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.
Speedy delete - an advertisement for a for-profit business created by a single purpose account. It reads like an advertisement because the text is largely copied from the company's own website (
1,
2).
Citobun (
talk) 07:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Pure advertisement page. Although there are some hits of it being mentioned in some sources but still all are mostly passing by refs. If notable could be re-written from scratch.
Lakun.patra (
talk) 10:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Tagged as such as there's no better improvement here at this time and it's an obvious G11 with ample consensus here.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:27, 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 speedily deleted by
GB fan per
CSD A7 (article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (
non-admin closure)
• Gene93k (
talk) 18:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. Notability not even asserted. No claim for WP:PORNBIO. No reliable source coverage. Tagged for CSD A7.
• Gene93k (
talk) 14:32, 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.
Nominated with the following WP policies in mind:
WP:NOTCATALOG,
WP:GNG,
WP:BKCRIT // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. The author is notable and the book series is notable. I think this book is likely notable, too. Nonetheless, I'm having a little difficulty finding reviews, perhaps because it was just released. Here's what I've got so far:
[1] and
[2] from USA Today,
[3] from The Seattle Times,
[4] from
MTV,
[5] from Bustle. I added some of these to the article already.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The book may not have a ton of reviews, but it did land on two notable bestseller lists, USA Today and the WSJ. Given that she placed so highly on those lists, it's likely that she'll place on the NYT's list as well. I think that this, paired with the reviews it did receive and the overall coverage for the book, is enough to establish notability for the work. Also a fairly good sign of notability is that the book is in
over 400 libraries per Worldcat. While technically not something that is considered to be a RS on Wikipedia, this many holdings is a good sign that a work would very likely pass notability guidelines.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Clear keep per Tokyogirl79's work to improve the article: well passes our threshold for children's literature,
Sadads (
talk) 13:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep notable author and series, more reviews will be coming out soon.
White Arabian Filly (
Neigh) 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Oh, I forgot about this AfD. I was going to come back and look for more sources or see if anyone else found them. Anyway, the improvements looks good to me. I think notability has been established.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 05:03, 21 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 (nomination withdrawn with no discussion in the interim)—Largo Plazo (
talk) 23:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by Nominator because:notenglish tag was added, which has a seperate policy for recommending deletion. If the article is not translated within two weeks, it will be considered again. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Written in foreign language, therefor does not qualify for speedy deletion albeit does not belong in the English Wikipedia. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 22:01, 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.
If you look through the edit summaries and the talk page you will find this is being built as a birthday gift for the guy in the show by a friend. Can't see how it passes
WP:GNG I now see this is the third time the page has been created. This time SALT it.
Legacypac (
talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete There is a clear conflict of interest in the creation of this page by, not just a friend, but by the business partner of one of the characters in the series.
[6] The page has been deleted at AfD twice now, so it's likely that the page is deletable under
CSD G4. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The article is sufficiently different for me not to use G4 (more text, and the cast has increased by one, not to mention the length of the beard...). I can't see any notability either in the article or in ten pages of ghits (a lot of which were about totally different subjects anyway).
Peridon (
talk) 16:26, 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.
Keep Highly notable responses to a major world event.
WP:NOTNEWS states that "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events"
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Not
WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus.
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Then there should be a discussion in a centralized place (I'm sure there is an appropriate noticeboard) that covers the general "concept and content", not individual AfDs for every article of this type, which takes time and effort to address individually.
LjL (
talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content.
—МандичкаYO 😜 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep What has changed since the last nomination? Notability isn't temporary. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at
Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka
WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to
WP:EVENT.
Fences&Windows 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree notability isn't temporary for Wikipedia's purposes.
PeRshGo (
talk) 04:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There is nothing wrong per se with this article. It's well-sourced and the global reactions to such terrible events alone are often widely noted by the press. It boils down to
WP:NOTPAPER: although it might in hindsight seem almost silly to meticulously document all contemporary reactions, they are still clearly notable, and since
hard disks space is so cheap, why not? --
hydrox (
talk) 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete – This is and will never be more than a list of about a hundred very similarly worded expressions of condolence and/or outrage. The whole article can be summarised into a single paragraph on the parent article. Mirroring the argument I've just made
here, this is a long, boring Wikiquote page.
Aspirex (
talk) 22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Additional comment Having seen that there are a few of these "international reactions" pages up for nomination, I think it's worth putting forward that this one is by far the least notable: the attack was an entirely domestic Norwegian incident with no international consequence, so the international reaction to it must surely be of only passing importance. At least the 2012 US presidental election or the MH17 shooting were events with some international repercussions.
Aspirex (
talk) 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion.
Drmies (
talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - Passes
WP:GNG, major attacks comes with reactions which is totally appropriate for its own article.
Adog104Talk to me 20:20, 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.
Keep Don't agree was a minor event. It received significant coverage globally and had serious diplomatic consequences. Highly notable and information any credible encyclopaedia would include.
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - not a minor event, and
WP:POINTY nomination per
this.
LjL (
talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Not
WP:POINTy, seeking to get a clear consensus about these articles and their concept,
User:LjL.
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - long and involved coverage over months and months. Clearly notable.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international news events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content.
—МандичкаYO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Which criterion of
Wikipedia:Speedy keep do you make this under? If not, your !vote should simply be a standard keep !vote.
Stickee(talk) 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The voter has his right to express his vote in any form he likes especially since a reason is given. It is up to the closing admin or non-admin to decide if the closing is done based on speedy keep or not.
WP:CONSENSUS.
Optakeover(Talk) 10:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Im not seeing any convincing argument for deletion. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
SNOW close please... this was not a minor event but a major diplomatic incident (as well as a massacre). For this reason the international response is very important. cf. the Paris example where we already know, more or less, what everyone is going to say. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC).reply
Keep' I agree with the above, can this really be considered a minor event? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 23:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at
Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka
WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to
WP:EVENT.
Fences&Windows 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I think you were looking for
Template:Merge, but... Edit: this was started because another page had been nominated for deletion; the difference was that it was probably nominated while still new and short. This article is of questionable value when it doesn't even mention the recordings and transcripts released by Ukraine in a large number of languages, in "reaction" to the crash. Still, actually merging is too much work, so keep2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (
talk) 19:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion.
Drmies (
talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep – I've voted delete for the US presidental election and Norwegian attack 'international reaction' pages, but for this particular one I think there is some encyclopedic value – in particular, the fact that it lists many countries responses, the help they sent, the actions they called on the UN to take, etc. – that's encyclopedic enough for me, as it supports the main topic. (cf. the two I voted delete for, which were just a long list of inconsequential diplomatic quotations which did nothing to build on the main topic)
Aspirex (
talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I looked, but I couldn't find it (I did see that someone "deeply condoled the crash"). If there's something there, why couldn't it be moved to the relevant section of the main article? Also, why would it become a better topic if more countries are listed? I'm sure every one of these events could in principle have as many entries as there are countries in the world.
Drmies (
talk) 01:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Which is a total of slightly more than 200, nothing too tragic.
LjL (
talk) 01:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - With this article, Malaysia Flight 17 was a major accident which is far from a 'minor accident'. A minor accident would be a scratch or something, but loosing an aircraft with all lives aboard is a major accident and it certainly passes
WP:GNG, international responses is a fair topic to cover on Wikipedia especially after major tragic events, there is no reason for the AFD and a
WP:SNOW.
