topics to AFD and expect that others do the work (chuckle), but advice elsewhere is quite helpful in building an encyclopedia:
WP:WIP,
WP:IMPATIENT,
WP:DEADLINE, &
WP:SEP. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:50, 10 November 2015 (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.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Certainly unacceptable current version and it's questionable whether this can be better notable, improvable and acceptable as the best I found was
this and
this.
SwisterTwistertalk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: I can find various pieces of press coverage of deals (one now added into the article as a basic reference) and the firm's publicity of their annual "Portrait of American Travelers", but I am seeing nothing substantial about the firm which would meet
WP:CORPDEPTH.
AllyD (
talk) 07:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KTC (
talk) 12:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required. Here's the second
[35]. ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is indeed required. Thefirst is a local journal article about a local business, which is totally indscriminate. The new one is a press release in a trade magazine. Neither count. And if they did, 2 does not automatically mean multiple; it depends on the quality of the sources & the substantiality of the coverage. . DGG (
talk ) 02:19, 16 November 2015 (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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to whichever band he is most associated with.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Questionably notable? as I'm not sure which band article he would be best moved to, Lynch Mob or Warrant, and I was actually going to be bold and simply move myself but I thought comments may be useful; the best I found was
this,
this,
this,
this and
this. If at all, this seems acceptable but I'm simply not sure if this is usual and expected coverage. Pinging the only still active user
Dom497 and author
LordDeathRay.
SwisterTwistertalk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Better or more sources needed. Not every band member need his/her own article
TypingInTheSky (
talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KTC (
talk) 12:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Stifle (
talk) 09:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The only coverage I or anyone else was ever able to show is a fan-forum, a passing mention of its product (engine) in a photo-blog, another passing mention of its product in a regional company's museum website and the company's own website. Sadly, last AfD was closed as no consensus as the only people who commented were not familiar with
WP:NCOMPANY or even
WP:GNG and argued that that existence of the company on Google and Polish Wikipedia is sufficient; sadly the admin for a reason beyond me gave their arguments some weight. Sigh. Let's try this again since on pl Wiki I was already accused of having some secret motives for deleting "perfectly fine and famous companies", ping
User:DGG and
User:SwisterTwister for a 2nd opinion. As I discussed in my
Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 01:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I found some Books links and I'm not Polish so this would need familiar attention if it can be improved (1945 company may mean something).
SwisterTwistertalk 02:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I couldn't find anything but passing mentions. Nowhere is the company discussed, not except one or half sentences. In the book "Legends of our [Polish] motor industry" the company is mentioned once in passing (for its acquisition of
Tarpan Honker), and then its engines are mention in passing on three other pages (Aleksander Sowa (16 April 2014).
Legendy naszej motoryzacji. e-bookowo.pl. p. 340.
ISBN978-83-932553-9-9.). I don't see anything better. It exists, its products are occasionally mention, and I don't see what would make it encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:43, 10 November 2015 (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. Better sourcing has not emerged and whats there does not convincingly persuade people she meets the gng
SpartazHumbug! 22:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is an actress, she has done acting work in notable series etc. The article itself is crap, but that can be fixed. we do not add articles to AfD as clean up services etc.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree we do not "add articles to AfD as clean up services"; I just don't see her notability. Just to clarify that.
Quis separabit? 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Yes and I'm not seeing any obvious better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I added a couple of sources that substantiate her roles and related work, because I found them while looking for anything that would definitively settle the notability question. I didn't find anything substantial in that regard, but it seems reasonable that there could be dead-tree sources that would establish notability — since her career's high point seems to have been pre-internet — so I'm not ready to call this one for Keep or Delete yet. —
GrammarFascistcontribstalk 11:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KTC (
talk) 12:41, 10 November 2015 (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.
Delete: as non-notable guerrilla during the Irish War or Independence/Anglo-Irish War. Article itself evinces no notability except that he was executed for a crime in which he purportedly did not take part. Insufficient for a standalone article, IMHO.
Quis separabit? 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - he was a member of the
Forgotten Ten - years of coverage as part of the campaign to get them exhumed and reburied. When they were reburied they were all given state funerals, which by definition are "held to honor people of national significance."
—МандичкаYO 😜 13:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
Forgotten Ten. No need for a separate article. No real individual significance. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
He's maybe not significant to the English, but he's significant to the Irish, considering there was an 80-year campaign to get them reburied, and he had plenty of coverage of his life in books and news. You could argue the same for any of the Ten. Additionally he's the only one of the 10 who was buried separately.
—МандичкаYO 😜 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Indeed you could argue it for any of them. That's my point. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
In light of
@Necrothesp's cogent arguments, I would accept that a redirect to
Forgotten Ten is feasible, although I am not withdrawing the nomination as it stands.
Quis separabit? 05:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge Unfortunately, I cannot see enough evidence of individual notability. Notable as part of a larger group, namely the Forgotten Ten but not individually notable. I think the comments about "the English" above are unhelpful.
AusLondonder (
talk) 08:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to Forgotten Ten per other comments to that effect. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG as he personally lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 20:34, 12 November 2015 (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. Since GermanJoe has added a list of selected recipients to
German-American Heritage Foundation of the USA, I'll create a redirect thither after deleting the article.
Deor (
talk) 10:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Would think an award which provides "national recognition" might have a bit more exposure than a few trivial mentions on the search engines. Not a single in-depth article about this award on any of them.
Onel5969TT me 12:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'd suggest merge to
German-American Heritage Foundation of the USA but I'm not clear if that is notable or not itself, as the only sources on that page are primary. If it is, then a merge would probably be the easiest outcome.
FuriouslySerene (
talk) 15:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - merge would be OK, but it's clearly promotional. No press coverage; only one article and it's based on a press release.
—МандичкаYO 😜 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect. Considering the above comments, I took the liberty to add a list of "notable" awardees to the main article
German-American Heritage Foundation of the USA. The award has been mentioned in several bios by uninvolved editors, so it seems to be a relevant award - although probably not notable enough for a stand-alone article.
GermanJoe (
talk) 03:17, 11 November 2015 (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.
Crystal bol with no date or venue known. No independent sources conform
WP:RS. Created by a now blocked sockpuppet. Article might be unreliable due to edits of an editor who is placing misinformation and hoaxes The Bannertalk 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong keep as subject easily crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. Satisfying point 1 of
WP:CRYSTAL, this event is both notable and "almost certain" to take place. Widespread news coverage
like thisand this confirm the new broadcast contracts and this will be the 65th in an annual series of such events. Coverage of individual contestants is also
easy to find and will only proliferate as more state winners are chosen. I have added several reliable sources to the article. -
Dravecky (
talk) 10:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: The subject is notable and verifiable. It will be held within 12 months and is properly sourced.