Adog104Talk to me 20:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - countries commenting on international incidents is fairly standard diplomatic stuff mostly with no relevance to the acutal events but just polite behaviour, this was created to keep this non-relevant stuff out of the main article and is probably time to ditch it as not notable.
MilborneOne (
talk) 12:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. Are you kidding me, nominator? MH17 is a very notable event as an air crash that has received extensive media coverage, and one which was highly controversial. Definitely passes
WP:GNG. Also, this page is definitely required for list of international reactions, a lengthy article to prevent the already-lengthy MH17 page from becoming longer.
Optakeover(Talk) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment just to note that notability is not inherited and what is a load of dross dropped from the main article doesnt make this notable. Also it is highly unlikely that this political polite stuff would ever make it back into the main article.
MilborneOne (
talk) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Since this article relates to the subject that is talked about in the main article, that is to me where the notability lies. And your second point is a good point; that's why speedy keep.
Optakeover(Talk) 19:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm afraid the force is not strong in this one, Obi-Wan.
WP:GNG in its own right is easily met.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 10:11, 22 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.
So many excessive quotes, many from unimportant countries (in relation to the war) is very unencyclopedic. Notability for a great many of these quotes is highly questionable.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) may the force be with you 21:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Not
WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to wars and crises, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content.
—МандичкаYO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep A major world event with significant diplomatic consequences. What is an "important" country,
User:Kenobi5487? Could you name them?
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep A war is a major event, notability also isn't temporary. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at
Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka
WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to
WP:EVENT.
Fences&Windows 00:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Let me get this straight: I had no idea we had this many such articles. What is the rationale? Do you realize that this means that every single historical event now gets an "Reactions to..." event? and if you manage to get enough quotes together, you can have a "Reactions to..." every single hit record. Or TV show. There are no criteria for inclusion in such articles, except for "it's verified"--in other words, it's indiscriminate.
Drmies (
talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
User:Drmies, Comparing a war with significant diplomatic consequences to a television programme is unbecoming as is suggesting a "hit record" is a "historical event".
AusLondonder (
talk) 05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not comparing the events, only the indiscriminate nature of the responses to the events. And I'm not the one comparing hit records to historical events: if you compare the amount of space devoted to one- (or two-) hit wonders (and their singles, and their discographies, and their List of Awards, and their List of Compositions) to the space devoted to truly meaningful persons and events on a grander scale, the scale of history, you'll see that Wikipedia's recentism and pop culture are responsible for trivializing the historical events.
Drmies (
talk) 05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with you, Drmies. Indeed, the main reason why this article was created was to get these endless and rather pointless quotes out of the main
War in Donbass article, which had become bloated with them.
RGloucester —
☎ 18:52, 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.
Article is merely a list of quotes from politicians with little result on a minor event. Fail notability guidelines.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) may the force be with you 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge. May or may not pass
WP:GNG, but reactions to stuff like this is generally of little impact, since this wasn't really something that elicited great emotion. NK nuke tests happen often, unfortunately.
epic genius (
talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Not
WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge In this particular case, this one is part of an ongoing issue with North Korea, and nuclear weapons. Merge this one with
2013 North Korean nuclear test. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 23:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at
Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka
WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to
WP:EVENT.
Fences&Windows 00:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, it might be the last one since a later one was cancelled. If they're routine, they're not important
2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (
talk) 19:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge, this is little more than a thesaurus entry for "strongly condemned". Can easily be compiled into a single paragraph in
2013 North Korean nuclear test which details any specific actions stronger or more formal than voicing strong condemnation and summarising the rest into a blanket condemnation; breaking it out into individual similar quotes is adding no value.
Aspirex (
talk) 05:01, 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.
Merge to main article. Considering the content of this article, which comprises mainly communist countries saying that participants to go to prison and republics saying otherwise, this fails
WP:GNG. If this was violent, that's another matter.
epic genius (
talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at
Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka
WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to
WP:EVENT.
Fences&Windows 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a similar sort of article to
International recognition of Kosovo or other countries, as it details the formal diplomatic position of different countries, and that I'd say is certainly encyclopedic. (I can't help but wonder whether this article is out of date, though; it lists everyone's reactions in 2009 but doesn't seem to follow through to reaction to future events. Probably needs a bit of work to improve).
Aspirex (
talk) 04:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Responses to a historically notable and encyclopaedic incident.
AusLondonder (
talk) 05:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a list-type article, and as such, will probably never be among the best articles on Wikipedia. However, the event was unquestionably notable enough that even the diplomatic waves it produced were themselves notable. As long as everything in this article is well-sourced, it's a keeper.
Homunq (
࿓) 12:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per other "Keep" arguments above. Satisfies
WP:GNG. --
Ddcm8991 (
talk) 18:17, 20 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.
Notability in question. A merge with the main article dicussing important countries would likely be the best solution.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) may the force be with you 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to main article. Considering the content of this article, which comprises mainly communist countries saying that participants to go to prison and republics saying otherwise, this fails
WP:GNG. Other countries' participation is limited to condemning or praising the protests.
epic genius (
talk) 21:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
With respect, much of what you have written is wrong
User:Epicgenius. For example most countries supporting China such as Fiji, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia and Singapore are not communist. In addition, all communist countries are republics, such as the
People's Republic of China or
Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many countries criticising China, such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom aren't republics but monarchies. Just because the US is a capitalist republic does not mean that is how the world works.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I meant that it depends on which types of leadership it is. However, some of the most prominent opponents of the unrest are dictatorships/communist countries/juntas, of the type that also do internet censorship of things they don't like.
epic genius (
talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Communism does not = dictatorship and dictatorship does not = communism.
Pinochet was very much a capitalist dictator while
Hugo Chávez was a democratic communist. Additionally, republics can be dictatorships eg China or Syria while monarchies can be democratic such as Australia, the Netherlands or the UK.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I realize that. Some communist democrats or capitalist dictators may very well support the freedom to have unrest. I'm just commenting on the most common countries that criticize it.
epic genius (
talk) 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment What countries are "important" that would be discussed in the main article in the event of a merger,
user:Kenobi5487AusLondonder (
talk) 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - passes GNG and is of historically notable and encyclopedic content.
—МандичкаYO 😜 22:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at
Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka
WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to
WP:EVENT.
Fences&Windows 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable reactions to a major incident, especially in the lead-up to the 2008 Olympics. Important encyclopaedic content.
AusLondonder (
talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: I deem the nomination
WP:POINTY per
this, the subject is notable, and the reactions sourced.
LjL (
talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Can you elaborate on what makes this a POV fork, as opposed to a simple
WP:SPINOUT?
LjL (
talk) 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Just give you one example, the article has a whole section for that Tibetan guy from CTA talking about beating up people is not violence. And then there is extensive content on pro-Tibetan protests. The overall undertone of the article is very much pro-Tibetan; the article is clearly a POV fork.
STSC (
talk) 16:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable and well sourced
Lipsquid (
talk) 19:41, 21 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.
Speedy keep - the notability is far from questionable, and merging is a matter of a merging discussion, not an AfD (although I probably wouldn't merge, due to length). I note also that this was an arguably
WP:POINTY nomination, see
this.
LjL (
talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
You have criticised the concept of these articles now are !voting speedy keep. You're a wonder.
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Clearly notable responses to a major world event. Meets
WP:GNG.
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content.
—МандичкаYO 😜 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Snow Keep' - I have a hard time believing on the nominators part that they did any research. There are numerous books dealing with the reaction to 9/11. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at
Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka
WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to
WP:EVENT.