{ [ ( jjj1238 ) ] } 13:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:RS again. Angelopedia.com is clearly not an independent source. The Bannertalk 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - This is one of those events that are notable, Admittingly sourcing's not amazing but notability does seem to be there. –
Davey2010Talk 00:53, 17 November 2015 (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.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Contested prod - apparent bad faith removal of prod notice. This is a spammy article created by SPA, with no clear evidence of the subject's notability. Fails
WP:ORGAndyjsmith (
talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - seeing a lot of mentions in reliable sources: e.g.,
[36],
[37],
[38],
[39],
[40], with some decent coverage. There's coverage of its two main people and lots of mentions of the company itself. Enough to meet
WP:GNG, or at least
WP:CORP, in my opinion.
FuriouslySerene (
talk) 15:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I can't access the first two of those refs because they're behind a paywall. The third is a reasonable reference but the last two only mention Artvest once each, in passing, and aren't actually about Artvest.
Andyjsmith (
talk) 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Just an FYI, you can read any WSJ article by googling the title. The 5 links I provided aren't the only ones, just a sampling to show that there are a large number of references about the company in various sources (there are many more, e.g., :
[41],
[42],
[43],
[44],
[45]). If you search Google News you'll see a number of results. Also the two main partners at the company are part of the notability of the company, since they don't have their own page. They're referenced a lot as well in the press. I think the number of results and references in reliable sources is enough to demonstrate notability. Although I agree with your comments about the page, if it's kept it will definitely need to be cleaned up.
FuriouslySerene (
talk) 18:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Improve or delete for now as WP:TNT at best as I actually tagged this in August 2011 and it has unsurprisingly not improved since then so it's unlikely any better and immediate improvement can happen. Pinging past users
Postdlf and
Justlettersandnumbers.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. The purported references are either written by them, or where they are incidentally quoted in an article about something else. No actual substantial coverage. DGG (
talk ) 10:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - poor quality article with no improvement in four years, underlining the subject's lack of notability and dearth of coverage in secondary reliable sources. Run of the mill
WP:ARTSPAM by single-edit, single-purpose account.
Citobun (
talk) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP.
Onel5969TT me 13:14, 18 November 2015 (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. Will draftify/userfy upon request.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
No indication of any notability, largely
WP:FANCRUFT and has an air of the promotional. Fails
WP:MUSIC.
Karst (
talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems that the band's English name is a translation or something. The Vietnamese name is different (based on the three references in the article). Since there doesn't appear to be an link to a corresponding article on the Vietnamese project, it may be difficult to source reliably. The English sources just aren't there to support the subject's notability.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 14:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment 365daband is part of contemporary V-Pop. The name of the band is the original one; no 'Vietnamese translation' as it was suggested (the articles deal with the different members of the band, hence 'ST 365', 'Isaac 365', etc. Like K-Pop, as you know, the members of a group can produce solo materials). They released several EPs in Asia, even though it's still hard to provide Wiki with official links iTunes ID and so on (I found one though). You can find other releases on different music websites like this:
http://musictea.org/music/365daband or
http://www.last.fm/music/365daband/+albums. I am currently working on their discography for a month and hope I could introduce it on Wikipedia.
User:Benjiimix (fr.wikipedia.org) 14:05, 5 November 2015
That still doesn't add any notability, I'm afraid. It needs reliable third party sources. Referencing Youtube videos and iTunes is adding
WP:PRIMARY. Is the band notable outside their own country? Have they featured in national media or charts? Please check
WP:MUSIC for the criteria.
Karst (
talk) 13:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and Userfy - until notability and reference issues can be dealt with. As
Walter Görlitz' assessment points out, it currently does not pass notability criteria.
Onel5969TT me 13:18, 18 November 2015 (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.
Deor (
talk) 11:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Self promotional article of someone who is largely non-notable. Her company's article was created at the same time, which I am also
nominating for deletion. DiscantX 12:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes, the Gnews search results are virtually all PR-wire stuff. It's such an unambiguous bit of spam, too, that I probably would have tried speeding it, despite it's appearance of notability.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now until better can be made.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I hesitated because of the claimed publications, but I cannot find the claimed publications in worldcat, so I assume they are self published or advertising brochures. DGG (
talk ) 02:26, 16 November 2015 (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.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by
User:Ulf Dunkel (creator, RL COI) who left the following message on talk "This article meets the criteria of Desktop Publishing software for Mac OS X where it is one of the few up-to-date, maintained alternatives. iCalamus users asked why this important DTP application wasn't mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Now that Adobe has decided to only offer their DTP software as Software as a service, iCalamus is even more in the focus of users who are looking for cheaper standalone alternatives.". As far as I am concerned, this is
WP:ITSIMPORTANT - an invalid argument; and I still don't see any good sources or anything else that would help this meet NSOFT requirement. Not all software should be in encylopedia - get some proper coverage/reviews first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 09:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your comments on my enhancements of the article and on my arguments. I could add much more "proper coverage/reviews", but many of them are not written in English. Is there a problem when I refer to reviews etc. written in e.g. German?
You can provide non-english sources - see
WP:NOENG - though English language sources are preferred. Regardless of language, the goal is significant independent coverage, ie. an entire article or several paragraphs in a book about the subject, rather than incidental mentions.
Dialectric (
talk) 04:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, those sources I cited in the article. Now, do tell us what makes them reliable? I do not recognize any as mainstream, reliable sources. The burden of proof to convince us is on those arguing to keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
These are are foreign sources. Non english sources are allowed and can be used to establish notability. I infer that you assume because they are unfamiliar that they are unreliable. I am more optimistic. ~
Kvng (
talk) 04:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't apply AGF to sources. Unless someone can explain why a source is reliable, I assume that it is not. Because majority of websites on the web are not reliable; it's a simple game of numbers. Otherwise spammers will figure out that they can just create a bunch of machine translations into Swahili or something, add those sources, and game our system. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you for explaining your rationale. I have already explained mine. I think we're done. ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The German sources have independent articles on the German Wikipedia, which has similar notability standards as other Wikipedias:
Heise onlineMacwelt. They are published sources and the burden is yours to challenge their reliability.
LjL (
talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep multiple independent sources demonstrate notability, even if some are in German.
Sbwoodside (
talk) 03:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep for now perhaps as the sourcing could be better but this will also need German attention for any further available sources.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (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. G11, promotional regardless of any possible notability. The reasoning of keeping so we can use G6 would prevent us using speedy on any article at all. DGG (
talk ) 02:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Promotional article of a non-notable company. The CEO's article was also created at the same time, which I am also
putting up for deletion. DiscantX 12:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This, I think, could have been speeded as blatant promotional copy. But allowing the Afd to run its course will mean it can't be recreated, either.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 04:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 04:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
For posterity, I did consider doing speedies but I felt there was enough claim of notability being made that I erred on the side of caution. DiscantX 10:50, 13 November 2015 (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.
Hindu temples would be plenty in an Indian city/town. A "list of Hindu temples in [Indian town]" should hence only include blue link entries that are notable. This list fails
WP:V and
WP:NLIST. Article was PRODed with this reason but was dePRODed by
User:DGG saying "inadequate reason.First check for sources; then, for those that cannot be verified, remove. Butthey need only be verified. WP is not paper." which I don't agree with and hence raising AfD. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 09:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, as in there's a precedent for these types of articles. Claiming there are many of something does not mean they are not notable. Just because articles haven't been created yet for most of the temples doesn't mean they aren't notable. Did you Google any of the temples listed to find out if they are notable?
—МандичкаYO 😜 13:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I stick by my stand that such a list is against what
WP:NOT says. And I don't see you editing the list and improving it in anyway. All your talk is based on possibilities. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 03:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Routine type of article. We have one such for every locatity where there are sufficient to justify it--if not, it can be merged to the locality. Our practice is that such lists do not have to contain only temples that are themselves notable--this sort of list is a suitable place to include those that are not, as provided by WP:N, DGG (
talk ) 05:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:12, 10 November 2015 (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.
Keep - article states that ships have been named USS Wainwright in his honor - how does he possibly fail notability?
—МандичкаYO 😜 08:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It says they were named for several Wainwrights collectively. Plus even having a ship named after an individual, surely a greater honor, has not saved articles from deletion (I've successfully nominated several of those).
Clarityfiend (
talk) 10:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Then those articles should be recreated. What are they?
—МандичкаYO 😜 10:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't keep track of my victims (those aren't notches on my keyboard). The people have spoken; if you're going to try to change the consensus, do it here.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Very junior officer. No special notability. Having a ship named after you is not necessarily proof of anything, especially when the ships are named after the whole family. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Too junior to keep. My guess is that the ships are named from the dynasty or possibly from the Civil War captain who was killed in action: whose deletion, I have queried.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 12:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to ship article(s). Fails
WP:GNG as lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 22:43, 12 November 2015 (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.
Delete. Mid-ranking officer. No special notability. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Most of it is about his NN relatives. Possibly merge to his son.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think criterion 2 of
WP:Soldier applies here. He was brevetted 3 times for conspicuous bravery a / valor in combat.
[52][53] 2nd level medals for valor did not exist at that time. He was also notable enough at the time of his death for a fairly lengthy death notice in the Nov 21, 1902 Boston Globe as well as smaller wire service death announcements in the New York Times and many other US newspapers in IL, OH, PA and other states. --
Dual Freq (
talk) 15:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 11:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete rank is non-notable per
WP:SOLDIER, there is no evidence in the article that he was brevet'd for bravery, otherwise fails
WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
See the links above. "... For this gallant action he was brevetted to First Lieutenant".
page 86 The rest is there as well. --
Dual Freq (
talk) 23:30, 12 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 02:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
No references other than a Facebook link. Group debuted only a few months ago, it's unlikely they are notable yet. I can't find any English sources, and a search for the Korean variation (텐텐) doesn't turn up much that I can see either. Their
YouTube video does seem to have high production quality, so maybe they are going places, but I'd say not yet. DiscantX 11:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree entirely, no better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:25, 13 November 2015 (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.
Page does not seem to meet
notability guidelines; it does little more than state the company exists and the fields it works in. The author asserts it meets the guidelines, but the sources given are either associated with the company or republished press releases of announcements which does not meet
WP:ORGDEPTH.
331dot (
talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: Multiple secondary sources covering financial information about the company (some press releases, but some original works). Easily meets
WP:GNG. I'm surprised this was nominated for deletion - at best it would require a bit more looking for sources as I'm sure there's information in newspapers, etc given the decent online coverage.
Appable (
talk) 20:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I withdraw this proposal; the sources were added afterwards.
331dot (
talk) 20:34, 10 November 2015 (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.
Unreferenced for eight years. Half the list is categorized as "not yet confirmed." Notability is also unclear - we have
Buddhist pilgrimage for places Buddha lived/worked that are thus notable.
—МандичкаYO
Strongly Keep - Maybe unreferenced, but this topic is very important, because
Buddha was an important human. I think if the article lacks strong references, anyone should edit meaningfully and add sufficient infos here.
Magipur (
talk) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 11:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I've
googled a random subset mentioned in the article. Result: 7 hits, only
1 is unrelated to Wikipedia, but that 1 site probably fails as a
reliable source. A
category would likely be more suitable -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 15:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thats not how you google Indian stuff. Indian spellings vary.
VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Then provide a source to back up the notability of this list of visited places. By the way, IF this article were to stay, it should be renamed to something like "List of places visited by Gautama Buddha" or "List of sites visited by Gautama Buddha". -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Thanks for the source; if only such evidence would have been provided sooner, this discussion could have ended a lot earlier. Now then, until this source is implemented into the article, my keep vote will stay "weak". Since I'm only seeing snippet views of this book, it's up to someone with access to the book to do this job. -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 07:22, 11 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 02:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. No coverage of the "NORAD classification" in reliable sources. The documentary is sensationalist and not a reliable source.
Masters thesis is unreliable per
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There is also
this thesis, but again...