Fences&Windows 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment As evidenced by the essay linked above, deletion discussions on this and similar topics have the potential for proper debate free of precedent and prejudice. However, in this case I think neither side has done much research. The nominator,
Kenobi5487, wants us to believe this should be merged with "the main article" without specifying what article he means (is it
September 11 attacks, or
Aftermath of the September 11 attacks?). The sources provided by
Knowledgekid87 (which are not cited in the article) seem to deal with the institutional and military response that is discussed in an entirely other article:
Aftermath of the September 11 attacks. One more thing, and something
Fences and windows' essay should address, is that reactions like this seldom have a
WP:LASTING effect. Case in point is the condolences presented by Saddam Hussein of Iraq as documented (though unsourced) in the nominated article. The legacy of these and other condolences are generally overshadowed by the more tangible aftermath of events.
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs) 02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Or conversely, one could say that because of the specific aftermath there, Hussein's condolences are all the more interesting.
LjL (
talk) 13:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Major world history event with notable world leaders reactions.--
MONGO 04:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy snow keep per EpicGenius, AusLondonder, and Wikimandia.
198.108.244.195 (
talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep September 11 attacks? Yeah, I think I've heard of them. FFS. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 13:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion.
Drmies (
talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
They don't automatically become non-notable either, though. Which part of
WP:Notability do they fail (especially reactions to 9/11, though the question could hold for reactions to less notable events)? The specific
WP:Indiscriminate section doesn't seem to provide an example that applies, and on the entire lengthy page, I'm not finding one really suitable "what Wikipedia is not" for it, when looking at their provided explanations.
WP:NOTQUOTE is the only thing I see that remotely applies, and only when reactions are excessively given in the form of quotations.
LjL (
talk) 02:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't understand why it's of any value at all to document that President X of country Y said that the events of 9/11 were ... well, fill in the blank. Responses come in two flavors: "responses" in terms of military action and political decisions, and those are of course relevant. The other "response", the verbal response, comes in two kinds--words of support, anger, sympathy, and such, and the rare support for the terrorist attack. I don't see why those words, which in the end really don't mean very much, should have an article devoted to them. As far as I'm concerned, that's common sense.
Not everything that can be verified is worth writing about, and a slavish dependence on "it's verified" means, in the end, the death of editorial discretion and common sense. Moreover, it steers us toward content that's severely slanted to what "the media" think is worthwhile repeating--which is typically that which happens in the developed world with a 24/7 news cycle and people who are very much like the typical en-Wikipedia contributor. That is, if all we go by is newspaper and website reports, which is what we're doing in articles like this one, a suicide attack in Lebanon is much less important than a suicide attack in Paris. Guess what, a comparison of the sizes of
November 2015 Paris attacks (over 100k) and
2015 Beirut bombings (17k) bears that out, and more than half of the Beirut article actually consists of "responses". I mean, if that isn't a representational kind of bias I don't know what is: we're clearly suggesting that the one is more important than the other. We're not the news; we should take the longer view, and that's why we should not devote our time and energy to articles like this one.
Drmies (
talk) 05:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - the reactions from this tragic event was a major event with widespread coverage and in today's society. It easily passes
WP:GNG and this is a an extreme
WP:SNOW.
Adog104Talk to me 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree Wholeheartedly Human nature wants to know 'who's for us' and 'who's against us.' Bias against, in this case, Muslims rears its ugly head especially when provoked. In a better world, this page wouldn't be necessary, 14 years later. In a better world 9/11 would have no meaning. We are not living in a better world. A great research tool. Where else is someone going to find this information next year, or decades from now? World reaction to the 11/13 Paris attacks should end this discussion.
RaqiwasSushi (
talk) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Also, when the nominator says "Questionable notability. Possibly better to merge with main article," literally all they had to do in the first place was ask that on the talk page. It's that simple rather than AFD'ing multiple articles questioning notability even though they pass
WP:GNG and are very much a
WP:SNOW case. They've been AFD'ed in the past as well with a large volume for keep and if people can remember an event from any amount of years ago, then its pretty notable especially when there is high casualties involved. Besides reactions like these aren't like memoirs of famous dead people, they're unique and offer help and security from supporting organizations and nations. Honestly I would be very happy if other nations recognized what has just happened to you, and offer to help fight whatever caused it. Just remember before nominating an article for AFD, just think as see what can be changed and ask questions if needed.
Adog104Talk to me 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep Didn't even need to think about it (much). General IzationTalk 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
SpK. 9/11. 'nuff said. Also, list page needed to prevent an already extensive September 11 page from being even longer.
Optakeover(Talk) 17:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Obvious keep -- the 9-11 attack was such a momentous event that it is entirely right to have multiple articles on it, including this one.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:12, 21 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 above.–
Gilliam (
talk) 02:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: horrendous article. Fails for so many reasons. Doesn't make sense. Very poorly written. No sources. No notability. Has existed for 5 years and has only just been changed from an ever worse offering.
Rayman60 (
talk) 01:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - while the search engines show there appear to be several people of this name who have received coverage. None appear to be the subject of this article. Fails
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 13:09, 23 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 - Clearly not notable at this time.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
DeleteFaygoluvers doesn't look like a reliable source to me.
This article is also substantiated by this source as well. I don't think either article related to the Big Hoodoo is notable and not finding anything to back them up through search.
Tangledupinbleu chs (
talk) 04:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - searches turned up nothing but mentions. I agree with Tangledupinbleu chs that Faygoluvers does not appear to be a reliable site - looks like the info there is posted by "members", and there is no editorial process listed which I can find.
Onel5969TT me 13:13, 23 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.
This play was only performed in one outdoor theatre for some portion of their season. The references are all routine mentions in the media resulting from the company promoting themselves. That includes the Globe and Mail mention, which is actually written about the company not the play as the subject of the article.
Legacypac (
talk) 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Coverage not significant.
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - It looks like we have only a narrow amount of news coverage... over something that doesn't appear to be notable in concept either. It's not like we have some kind of dramatic piece that's likely to be significantly repeated here. To be frank, even the name of the play is painfully generic to the point that it makes things difficult to search for more information on it. I would just delete the article.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 01:14, 25 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. Consensus is based on the validity of arguments not voting. Early votes for deletion shows a lack of due diligence in source searching. The rationale for the AfD has been lack of notability due to lack of sources. Now that sources have been provided the rationale for deletion is invalid.
Valoemtalkcontrib 10:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of an actor, sourced entirely to unreliable sources like IMDb, tv.com and a WordPress blog. While there is enough substance here to suggest that she would be keepable if the article were sourced properly,
WP:NACTOR does not grant any actor an entitlement to keep an article that's this poorly and unreliably sourced. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation of a new version that's based on proper
reliable source coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - unable to find any reliable sources that do more than mention her in passing. Thparkth (
talk) 22:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-notable. The creator was unaware of
WP:RS criteria and didn't know that self-published sources aren't accepted. --
Drm310 (
talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as my searches found links at Books, browsers and Highbeam but nothing obviously better.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - she's a working actress, God bless her, but not a notable one. She had the lead in a 1971 film, A Fable, but that was not a notable film. She had a significant role in 1973's The Iceman Cometh (reprising her role in the earlier TV version), and that was clearly a notable film. She also had a role in Islands in the Stream, which appears to be significant. She had a lead role in Actor, but that was a tv film of questionable notability. Another significant role in The Color of Evening, but that also is a film of questionable notability. In my opinion, she just barely misses
WP:NACTOR, and searches did not return enough in-depth coverage to show they meet
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The line is from Hildy Brooks' play "The Day the Rabbi Lied." The thought is from the Talmud.
...Brooks' one-woman show is the story of a woman named Sippie, an actress in Los Angeles who has been called in to substitute-teach a class on Jewish Spirituality -- this one about the ritual of lighting Sabbath candles.
...
Brooks (and her character, Sippie) became interested in studying Judaism after accepting the role of a Hasidic rabbi's wife in a movie. Mere research became something more, including a search for her father, a man who kept his faith private -- even from his own family.
Brooks performance is matter-of-fact: She's a smart actress, and so she allows the emotion to come from the story she is telling, and she doesn't push it. In fact, she becomes less dramatic in appearance as the show progresses -- she makes her entrance in heels, a swingy, short skirt and a to-die-for patterned velvet jacket, then changes into a long skirt, flats and a head scarf -- what an Orthodox Jewish woman would wear for modesty's sake.
A veces en teatro lo que importa no son tanto las palabras, sino esos mágicos momentos de vida que se pueden crear en escena, y Reunion in Praguetiene muchos de ellos, elaborados con transparencia por el director Jack Betts y los actores Hildy Brooks y Jim Antonio.
...
Hildy Brooks merece especial atención no sólo por su valorable interpretación, sino porque es la autora de la obra y a la vez es ella la misma actriz cuya vida se replantea en el paso de su correspondencia a la escena.
Su labor, sustentada por la ternura que transita a través de todo el texto, choca a veces con el dilema —para un actor— de representarse a sí mismo, y si bien se la ve por momentos actuar sólo con desenvoltura, como en casa, es capaz de lograr hondura emocional en los mejores momentos de la pieza, convirtiéndolos en escenas clave.
Actress Hildy Brooks and her husband-actor, Jim Antonio, have put a new twist on art imitating life.
Antonio is playing the part of Brooks' one-time lover, Czech sculptor
Olbram Zoubek, in her play about their decades-long, long-distance relationship.
...
Brooks wrote the one act "Reunion in Prague," about her brief 1967 meeting in Prague with Zoubek while she was on a movie shoot in his sculpture garden, and their ensuing 25-year relationship. Over the years they exchanged romantic letters and artwork as they shared their views on art and philosophy in a relationship that spanned America's politically turbulent 1960s and the rise and fall of communism in the former Czechoslovakia.
Antonio knew about the relationship and even encouraged his wife to return to Prague to catch up in person with Zoubek. Brooks described the brief reunion as disappointing in her play.
Mrs. Christides will be played by Hildy Brooks. At least that's her name now. It used to be Hilda Brawner, and under that name she did good things off-Broadway and on New York television. It seems that her old name has much more character than the new name, but that's the nomenclature business.
Hilda Brawner, in addition to performing on Broadway in Sweet Bird of Youth, was featured in a dozen television shows including Armstrong Theatre, Naked City, The Defenders; member of The
Compass Players, Chicago.
The potential stars of television are seen again and again. They pop up in a nurse's uniform on one show and perhaps an hour later as a fallen female in a murder mystery. Their image becomes confused with the multiple roles they play, and the audience soon accepts the mass actors and actresses--but never stars.
Hilda Brawner is a name largely unknown in television. Yet this talented young lady has been starred in such shows as the DuPont Show of the Week, The Defenders, Naked City and a dozen others. When I ask her how it feels to be a TV star, she remarked, "I'll let you know when I become one. And that won't be through TV."
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 Procedural close, as this has already been redirected to
The Challenge (TV series). That said, this is really not a great redirect (28th Season of what now?), and might be deleted at RFD if someone sends it there.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did 14:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Looks like a duplicate article,
The Challenge: Rivals III, was created by another user, shortly AFTER this one was created. This article was to remain as TBD until a valid source for
MTV's 28th season of
The Challenge became available.
DPH1110 (
talk) 18:38, 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 withdrawn due to sourcing improvement and a stronger notability claim.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Completely unsourced article about a bridge, which makes no real assertion of
notability — as written, it just asserts that the structure exists. Thousands upon thousands of other bridges exist in the world without being notable enough to warrant encyclopedias about them — while "more notable than the norm" exceptions certainly and obviously do exist, no
reliable source coverage has been shown here to demonstrate that this bridge should be considered one of them. (See also related
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dain City Railroad Bridge.) Delete.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The bridge is historic. The bridge was the site of the groundbreaking for the
Welland Canal; see
this page about the bridge and
this photo of the historic marker. Here is
another page written specifically about the bridge. The economic and social impact of this bridge and the canal are discussed in
this book. The lack of notable information compiled to date for the WP particle does not mean that this bridge, which is over 80 years old, is not notable. -
¢Spender1983 (
talk) 22:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually, the onus is on the article to properly substantiate and
reliably source the topic's notability right off the top. An article which just asserts that the topic exists, and provides no demonstration of notability at all, is not entitled to stick around just because it might be improvable — it doesn't have to be an FA class article right off the top by any means, but it does have to at least contain a basic claim of notability, and one or two reliable sources to demonstrate the accuracy of that claim of notability, right from the very moment that the article exists at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Please explain
WP:NEXIST which states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Why doesn't that apply here? -
¢Spender1983 (
talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Because the article isn't even saying anything about the bridge that would constitute a claim of
notability — mere existence is not the same thing. There is a difference between an inadequately sourced article that at least provides a reason why its topic would be considered notable, and one which contains neither sourcing nor any actual claim of notability.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Again, I need some explanation to understand your position. It seems that you are saying the opposite of
WP:ARTN, which says "Article content does not determine notability." Also, you must understand that people have different perspectives. From my perspective, the statement in the nominated version of the article that this a movable bridge built in 1930 is enough to constitute a claim of notability. A two-hundred foot span is nothing today, but in the thirties it was still quite an engineering accomplishment. Movable bridges are still quite scarce and are being removed faster than being built these days. Add in the fact that the bridge has been kept operational for eighty-plus years and yes, the subject is notable. -
¢Spender1983 (
talk) 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Any article on Wikipedia always has to contain at least a basic explanation of why the topic is or should be considered eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Once that's done, then "article content does not determine notability" kicks in, in the sense that once basic notability has been properly covered off we can no longer delete an article just for failing to be better and more substantial than it already is — but that statement does not mean that anyone can just create an article which just asserts that its topic exists, and then use ARTN as an exemption from having to clarify why an encyclopedia should actually bother documenting its existence. For example, "The Flapjack Diner is a restaurant in Palookaville, the end, no sources" would not get to claim keepability because ARTN. It's certainly still possible that such an article could be salvaged with better sources — and I'm now going to withdraw this nomination since improved sourcing and a better claim of notability has now been shown here — but ARTN does not constitute a "get out of AFD free" card for an article if there isn't at least a basic and sourced claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, in the article.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:24, 21 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.
Listing of Belarusian bloggers that's essentially a duplicate of
Category:Belarusian bloggers. The text is copy-pasted from the articles included in that category.
clpo13(
talk) 16:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm not sure of any other "list of (nationality) bloggers" so I'm not sure the point, as of course it's not comprehensive and there must be thousands of bloggers.
—МандичкаYO 😜 18:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The point would be to give an overview of notable Belarussian bloggers.
Siuenti (
talk) 18:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Are you suggesting to merge those other articles to here? —C.Fred (
talk) 18:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Probably just a sentence or two from each, summary style.