Brycehughes (
talk) 03:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 11:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: inadequate demonstration that it passes
WP:GNG. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 22:02, 10 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Indeed, this article just demonstrates that the bridge exists, and doesn't give or, more importantly,
reliably source any indication that its existence warrants documentation in an encyclopedia for any particular reason. Delete per nom.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:40, 12 November 2015 (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. There's a clear consensus not to delete this. There's disagreement here about the exact content, the correct title, and even the possibility of a split, but those are all normal editorial decisions which should be worked out on the article's talk page. --
RoySmith(talk) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Every time travel film that isn't about travel to a distant galaxy or alternate universe involves a
causal loop or a
grandfather paradox but few actually involve a
time loop. The citations do not mention time loops with fifteen exceptions, that would happily remain if the other list entries weren't repeatedly re-listed. Attempts to trim the list to films with citations that do mention time loops keep failing due to editors putting general time-travel movies in the list whether or not there's a citation that they features a
time loop. See
previous extensive discussion about the inclusion criteria. The page's entire content is already included in
list of time travel works of fiction. The page's title does not match the contents of the page, and efforts to fix the page are repeatedly thwarted. Since other methods to fix the page (talk, merge) failed, and since all the content is available under the correct title on a different list, the page should be deleted.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk)
Speedy Keep, no deletion rationale given clean up is not a reason for deletion. Most of the sources direct stated that the film is a time loop film. A time loop is when a character loops from the past to a current point sometimes repeatedly. I'm afraid you making up your reason the article is properly sourced. The idea of this list came from
erik (
talk·contribs) and can be expanded even further.
Valoemtalkcontrib 12:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: The article
time loop has two sources (which somewhat are more reliable than clickbait articles, I'd say) that differ with your definition of time loop. Your definition does not differentiate "time loop" from any other type of time travel, which is at the heart of the topic, and this
has been extensively discussed.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 18:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment:BrightRoundCircle, the topic appears notable. If the heart of the matter is strictly about dealing with entries that do not belong, then this is not a
reason for deletion. The page history does not seem to show edit warring over adding and removing bad entries. Why can't good oversight be exercised? You could post at
WT:FILM asking other editors to put it on their watchlist and monitor for bad entries.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 12:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: See Valoem's reply. Despite references defining a time loop with a specific meaning, many of the article's editors insist that any time travel is a time loop, making the maintenance of the article... difficult, and making it no different than
list of time travel works of fiction. The overlap was the reason for a merge, but the merge was reverted. I have no issue with fixing the article, if only other editors would agree that reliable third party sources should be the deciding factor in what is and isn't a
time loop.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 18:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I would endorse limiting entries to reliable sources that specifically say "time loop". What films are repeatedly being added that do not have this sourcing? It's understandable that novice editors try to help out with the list by contributing, but they may not realize the appropriate inclusion criteria to follow.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 19:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep but... consider that "time loop" as used in common speech/entertainment circles generally include casual loops and grandfather paradox, among others. Because it is sometimes hard to make that distinction to the average movie goer, and that certainly the topic of films that contain any type of this loop or paradox seem notable, I would recommend that a column be added to the table to indicate which type of time loop is being witnessed by the work (which may be more than one at times) and just adjust the lede to include that it's not just limited to the explicit
time loop definition simply due to common use diffusion of the term. --
MASEM (
t) 20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Good point about common use. I like the idea of adding a column to sort. I suppose two major categories would be "Multiple Loops" and "Causal Loop"? Not sure if there is overlap of these or some other distinction.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Based on this discussion, I think all the films (as best as I know) exhibit one or more of time loops (of the Groundhog Day variety) where no paradox necessarily happens, causal loops/bootstrap paradox (12 Monkeys), and grandfather paradox (Looper); there might be more but these seem what can be sourced. If a film has two or more of these, both could be listed in this column. It also helps to beg if some films like Run Lola Run should really be on this list (at least when I last watched that, that was more about alternate timelines, and not time travel) --
MASEM (
t) 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. The sourcing is pretty terrible, and it seems to be based on original research. But that's not really a reason to delete an article. Though most of the hits on Google seem like useless clickbait, it's a topic that is covered in reliable sources; for example,
[54] from the San Francisco Chronicle. If I can stand to trudge through more clickbait, I'll continue searching. Maybe we can get this article cleaned up and better sourced. I'm leaning toward keep right now.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: This was my preferred solution but the merge has been reverted.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 10:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The list could use clean up but the topic is too notable to not have an article.
Dimadick (
talk) 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually now that I think about it, this "list of X that is Y" (list of time travel films that have time loops) blatantly fails the non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations policy and is considered non-notable and should be deleted.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
BrightRoundCircle you are completely wrong did you read the above where it says Wikipedia is not a directory? Those eight WP:ISNOT applies only to corporations and organizations, not the arts. It also directly states that it only applies to directories which do not have Wikipedia articles. It is to prevent advertising, not listing. You have created three articles in your 8 years here, I would recommend focusing more on content creation instead of deletion. If you lack the resources there are many that can help.
Valoemtalkcontrib 00:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Whoa whoa hold on there, getting personal, that's
against Wikipedia policy. Let's look at what WP:ISNOT applies to:
Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:
6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also
Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
The policy specifically names stand-alone lists. If you want to insult me personally, go right ahead. If you think my editing history makes me unworthy of fixing an article with bad citations, that's okay. You can have your own opinions. But you can't have your own facts.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 14:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep but delete non-referenced, faulty entries (if other editors readd those invite them to the talk page - maybe it's a good idea to make a [sub]entry for each film that's getting readded frequently to discuss whether or not it features a time loop). --
Fixuture (
talk) 12:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
That would be great except it's original research.
BrightRoundCircle (
talk) 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment@
BrightRoundCircle: Two things first I am glad you pasted the paragraph as it confirms my position, the line "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject" which is what this list is. It goes on to say "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content" in other words a list which links to existing articles on Wikipedia is appropriate, which is what this is. The section you highlighted, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations does not apply. If the article was titled
List of films filmed in Nebraska featuring time loops then yes cross-categorization applies, but can still be allowed if deemed culturally notable, but that is not the title. List of films featuring time loops has no cross-categories.
I did not see this but apparently your argument is the list could be retitled "List of time travel films that have time loops". This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard based on this logic we should delete all lists as they could be titled as such. The article
List of time travel works of fiction could be retitled "List of works which are fictional featuring time travel" could it not?
Secondly, what personal attack do you see? I advised you to work more on content creation and said if you need help doing so other editors would more than gladly help you, it is no more of an attack than your nomination of this article.
Valoemtalkcontrib 21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom with no delete !votes. (
non-admin closure)
shoy (
reactions) 15:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It is "Canada's first helicopter" and historically notabile, as we can see from the
Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canadahere. However, it's also a copy and paste of that page and may well be deleted on that basis, if no one fixes it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. This is a notable aircraft - see for example the cites linking the Canadian Aviation Historical Society and the museum where it lives. The copyvio has now been written out. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 21:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Well, that was certainly my feeling, too, given the fact that we have reliable sources that indicated a historic place in Canadian aviation. But thanks to Steelpillow for doing the clean up.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 22:19, 10 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 01:58, 18 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 01:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I found nothing better than the usual mentions, nothing convincingly better. Notifying
Wikicology for African insight.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:40, 10 November 2015 (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.
KTC (
talk) 01:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I don't see any reliable coverage required by NCOMPANY/GNG. Sources include TechCrunch, which I classify as a trade journal covering nearly anything related to Internet start ups (and trade journals are not considered sufficient for NCOMPANY, see recent discussion on it's talk page), a passing mention in the WSJ start up column, and another low reliabilitry niche, local trade journal. As I discussed in my
Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I searched online and found no significant, substantive coverage other than the two referenced articles that cover the same event, an initial funding.--
Rpclod (
talk) 06:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Nothing to enhance its improvement and notability.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - non-notable, created by SPA with probable COI.
Citobun (
talk) 10:47, 17 November 2015 (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.
Delete - The references are to the subject's own website, except one that does not appear to reference the subject at all.--
Rpclod (
talk) 07:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
In reviewing these, I did skip over a bunch of press release results in a google news search, but just because SANS is a for-profit, self-promoting organization, doesn't mean it's not notable. Full disclosure: I've attended their conferences and worked through their certifications in the early 2000's, and they're a legitimately notable organization.
Jclemens (
talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I maintain my above delete vote. The above articles only contain peripheral references or quotes from persons associated with the subject. There is no substantive discussion of the subject itself that indicates notability.--
Rpclod (
talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Jclemens: You show a number of mentions in passing. Please note that being mentioned in passing by a bunch of sources does not count. Can you show at least one article, in a reliable, mainstream source, that has in-depth focus on SANS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
That would, in fact, be
your job, not mine. Posting the same response to multiple editors is
unhelpful, and
you should know better. Your only proper course of action at this point is to withdraw the nomination and start helping clean up the admittedly inferior article. Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I have, in fact, carried out the required searches. Per D2, I have determined that the existing sources are inadequate. Now, it is your time to read
WP:NCOMPANY and
WP:RS, as the poor quality sources you are presenting are not sufficient (IMHO) to warrant keeping this poor article. We require in-depth, non-local, reliable coverage, not just a bunch of mentions in passing in trade journals/local sources/press releases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
CommentKeep Yeah, the current article is a stinking pile of ***, but I see them referenced often enough in tech news, that I'd be quite surprised if they weren't notable. It may be more useful to search for "GSEC" or "GIAC Security Essentials Certification" (for the certification they apparently hand out) when looking for sources. —Ruud 14:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Guideline-wanking aside, any topic (person, organization, concept, ...) that is frequently mentioned in major news publications should have an article in an encyclopedia. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia: to let people find background information on stuff they see mentioned elsewhere. Anyone who questions this, should seriously reconsider what they are doing here. (Now, how extensive of an article we are able to write with the available sources, is an entirely different matter, of course.) —Ruud 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong, Speedy Keep: Notability is established by external sources, not those used in articles. Whatever is used in article is to back claims of the volunteers which have included them. Tag it with {{primary}}, but don't be lazy. A lazy Google News search (with some boolean filtering to exclude press releases) will turn up significant coverage. Sans' works and publications are known and frequently cited within the industry and by professionals.
@
Dsprc: You show a number of mentions in passing. Please note that being mentioned in passing by a bunch of sources does not count. Can you show at least one article, in a reliable, mainstream source, that has in-depth focus on SANS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Kvng: Thanks for selecting them. Let me now offer my commentary on them, in light of NCOMPANY requirement that sources should cover the topic in-depth, be reliable and non-local (that also incudes not niche/trade journal).
[
[58]:
Forbes - reliable? Yes. Non-local? Of course. In-depth? No, the subject is not SANS, but some cyberthreat discovered by them. Per
WP:PRODUCT and even more explicitly,
WP:NOTINHERIT, even if a company's product or service generates coverage, this only serves to make this product or service notable, not the company itself.
[59]:
The Atlantic. Yes, yes, and no. Again, the article is about a project run by SANS, not SANS itself.
[60]:
ZDnet: Maybe, yes, and again: fails, because it discusses the vulnerabilities report released by them, not the organization.
I'll ask again: is there a single reliable source that discusses SANS institute? It's history, importance, achievements, etc.? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your commentary but I see things differently. ~
Kvng (
talk) 04:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
That's your privilege, but do note that
WP:NCOMPANY is a set of policies that are expected to determine the outcome of such discussions, not our own personal opinions and views. Per
WP:ILIKEIT and related invalid vote rationales. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I believe mine is a policy-based opinion. I am not a newbie to these discussions. We are disagreeing not about notability policy but about what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes significant coverage. ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
1) The
WP:GNG is met, which is sufficient to establish notability. 2)
WP:NGO is met as well, which is a bonus. Your continued arguing against SANS' notability demonstrates nothing more that you are incapable or unwilling (I'm AGF'ing that it's the latter) to use Google. I shouldn't have to remind you that a reference doesn't have to be ENTIRELY about the topic to support notability--The first paragraph of
http://www.businessweek.com/panelists/51388-alan-paller does just fine.
Jclemens (
talk) 07:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
How is that source any example of coverage in depth? The topic is not SANS, but
Alan Paller. All that we learn about SANS from the first paragraph is half a sentence: "a graduate college and security training and research institution with more than 135,000 alumni in 72 countries". This does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH, nor GNG, which requires that "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". How is SANS addressed here? Those are articles about vulnerabilities it discovered, people who work for it, etc., and they mention the organization only in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as the current article seems better and convincingly keepable.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Piotrus I have to say I haven't looked closely at any of these listed links but it seems like it may be improvable.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:16, 11 November 2015 (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.
Comment. While the article is unreferenced and I get no hits for "Gorumara Beel" in Google books, I do see results for "Gorumara", likely referring to
Gorumara National Park. That seed, this seems to be a weird mispelling/rendering in English of Indian dialect/etc., and can probably be deleted without a need for redirecting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete To meet the notability criteria for named natural features, a wetland would need enough verifiable information (more than just size and location) to justify a stand alone article. The stub lists no sources, and searches of the usual Google types, JSTOR, EBSCO, and Gale Academic OneFile returned no results, so this fails
WP:GEOLAND. --
Worldbruce (
talk) 19:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Question: Can anybody confirm that "Gorumara" is correctly transliterated?
Sam SailorTalk! 14:31, 17 November 2015 (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.