Siuenti (
talk) 20:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I trimmed it down but I still think it's better off simply as a category. A separate summary article would need to be kept in sync with the main articles.
clpo13(
talk) 20:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per
Clpo13. If any of the individuals listed are notable per
WP:BIO then they should have their own articles (and the majority of them do, the contents of which have been copied verbatim into this article). We already have
Category:Belarusian bloggers to aggregate them together, I don't see any additional value being added by this article. If the article is to be kept, it should be re-titled to "List of Belarusian bloggers", but I don't see any other precedent to encourage keeping it, even in this manner. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Nothing convincing of keeping this.
SwisterTwistertalk 08:30, 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 --
GBfan 11:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
This is an article about a specialty trade paperback that contains nothing more than a table of contents and hasn't had significant activity since it was created in 2007. It looks suspiciously spammy in nature. Remember that Wikipedia is not
for self-promotion, nor is it a
catalog.
Rhombus (
talk) 15:09, 15 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, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - as per all reasonings above.
Rayman60 (
talk) 01:17, 23 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.
BLP article of a CEO. Can't seem to determine why he is notable. Reads like he wrote it, very promotional language. Article has been on the go since early 2011, but sources are mix of blog, broken links, and links to pages that don't assert notability. I think it fails
WP:BIO and
WP:GNG scope_creep 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The article definitely needs referencing improvement and rewriting for tone, but the strongest notability claim here, having been named a
Member of the Order of Canada, is one that gets a person over the bar if the article is written and sourced properly. Keep and flag for refimprove and tone cleanup.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep perhaps as Books, News, browsers and Highbeam all found noticeable links and the Order Award may also be convincing of keeping. Notifying past AfDer
DGG (it's amusing I even thought of notifying you anyway and here I noticed you at that AfD
).
SwisterTwistertalk 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Snow Keep - one of, if not the foremost authorities on gold commodities in the world today. Clearly meets
WP:BASIC, with the broad exposure throughout international media. Even articles which are primarily interviews (and as such, shouldn't be used for notability), usually have more in-depth coverage of him preceding the interview, than I've seen in other standalone citations, such as
this. Add to that the Canadian honor, and it appears to be an easy decision.
Onel5969TT me 14:12, 22 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 individual. The world's oldest individual by nation hasn't been considered sufficient notable before. The only sources here are
WP:ROUTINE obituaries you would find. The problem is that the article alleges (without sources) that those
WP:RS are inaccurate without evidence of that allegation. Either, her claim can be debunked by a reliable source and thus the sources here aren't reliable as to these facts and she isn't notable or her claim is valid based on these reliable sources but the only sources here are
WP:ROUTINE coverage.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 10:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Controversial I expect but I
removed the hints that her claim isn't valid. As noted, there are only the three reliable sources provided that assert her birthdate of 1899 and absent a reliable source debunking it, it should be treated as a
WP:FRINGE theory that she actually wasn't born in 1899. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 11:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Gender bias is real and is a problem.
166.171.123.191 (
talk) 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, per nom. There are no policy-based arguments to be made that either the age is, per se notable, nor that this person, who lacks
WP:SIGCOV has met the requirements of
WP:GNG. Even if they had,
WP:NOPAGE counsels that, rather than a stand-alone article, inclusion in a list might be appropriate. Gender bias, raised above, is not a factor here.
David in DC (
talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Not dying for one century doesn't actually make you notable, it just makes you really old.
-Serialjoepsycho- (
talk) 05:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Mrs Fung received some coverage when she became the oldest living person in Canada -
detailed biography;
short coverage. When she died 11 months later, there was a lot of coverage too. In particular, this
detailed biography in Chinese compelled me to think we should have an article on her.
Deryck C. 13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
You haven't answered the NOPAGE and PERMASTUB arguments. Your recent edits have added nothing but pedestrian life details to the article (other than the Chinese Exclusion Act bit, which could easily be accommodated in a list minibio.)
EEng (
talk) 14:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I think we simply disagree on the applicability of PERMASTUB and NOPAGE. My argument is that there is already enough notableDeryck C. 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC) biographical content in existing reliable sources that will be too much to fit into a listbio. Personally, I'd consider her being smuggled out of Beijing in 1989 at the age of 90 to be more significant than the Chinese Exclusion Act, but that isn't the point. In a sense, all biographies are "pedestrian life details". It is the extent of biographical coverage in reliable sources, not some arbitrary criterion for "importance", that determines notability.
Deryck C. 15:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
You're confusing notability (which is one question) and article content. Notability is not the test for article content, so "notable biographical content" makes no sense. "Barred from the US in 18xx because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, she was later smuggled into the US by..." would fit nicely in a minibio or list, and the rest is unimportant.
EEng (
talk) 17:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing out the separation between notability and content. I apologise for the redundancy. My argument still stands though - whether a subject should be covered on Wikipedia, and whether the subject deserves its own article, both depend on the concept of notability, which in turn depends on the the availability of reliable sources. Importance doesn't come into the question directly. I think your one-line summary biography misunderstood Fung's life story. They are completely separate life events which will be better off as two parts in her own article than a listbio.
Deryck C. 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
No, you still misunderstand notability vs. article content:
WP:NNC.
EEng (
talk) 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think the Tumbr page (even for The Vancouver Sun) is going to be a reliable source but you should probably refer to
the article instead which is actually the same (Canada.com is taking its story from the Sun) so it's actually a single source. Nevertheless, the sources doesn't really provide any new information about her other than the same basic details. Perhaps this should be made into a redirect and a small biography at
List of Canadian supercentenarians but we still have the issue of whether her claim should be included in the tables there (I don't see why not). --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 11:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Because she's not verified. It's unscientific to put an unverified SC in with verified ones. There's a reason she wasn't there. And in the case of 115+ claimants, under no circumstances should you put them in with verified ones. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
158.222.69.9 (
talk) 21:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete absent sources with further content. Plenty of human interest, nothing here encyclopedic that I can see.
Charles Matthews (
talk) 10:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
But the point isn't to add any jumble of facts to just swell the article; can you suggest what might be added that our readers would want to know?EEng (
talk) 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep A rather clear and undeniable claim of notability, backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources that provide the significant coverage needed about the subject to provide an appropriately substantial article.
Alansohn (
talk) 05:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
In a sense, all biographies are "pedestrian life details". It is the extent of biographical coverage in reliable sources, not some arbitrary criterion for "importance", that determines notability.
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 wp:IAR procedural close as too similar and merged/linked from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emília Araújo. No action taken, the other discussion will decide. (If anyone disagrees just revert this, I do not oppose)
Nabla (
talk) 10:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails GNG. Only reference is a pageant blog of questionable reliability. Independent searches for sources got nothing reliable.
• Gene93k (
talk) 10:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
comment the article was copy/pasted to
Emília Araújo (í, not i - which is the correct spelling of the Portuguese name). There is another AfD thiscussion for that one at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emília Araújo. To keep discussion in one place I suggest to speedy procedural close and merge (if such a thing exists). That is, we close this one, link the other one to here, and if it gets to a delete conclusion we delete both, if it is a keep, we merge them. If no one objects in the next few hours I'll do it myself -
Nabla (
talk) 18:59, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I think this could safely have been dealt with by
Proposed deletion. No indication at all that an article is justified. --
Michig (
talk) 12:18, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
From new page patrol. Seems to be too vague a title as there are painters, performance artists etc
Legacypac (
talk) 07:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and
WP:LSC. I don't there is any way to create objective selection criteria here. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 16:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as a huge mess. This isn't a list of artists in general, but rather just in music, and not of "all-time", but of one specific period (as explicitly noted in the Rolling Stone list - "the most influential artists of the rock & roll era" - and the Billboard date restrictions). Otherwise
Frank Sinatra and lots of others would be kicking some ass. It also has somewhat conflicting and/or vague criteria ("most successfull, best-selling & best") (sic); there's already
List of best-selling music artists for the second.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 10:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for the reasons others have already given above.