Weak keep - Searching online suggests sufficient independent substantive coverage to support
WP:ORG notability.--
Rpclod (
talk) 07:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, its a company that does $700 million in revenue per year. As per
Rpclod, there are sources available to meet
WP:GNG.
Antrocent (
♫♬) 18:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and there are likely archived sources which may be helpful.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. And can anyone actually show a reliable source with in-depth coverage company of the subject? "Zillions of foo-ian currency revenue" is not a valid notability criteria. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, easily sourced to well above
WP:GNG, sources to that effect have been added without need for Highbeam or Newspaperarchive searches.
Sam SailorTalk! 13:45, 17 November 2015 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 06:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as a non-notable game failing
WP:GNG with no reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as
WP:VG/RS. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 23:24, 15 November 2015 (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.
No need for dab page until the producer gets his own article, and even then a hatnote would suffice.
Brycehughes (
talk) 03:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@Comment' It would, but what about possible confusion between
Pierre-Luc Thériault and the 2
Luc Thériaults? Personally, I'm on the fence. I'm also not sure the producer is someone ever likely to merit/get an article.
Boleyn (
talk) 11:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I might be missing it, but I can't see anywhere on
WP:2DABS where it talks about using hatnotes when there are three people of the same or similar name, only when there are 2.
Boleyn (
talk) 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
There is no producer article, so he wouldn't get a hatnote entry.
Brycehughes (
talk) 12:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually, it's Pierre-Luc who doesn't deserve a hatnote mention. Does anybody refer to the Enterprise's captain as
"Luc" Picard? I doubt it's any different for the table tennis player.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 10:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Perhaps nobody gets a hatnote.
Brycehughes (
talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. A hatnote would do the job. Pierre-Luc is out of luc(k).
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 02:53, 10 November 2015 (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
Louise Burfitt-Dons. Content is there in the revision history if someone wants to carry out the proposed merge. – Juliancolton |
Talk 01:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Non-notable. Article is about
Louise Burfitt-Dons' unoriginal use of the pun "cool to be kind" as part of an anti-bullying campaign. (It's a pun on "cruel to be kind".) Lots of padding because there isn't anything to say. None of the sources even mention the subject (except the campaign's own website); sources appear to have been added solely because their titles include the pun. The second half of the article goes completely off the rails.
Louise Burfitt-Dons and her
Act Against Bullying campaign already have articles, started by the same two editors that started this one. It's unclear why this one exists.
AtticusX (
talk) 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [edited for concision]reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 02:52, 10 November 2015 (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.
Another non-notable award from a magazine, no ceremony, weak sources, "social media achievement."
Cornerstonepicker (
talk) 00:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete questionable referencing at best
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 01:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 06:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
This award is notable award, even though there's no ceremony the winners got a trophy and speech. (
Bistymings (
talk) 01:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 02:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - This award is as about as notable as my left foot!, Fails AWARDS & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete They aren't even consistent awards (
Naughty Boy wins the Naughty Boy award? Wow, I need to sit down over the shock on that one...), and it reads as an unambiguous ADVERT in addition to AWARDS and GNG; it might have an actual trophy but it's probably not on anyone's mantle for non-ironic reasons. Nate•(
chatter) 04:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
They make the categories based on the winners.
Naughty Boy wins the Naughty Boy award,
Taylor Swift wins Nicest Celebrity In The World Award. It's their award so it's upto them to named the categories. (
Bistymings (
talk) 01:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Comment Most reputable awards shows have mostly steady categories throughout their history; if we were to dare make a grid for this there would be no way to organize it; some kind of bare order is needed for an award to be acclaimed. Nate•(
chatter) 04:35, 12 November 2015 (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.
Not a notable actor. Yes, once a week, he plays Hamilton. But overall he's really just an understudy, and that does not make him notable.
JDDJS (
talk) 02:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
So, he only plays the role of
Hamilton in
Hamilton, the hottest musical on
Broadway(President Obama has been to see it twice) once a week. Plus he played the leading man in another
Broadway hit musical,
In the Heights on
Broadway. But,
WP:HEY, it's all about sources. Which are now on the page.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 13:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems notable and has several sources. Never going to be a major article, but it should be one nonetheless.
RailwayScientist (
talk) 07:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep He played the leading man on Broadway in the hit musical In the Heights. He currently plays the lead role in
Hamilton on Broadway, one day a week in rotation with
Lin-Manuel Miranda. More to the point, reliable, secondary sources support notability as per
WP:GNG.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 10:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
To be fair, the article when Nom came upon it and prodded it was a sketchily-sourced stub, and when
User:JDDJS ran
WP:BEFORE searches, he would have come upon a slew of articles in which Munoz is mentioned only briefly, because
Hamilton (musical) has gotten so much coverage. Better sources exist - I have hunted some of them down, for example,
[61] and brought the article up to something like
WP:HEY..
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 11:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep as the current sourcing seems acceptable for now.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep It seems adequately sourced now.
Marc Shepherd (
talk) 12:31, 12 November 2015 (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.
Delete Non-notable boxer. Winning some minor titles from minor organzations is not enough to show he meets
WP:NBOX.
Mdtemp (
talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (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--
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
YouTube videos by himself and blogs by unknown people do not count as reliable sources by any measure. It is unclear if the RT.com articles were written by Corbett, and they do not show notability per GNG or BIO standards since they are all about topics that are not Corbett himself. Just some guy with a podcast or website that hasn't been noted by reliable sources does not rise to the standard notability levels needed.
DreamGuy (
talk) 01:53, 10 November 2015 (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.
Delete per nom and per
WP:NOTLINKEDIN, Can't find anything notability-wise and the cites in the article are all reviews, Fails GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 04:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Apparently claim to fame is one documentary.--
Rpclod (
talk) 07:24, 10 November 2015 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
joe deckertalk 01:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I am usually supportive of keeping academic and business jargon, if the use is wide, and definition can be found (or derived). This, however, seems like a very niche term, I couldn't find any usage in Google Books/News, and refs are sketchy. Seems bordering on
WP:OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak KeepDelete (See Below): re-write the article, as it is at current a dictionary defintition, and find a few more sources. It seems just about notable as a jargon term, but I'm not too sure.
RailwayScientist (
talk) 07:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I had assumed that it must be around somewhere, although a Google search reveals that you're right. Just about a delete, then, but with acknolegement that the auther wrote it in good faith.
RailwayScientist (
talk) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now until better can be made.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:42, 13 November 2015 (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.
Local member of government running for another office. Appears to fail
WP:BIO and
WP:ADVERT applies.
reddogsix (
talk) 00:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Agree re
WP:ADVERT. Created my a new editor probably not aware of such policies. Reason I removed speedy tag is don't feel speedy applies here. Being a councillor and board member/governor is a 'credible' claim to significance.
AusLondonder (
talk) 00:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Does not meet
WP:NPOL criteria.--
Rpclod (
talk) 07:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Do not delete Jane Brophy is a significant member of the Trafford local authority and leader of the Opposition. Question whether this delete is political motivated - if Brophy were a member of the Conservative party would there be calls for her to be deleted
Rkb1809 (
talk) 21:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
No one cares what her political views are. She does not meet the
criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. For you to imply the AfD is politically motivated shows your lack of understanding of the process to vet Wikipedia entries. I suggest you read the criteria for inclusion referred to by those calling for deletion.
reddogsix (
talk) 21:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thirded (if that's a word). If you believe this is politically motivated I would suggest you look at
[62] (Cox was Conservative candidate in Hove) and the recently closed John Bickley AfD -
[63].
Frinton100 (
talk) 16:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - like the UKIP one. Unless someone can find references to important local newspapers to her role in the Trafford LA.
AnotherAnonymous (
talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete fails POLITICIAN, in line with other defeated and/or current parliamentary candidates who have not won parliamentary seats.
Frinton100 (
talk) 16:12, 17 November 2015 (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.
Fails
WP:BIO. This person has received little coverage (no more than a sentence or two in historical texts), and there is little evidence this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. The settlement named after him is notable; he is not.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 23:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:BIO Magnolia677 has previously made a nomination for deletion. The basis for Magnolia677's second nomination deletion is unchanged. The article's content is unchanged since the last nomination for deletion. This should be a speedy keep. Or lets do the discussion all over again. The settlement named after its founder is notable, ergo, he is notable. It is not just a "settlement" it is three large suburban neighbourhoods, a high school , parks, GO Train station etc.
Unionville(
talk) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Unionville (
talk •
contribs) 13:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep. As I said in the previous AfD, which closed unanimously except for the nom, if a town -- even a hamlet -- was named after him, he's notable. DGG (
talk ) 18:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it state that a town named "Smithville" automatically makes Mr. Smith notable (and deserving of an article). This would mean that
W.H. Dewey,
Otto Seyppel,
Daniel J. Clark,
Anthony Hutchins and thousands of other non-notables on Wikipedia with towns named after them should all be "deserving" of a Wikipedia article for just that reason. Please list the policy that supports your assertion.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 01:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
And so I would indeed argue, if anyone cares to write the articles. Smithville would make that particular Smith notable. Common sense, and if anyone want to open an AfC, I'lll support it. And I've read the objections on the talk p., and I conclude it was indeed named after him.Towns are normally named after people, not families, and there's no other likely person. DGG (
talk ) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as although I see both sides clear here, this is likely a keep because its age and history so any better sources imaginably may not be easily accessible.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Lets look at Magnolia's examples Otto Seyppel didnt found the hamlet. Seyppel was and continues to be an unincorporated municpality ie podunk. W.H. Dewey , Dewey Idaho is a ghosttown and is abandoned. Daniel J. Clark a Clarkstown ghost town is named after him. Anthony Hutchins - Hutchins Landing another ghost town. Milliken Ontario has grown from its founding in 1807 into a thriving community in excess of 100,000 people and they have named schools and a train station after the guy in the last 50 years. And of course there is Fred Foo but that was from the other dicsussion for deletion (
Unionville(
talk) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.231.130.238 (
talk) 12:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote:Unionville (
talk •
contribs) has already cast a vote above.reply
Keep it is useful to know for whom a place is named — it provides a historical context for the name.
Johnrpenner (
talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -
User:Johnrpenner has stated that it is useful to know who
Milliken, Ontario is named after. If that is the only reason to keep the
Norman Milliken article, then it should be merged into the Milliken, Ontario article. Notability is not granted upon an individual just because a town is named after him, and it is not removed from a notable person if the town named after him becomes a ghost town; it is based on the notable accomplishments and significant coverage of the person in historical texts, and for Norman Milliken, there is but a sentence or two. He was not notable.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Norman Milliken was the son of
Benjamin Milliken the founder of another community the City of Ellsworth, Maine, USA. Father and son founded different towns separated by a 1,000 kilometres in different countries. Norman Milliken is part of the record of the colonization of North America and European settlement. The references provided concerning Norman are recent and numerous. He made, and continues to make an impression. Founding a town and naming it after him, along with a high school, parks, a train station, political ward etc over a 150 years after his death suggests incontrovertible notability to me. A ghost town is a town that is forgotten and abandoned - who cares who founded it. Founding a failed hamlet is not a notable accomplishment. Founding a town that has existed and prospered for over 200 years, is.(
Unionville) (
talk)
Unionville (
talk) 00:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
According to Wikipedia's
notability policy you are not correct. I care little about his legacy. He is not notable; the settlement named after him is.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I am disappointed to see the repetition of arguments which are identical to the arguments raised on the first nomination for deletion, by the same user, with no new information or changes in the article to warrant the challenge. The arguments I made previously have not changed. The article is sufficiently cited to support the claim of notability. I note popularity is not a benchmark of notability. The nominator overstates the threshold for notability in describing the required coverage in the context of this contribution. It seems to me those interested in the name of the place where they may live will benefit from this information being available on Wikipedia.
FlettIan (
talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Davey2010Talk 00:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I originally closed as Keep but there's been canvassing going on and plus in light of this on the talkpage
[64] I think it's only fair I reopen & relist, Cheers, –
Davey2010Talk 00:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep
The original source for this article, for the origin of the name of the Milliken community, was Wikipedia itself, a 2009 article on Milliken. The sources are somewhat mixed after but they are split between sources that claim the community was named specifically after Norman Milliken or after his family ie including Norman Milliken.
Significantly however there are numerous contemporary and historical references mentioning Norman MIlliken, who died 170 years ago. Norman is the only member of the Milliken family in his generation who has notability in multiple sources both historic or contemporary. There are about a dozen references from different sources where he is mentioned by name. The sources and their number in my opinion establish his notability. His daughter is mentioned once as operating the tavern Norman Milliken owned and established and his two brothers are mentioned only once I could find.
Since the second nomination additional contemporary references for his name being the source of the name of the municipality have been added.