Markpackuk (
talk) 12:53, 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.
Delete It seems that his career has not included notable enough experience for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - as nom pointed out, doesn't meet
WP:NHOCKEY, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 13:42, 23 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 article is created and authored by the person who runs it (see de prod note) and contains no external sources. Does it pass the threshold GNG?
Legacypac (
talk) 07:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Article definitely needs sourcing improvement, but the source that Shawn listed above confirms and bolsters notability — the world English premiere of The Black Rider, one of the single most notable contemporary operas of the past two decades, certainly counts for something. And for the record, a
WP:COI is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete an article if proper referencing (such as an entry in the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia) does exist to clean it up with. Keep and flag for refimprove.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Respectfully, Shawn said it was not easy to search, but based on his findings I am happy to WITHDRAWLegacypac (
talk) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The Canadian Encyclopedia shows up as the fourth result for me. Perhaps it's biased since I used Google.ca. Nonetheless, thank you for your reconsideration.
Mkdwtalk 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I think maybe Shawn just forgot to constrain the search with an extra "Edmonton" and/or "Vancouver" — while admittedly the phrase is generic enough that it doesn't Google very well on its own (there appear, for example, to be at least a couple of other theatres in the world with the exact same name, and it'll also run up against usages like "Our November theatre calendar..."), it does Google much more easily with the extra geographical location terms.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:11, 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.
2nd nomination. 1st AfD closed as no consensus. A case of AWOL without particular importance or significance. The article has not been improved since and still lacks the kind of sources that assert notability. Fails BLP and
WP:MILNG.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 06:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge key points to
Iraq Veterans Against the War and redirect. Subject seems to have received more than a few passing mentions in a range of seemingly reliable sources so *may* be a valid search term; however, I don't think he meets
WP:SIGCOV as we couldn't write a detailed biography about him. As such he probably doesn't meet
WP:GNG.
Anotherclown (
talk) 07:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge, as above.
Bondegezou (
talk) 13:10, 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.
Euryalus (
talk) 08:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
We discovered in RfD where
Lord Ed and
Lord Eddie are being discussed that this is the only disambig page in existence for Lord Name which suggests strongly we don't need this Neelix creation. There are already
Lord and
Edward pages.
Legacypac (
talk) 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Convert to redirect to
Edward Lord, as a reversed order name, such as is found in registries, where surnames appear first --
70.51.44.60 (
talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
One of the Edward Lords,
Edward Clemens Lord was a missionary to China, where it is normal to have surnames first and given names last. So we can also just target
Edward Clemens Lord; though many registers do not use a comma, and some instead just UPPERCASE the surname without a comma to separate it from the given name, so it does appear without commas. (like in a phone book) --
70.51.44.60 (
talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepDelete - What's the deletion rationale other than
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? If there are multiple people known commonly as just "Lord Edward", this seems a sensible dab. Definitely disagree with the above re: name reversals, though, except in non-standard cases (this does not look to be one of those cases). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
can you show anyone is known as Lord Edward? Because if you just type Lord Edward into Wikipedia's search box or Google you are given a list of choices. This DAB page actually makes it harder to find what you want because you get it instead of choosing from the search results.
Legacypac (
talk) 20:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Update: Hmm. In my head I was hearing "Lord Edward" as a common way to talk about a lord along the lines of other "[title] + [given name]" combinations like
King George and
Maester Aemon. Upon further investigation I'm finding that it, in fact, does not look terribly common to do so, making this seem more non-standard than I previously thought. Switched to delete. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I thought the same at first, but Queen Elizabeth II does not really have a last name or location, while a Lord is better identified as Lord Location or Lord Family Name then by Lord Given Name.
Legacypac (
talk) 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I think how they are identified depends on what kind of lord they are. See
Lord#Modern_usage.
Si Trew (
talk) 13:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: this page is worse than useless - it lists 5 Lord Edwards; there are 9 who turn up in the drop-down search box if you type "Lord Edward", and a {{look from}} search on "Lord Edward" finds [Special:PrefixIndex/Lord_Edward this lot], which includes quite a few redirects to people whose article title is not "Lord...". Not a useful dab page; I'm not sure that it woud be a useful redirect to "Edward Lord" as we don't routinely provide redirects from every "surname forename" pair and it would stop readers from getting to the search box.
PamD 20:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note that we don't have redirects at
Lord George,
Lord John,
Lord Cyril, though we have articles or dab pages at
George Lord,
John Lord, and
Cyril Lord ("This is luxury you can afford..." for UK TV watchers of a certain age!") (Or was in on Radio Luxemburg?).
PamD 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Telly.
here. (Must get this book, the first two volumes are very good. Maybe my Christmas prezzie. Although it seems to have a typo "jungle" right there... perhaps I wait for 2nd edition.)
Si Trew (
talk) 13:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, do not redirect - the Lord Edward is a pub (
[9]) which is supposedly the oldest seafood restaurant in
Dublin, which may make it notable for an article. Without regard to that, every entry on this page fails
WP:NAMELIST, there are no people known in full as "Lord Edward" nor do there appear to be any geopolitical areas known as Edward which are ruled by a lord, and per
SimonTrew we don't do reversed name order unless it would be a plausible search, and this one isn't.
Ivanvector🍁 (
talk) 16:08, 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.
Sam Walton (
talk) 00:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a fully-pro-league club. This does not confer notability since he has yet to make his debut.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 04:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 04:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I deprodded this in error since an earlier version of the article claimed that he had played 25 games in a fully professional league.Since this claim was not correct and is no longer in the article, and there are no other claims of notability I agree the subject fails GNG.
Meters (
talk) 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The article's statement "Travagli has yet to make his debut for the Strikers" seems key here. Looks like a case of
WP:TOOSOON. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment pinging @
I am pajamas: for input, since he originally tagged article for deletion under CSD A7. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hey, I am new to this whole thing, I defer to literally anyone else on this. I am just learning how Wikipedia works!
I am pajamas (
talk) 19:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a
fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy
GNG.
Fenix down (
talk) 09:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Has not played in a
WP:FPL nor in senior international football, thus failing
WP:NFOOTY. Has not garnered significant independent coverage to meet
WP:GNG. This is a clear case of
WP:TOOSOON. —
Jkudlicktcs 14:11, 19 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.Michig (
talk) 09:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not the yellowpages. The only sentence in the article correctly notes "There are many dance companies in Canada" and most are not worth an article.
Note the template at the bottom which has all red links for List of dance companies in North America. It looks like it goes away automatically if we delete this List of article.
Legacypac (
talk) 04:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, non-notable dance companies don't have to be included.