The names of the neighbourhoods of Milliken Mills East and West in Milliken Ontario both include the word "Mills". The only member of the Milliken family in Markham, at any time, in the historical record I have uncovered, who owned, or even operated, a lumber mill, or a mill of any kind, was Norman Milliken ( he both owned, and operated a lumber mill) . It seems rather self evident whose mills were being memorialised in the community names Milliken Mills East and West in Toronto.
Many contemporary sources indicate Milliken was named after Norman Milliken. A school in the Milliken community is of that opinion as is a large municipality, the City of Markham within which part of the community of Milliken is located. Markham City Council passed a Council resolution citing that fact when deciding to name a political ward Milliken Leitchcroft.
The next issue is who established the hamlet versus who the hamlet is named after. There are no references I could find that indicate Milliken's Corners was established by "his family" but there are references that Norman established the hamlet. The land comprising Milliken's Corners, Norman Milliken owned, and that is where he built a hotel and tavern.
The second nomination for deletion came after no changes in the article by the same nom.
How many times does an article have to be defended for the same grounds on a nomination for deletion by the same nom for the same reasons? (This is now effectively the third nomination for deletion by the same nom.)
Having said this I wish most of the articles in wikipedia were held to this level of scrutiny and acknowledge that the nom has by nominating the article for deletion led to substantially improved references.
I apologize if I transgressed a Wikipedia rule called canvassing but was unaware it is not considered a "best practise".
Unionville (
talk)
Unionville (
talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote:Unionville (
talk •
contribs) has already cast a vote above.reply
Comment
The final comment is this. Milliken's Corners the hamlet existed from its founding in 1807 by Norman Milliken til the 1980's when it was subsumed in the larger suburban neighbourhoods of Milliken, Milliken Mills West and Milliken Mills East in Markham and Toronto ( which incorporate the former hamlets of Milliken's Corners , Hagerman's Corners etc ).
This might explain the possible difference in the older versus the newer sources. The newer sources most of which indicate Norman Milliken is the source of the name of Milliken, aren't referring to the origins of the name of the hamlet Milliken's Corners, but to the origins of the names of the new neighbourhoods of Milliken , Milliken Mills West and Milliken Mills East. Hence the change in the name to add Mills etc
Unionville (
talk)
Unionville (
talk)
Unionville (
talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge or Keep Could be merged to the town. First I must say NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED. The fact that someone's name got attached to a town that became notable is not sufficient to make that person notable. And it certainly doesn't imply that there exists sufficient sourcing to write an article on that person. Next, I find it bizarre that people in the area have an odd fetish for making a significant number of one-sentence passing mentions of this name + one utterly trivial factoid. That's hard to ignore, but that's also hard to reconcile with our notability policy. Ourroots.ca pages 74-75 is the best source. The half dozen-or-so sentences is rather light for a sole-source "significant coverage". However in combination with the numerous passing mentions that's adequate, especially because the combination is rather suggestive that additional sources may exist. Final note: I find it bizarre that this pointless boring bio would attract such passing-mention source bombardment, that it would attract canvassing, and that it would attract vehement AFDing.
Alsee (
talk) 19:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC) (revised to Merge or Keep
Alsee (
talk) 08:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Comment - After reviewing all sources cited in this article, it is difficult to find any notability to this person.
The most reliable and lengthy historical source is
this, which states that Norman Milliken had a lumber business, bought a tavern, used German Mills to grind stuff, and sometimes rented a flour mill. That's it.
This source also seems reliable, and states that Norman was not the first to settle the area, and that he "owned a lumbering business with a supply contract to the British Navy. Milliken also owned the hotel/tavern which was operated by his daughter, Charlotte."
The rest of the sources are a hodge-podge of one-liners, and some of the sources cited don't even mention him. There is also nothing stating that this settlement is named after him (many sources say it is named after the "Milliken clan").
Does this person pass Wikipedia's
general notability guideline, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources"? Not a chance. A one-liner here and there does not make a person notable. This person also fails the rest of the notability requirements listed there.
Does Norman Milliken pass Wikipedia's
biography criteria, which states that the person has:
"received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".
"made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".
Hardly. A one-liner that Norman Milliken started a lumber business and owned a tavern is certainly not part of Ontario's historical record.
At best, a line should be added about Norman Milliken to one of the local Wiki articles about this area. This person does not pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the article should be deleted.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Magnolia677, I agree everything about this bio is lame. I agree everything about the sourcing is incredibly marginal. Maybe I'm setting the bar too low because I keep seeing so much
WP:otherstuffexists crap articles. Basically I'm applying the opposite of
WP:recentism. For whatever reason, people out there have preserved this individual's name for over a hundred and seventy years. It is clearly going to endure for the next thirty years much better than a lot of our better-sourced recentism articles. That said, merging into the town's article is a decent idea. I revised my !vote to merge or keep.
Alsee (
talk) 08:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment
The owner of a lumber mill was a very significant personage in a pioneer society where the first order of business was to clear the land preparatory to agriculture. Who was Norman Millikens lumbering mill client - the British Navy - the navy of the world superpower in the 19th century. Norman Milliken is very notable by the standard of a very small early 19th century colonial settler society which is why however small, he might appear today, his name just keeps popping up.
Unionville (
talk)
UnionvilleUnionville (
talk) 15:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep
Contemporary references mentioning Norman Milliken are evidence of notability — and it is not useful to strip the personality out of the naming of places when I want to know where things come from.
Johnrpenner (
talk) 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote:Johnrpenner (
talk •
contribs) has already cast a vote above.reply
Several sources cited in the article state that the settlement "Milliken" isn't named after Norman, but after his family. This has been discussed on the article's talk page, and was corrected in the article.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 04:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep
Getting any mention at all at the time was rare. The multiple number of mentions in contemporary and historical, while short, suggests that it meets the notable guidelines.
User:Nubeli 02:25, 16 November 2015 (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.
Not notable per
WP:EVENT. Coverage limited to routine reviews and tabloid blurbs. Needs no more than passing mention on
Paris Hilton article.
Ibadibam (
talk) 00:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Paris Hilton nothing to justify a stand alone article.
JbhTalk 01:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is terrible throughout, doesn't make any sense yet it is an improvement on esmgt's earlier version (are they a COI/SPA editor?). Something can be added in to her main page if we can understand what it is. From sources, it seems like the third annual incarnation of a DJ/club party hosted by her?
Rayman60 (
talk) 02:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - a club show does not have inherent notability.--
Rpclod (
talk) 07:36, 10 November 2015 (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.