Siuenti (
talk) 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge That template at the bottom is the problem, I agree, not this Neelix-created list, which is a non-indiscriminate list of what should be notable Canadian dance companies. As for the argument "most are not worth an article" all but two have articles. On the other hand, we do have
List of dance companies which is sortable by country, which has many of the companies listed there too. Most of them I think. I'd have no objection if someone wanted to merge this list into that. I'm going to try removing that template at the bottom, though.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 11:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: this list is (or as Shawn says, "should be") of dance companies notable in a Canadian context. It can thus contain provincial companies which do not qualify for inclusion in List of Dance Companies. There will be some overlap with that list of course but as coverage of dance in Canada improves this list can grow with more, distinct, entries. --
Mirokado (
talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:NOT is not about removing lists of notable people, companies, or topics. This list clearly meets
WP:LISTCOMPANY and our notability guidelines as it's not an indiscriminate list.
Mkdwtalk 17:44, 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.
Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was
this,
this,
this and
this and this simply hasn't changed much since starting in June 2007 with also no immediate signs of it happening. Pinging taggers
The-Pope,
CutOffTies and
Royalbroil.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mz7 (
talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 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.
So has Day Above Ground, except because they are less offensive and being young fenales, they are not as forgotten as easily. The same point that I've made above, most of these sources are just in that period of one week in April 2012 and the media have ignored them ever since, therefore a
WP:BLP1E case.
Donnie Park (
talk) 08:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mz7 (
talk) 04:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 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 Delete.Michig (
talk) 09:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mz7 (
talk) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now perhaps as I actually accepted this thinking it looked acceptable but considering there's simply not much, there's not much for an article yet.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Love Celine, but this is definitely
WP:HAMMER with poor "she maybe could be probably in the studio and some paparazzi took a picture of her with some record guy" gossip sourcing. Nate•(
chatter) 00:53, 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.Michig (
talk) 09:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Another completely unacceptable and non-notable biography.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: A
WP:SPA article whose only
substantial reference is a one-line mention in an article. Multiple searches are turning nothing better to indicate that the subject meets the biographical notability criteria.
AllyD (
talk) 09:00, 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.
Another run-of-the-mill commercial photographer, I can't see how he is notable plus none of it in this article is sourced, therefore this won't help with notability.
Donnie Park (
talk) 20:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:39, 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 indication of notability. All secondary sources are about
Cybatar, the company this person founded, with very little about the person himself. Sources include a paragraph or two of interview quotes of him talking about the company, but little else.
When I cleaned this up in the hopes of saving it, I removing some sources that appeared unreliable; mostly user profiles or self-published content. Those sources can be seen in
this version.
Grayfell (
talk) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to company or simply delete as either are acceptable by me although deleting may be best for the article's future as I'm simply not seeing much better here. Pinging past users
Ninney and
Derek R Bullamore.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
In as much as you find it not notable that article is very notable. Whoswho.co.za which has been used in a number of articles was removed which is a bit harsh on this article. The article is noteworthy mainly because of the impact it had after
FeesMustFall protests. Your country was not affected by them but South Africa was and poor students are being assisted by an initiative launched by the person the article is about.
Do not delete the article but help improve it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Phwaice (
talk •
contribs) 06:06, 2 November 2015
The
about page of
Who's Who SA says that profiles are open to all Southern African professionals 18 or over. The
Badges and Status system used by the site clearly indicates that it is based on users' activity on the site, and does not appear to verify the underlying claims being made. It also appears to be a social networking site, which is not useful. User profiles are not
WP:SECONDARY, and they are not very reliable. If that site has been used in other
WP:BLPs, it should be removed. Just because other articles have problems doesn't mean this one's problems should be ignored.
The article about the company is the place to discuss the company's roll in FeesMustFall, if it can be supported by reliable, independent sources.
Grayfell (
talk) 09:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Minimal coverage from secondary sources. Claims of notability rest on press releases and social media sites.
Blackguard 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Do not delete. The article is a snub and deserves an equal chance for the community to contribute to it. I didn't find social media sites on the reference list when I fixed one reference. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
197.76.132.139 (
talk) 14:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:36, 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.
Quite questionably notable and improvable as it seems she's best known through Zvezde Granda and the best I found was
this which is hardly useful. Pinging taggers
WereSpielChequers and
Philafrenzy and familiar user
Wikimandia who may be able to find Serbian sources.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I tagged it for notability in 2010, I'm not familiar with the subject area, but looking at the history it might be worth consulting
Phil Bridger re sources. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Borderline keep, I guess. She has received some news coverage (in Serbian) since, mostly yellow/music press, that can be seen
here (Naslovi.net are news aggregator, not all those articles are about her, but a couple is). In 2009, she participated in the (odious) reality show
Farma (Serbia), and had a few public appearances here and there, like
2013 on a
TV Pink show (no, I can't be arsed to expand the article).
No such user (
talk) 12:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
...and she still sings on TV, as in this New Year Eve's show at
TV Grand[10], so I guess it's enough.
No such user (
talk) 12:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mz7 (
talk) 04:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:15, 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.
Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found
here,
here and
here is not convincingly enough to suggest better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mz7 (
talk) 04:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Maybe not convincing enough for the nominator but I find notability requirements are met by sources found in searches and referenced in the article. ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:15, 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.
Only reference to this publisher is a link to their own website. Does not appear to meet the requirements of any notability guideline. KDS4444Talk 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now perhaps actually as unless some Israeli sources are found, I found no better links other than passing mentions. Notifying
DGG who have some insight with this.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Worldcat clearly shows hey are the largest firm (indeed, the only significant firm) publishing maps of Israel., as listed
[11] or { See the left hand column, under author: the other names are government or quasi-government agencies, Even when it is expanded,
[12]the other names are individual catogrhers, not publishers individual cartoghers, not publishers. Similar results searching for individual cities. DGG (
talk ) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I love you,
DGG, and I know you have a long and sincere history of involvement with Wikipedia, though I must tell you I so hate the word "clearly" (mostly 'cuz it disses the work of editors who have has the nerve to nominate things for deletion, which is hard enough without being called "clearly" wrong, yes?). The WorldCat results show that the Geological Survey of Israel/ the Ministry of Tourism is/ are major publishers of maps of Israel, and are much better known as such. That Carta exists does not qualify it as notable, no? KDS4444Talk 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
what I said was that they were the largest firm, by which I meant, as I usually do, commercial firm. (I'm aware there's a UK usage otherwise, so I should not have omitted the adjective.) Nonetheless, in what I said, I did make the distinction, and clearly called them what they are: government or quasi-govenment agencies. Carta is based on the bibliographic record the only commercial map publisher in the country. I don't want to be loved, I want to be read carefully.
You may perhaps rather want to say that being the only commercial map publisher in Israel is not notability, which is a different argument. Here, it's a matter of judgment what standard to use, , and I cannot prove that mine is right, not yours. I consider notability as much as matter of common sense and the GNG in some fields, and publishing firms are among the organizations that cannot be properly judged by the GNG. It would be possible to find reviews of their publications, though not from resources easily available to me.
I therefore judge by what I do have, which i find unequivocal: it is a judgment I would be fully prepared to make on the evidence in a professional context if my reputation as a bibliographer depended on it, though in such a context I would probably add a few more words of context and limitation in the over-cautious way of academics. DGG (
talk ) 06:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, as per
User:DGG. Comment: This is the publisher archaeologists, pastors, scholars, bird watchers, tour guides, hikers, naturalists and journalists depend on for maps that show everything from where Capernaum is (Luke 4:31-37) to exactly where the
Green Line runs. Here is the blog of a non-notable pastor reviewing a Carta atlas:
[13]. Here is the
Biblical Archaeology Review reviewing 2 notable Carta atlasas:
[14].
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment, also, click "what links here." It is very useful, when confronted with a reference on a page, to be able to click and discover whether it is to a reputable publisher, or not.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Sourced Carta to
Publishers Weekly, proving once again that if a topic is notable, sources do exist. More articles available in a search on publishersweekly.com, and, undoubtedly, elsewhere. Carta is hard to find in a general search, because it is such a common word, but this sourcing should put to put any lingering doubts on
User:Musa Raza's part. Cheers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Putting aside the incredible bad form of nominating an article for deletion within hours of its creation and while the editor who created it has put a {{Under construction}} tag on it, this company is notable and easily satisfies GNG. It is the principal publisher of geographic info (maps, atlases, digital maps) in Israel. It is used by government offices and authorities dealing with cartographic info as their official publisher. All of this in now in the article , with references to reputable academic publishers. As
E.M.Gregory notes, there are over 50 other wikipedia articles that link to this. On the sister project of Hebrew Wikipeda, it has a detailed article which is nearly 10 Kbytes long (that's larger than the English Wikipedia's articles on
Bantam Books,
Doubleday (publisher) or
Penguin Group. That should give deletionists with a trigger happy finger some reason for pause.
Bad Dryer (
talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Just so. The AFD was slapped onto a brand new page despite the active under construction tag.
User:KDS4444, you best move is to withdraw the AFD, apologize on Bad Dryer's talk page, then follow John 8:11.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep article under construction obviously
Appable (
talk) 06:07, 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 'SPEEDY DELETE - A7'Alexf(talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
No claim of notability, and no real information. This is also a duplicate of information found in the article on the "Algerian War." // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 02:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete, criteria G7, the article creator blanked the page.
EricSerge (
talk) 22:05, 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 keep, nominator withdrew their nomination and only delete vote was withdrawn --
GBfan 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:NOPAGE concerns really. I'm not sure that someone who was allegedly 160 years old should have a separate page. Neither of the sources here qualify as reliable sources to me and while an obituary would more likely be considered
WP:ROUTINE, it was in Time I guess. The talk page states that he was reported in the newspapers in the past so he may pass
WP:GNG through that.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 02:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There's a stamp in his honor
[15] so fraud or not, there's almost certainly SIGCOV of him somewhere, if only in Spanish.
EEng (
talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Ok, I can live with that I guess. I'll withdraw the nomination. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 10:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
And the fanboys say we don't have open minds!
EEng (
talk) 11:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Nominator is trolling. No sources provided, unless the rumoured sources in Spanish are provided there is no reason to keep this article.
930310 (
talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) —
930310 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
One of the reasons that participation by SPAs, such as yourself, in the deletion process is problematic is their unfamiliarity with applicable policy and guidelines, combined with the fact that such familiarity doesn't seem to improve very much with time, because of a typical SPA's ongoing lack of experience outside of their restricted topic area. In the present case, a consensus of Keep doesn't require that appropriate sources be actually produced (though in practice this is usually what happens), but merely that the consensus of editors be that they believe, in good faith, that such sources exist. Because of the language barrier, and the commonness of the subject's name, it may be difficult to locate such sources without specialized expertise, and yet it's reasonable to believe that the subject of a government-issued stamp would be the subject of, at the very least, some official government announcement and likely consequent coverage in the press. And that's enough.
EEng (
talk) 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Not really, if you can't prove that he escaped local coverage by citing reliable sources (which you don't) then there are no valid grounds for keeping articles such as this one.
930310 (
talk) 12:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm confused. How am I trolling? Why are you voting delete on this article? --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Cmon, Ricky, why do you engage nonsense posts? No one thinks you're trolling.
EEng (
talk) 03:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
(A) I still
assume good faith no matter what; (B) for whatever reason, no matter how bizarre the argument, discussions have been closed on that basis and (C) either 930310 is serious here in these discussions or this kind of name-calling is evidence that a topic ban is necessary. So I'm still waiting on a response on how it's trolling and why in all these discussions is this one that should be deleted? --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 05:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Good points. So what about it,
930310, what's your evidence that Ricky is, as you say, trolling?
EEng (
talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Easy. Ricky is voting for the deletion of well sourced articles about people with validated ages (meaning they have reliable age claims) and is voting for keeping articles that have no sources whatsoever and that are about ridiculous age claims that are not possible to attain as of now. And regarding a topic ban, I think you are much more suited for that EEng since you insult the people that the articles are about by statements such as "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal", which you said here:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcella_Humphrey.
930310 (
talk) 11:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
There are now at least six reliable sources in
this version. You do understand that the GRG isn't the only reliable source in the world, correct? You do understand that this is an encyclopedia about more than just "people the GRG considers the world's oldest people" or "people that 930310 considers the world's oldest people", correct? In this case, the article indicates his notability based on numerous sources when he was found, including a number of newspapers, and the fact that there was a national stamp with him. Given the independent
WP:GNG notability shown, the nomination was flawed on my part. The question still stands, why do you think this should be deleted? It sounds like you are voting delete solely on the basis that you consider the claim ridiculous, is that true? --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 12:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Since there are now several sources proving that he was well-featured in the media I will withdraw my vote.
930310 (
talk) 12:19, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Reason:
Snowball clause, merge is more appropriate. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 03:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Notability is questionable. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 02:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It's notable because people live there. All towns people live in should be listed on site. Hundreds of people live there. It's not just a golf course,it's a community people LIVE IN like Reunion and Celebration Florida. I've seen towns with 50 people have articles. Why don't yall try to make the article better — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RjTa0m3Yu10D (
talk •
contribs) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually, I beg to differ. It is not a city, but a hotel. If there was a Wikipedia page for EVERY hotel, Wikipedia would become a travel agency, not a encyclopedia. As it is, there is no major press coverage or any warrant for there to be any notability. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) P.S.... THose news articles you provided are from 2003/2004 and make no specific refrence to "ChampionsGate." // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // reply
Its not a hotel,its a place people live (few hundred) .There are articles on this site for many communities (even sections of towns). Orlando Sentinel is a notable paper. Do you think that Ernston New Jersey is notable too?? It's staying — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RjTa0m3Yu10D (
talk •
contribs) 02:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
If you can find solid evidence to prove your claims (a census report, a news report, etc.), then you would prove your claim valid and the article would no longer be considered for deletion. However, as of now you have failed to provide solid evidence as to the notability of this 'community.' // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // —Preceding
undated comment added 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The information in your first link says that there is no census information available, and the information from 'realtor.com' is just an estimate. 114 people is out of the 26, 116 people in the
Four Corners area; there is already a Wikipedia article on the apparently unincorporated area. There is no way that every community of 114 people has to have a Wikipedia article, and I still think you have failed to show the significance. Perhaps the best we can do is merge it into the article on Four Corners, but at that point someone has to add at least 50 more sections, and I don't think that would be you. Not every golf course deserves an encyclopedia page. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The census is done every 10 years starting in 1970. Unless there's something I don't know about, there is no such thing as the 2015 U.S. Census // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry but this article is staying. Brownville (a section in Old Bridge), Sayrewood South (a section in Old Bridge have articles and they have no census for them either. I am sick of you people deleting everyone's articles. Championsgate has people living there. There was a 2015 census there too. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RjTa0m3Yu10D (
talk •
contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Warning: The following contains opinion: The creator's rationalle for keeping the page is almost the same as saying "over 100 people visit my local Walmart everyday... there has to be an article for that!" This is flawed logic. There are over 34k golf courses in the world, 45% of them are in the United States. Has Tiger Woods played there? How about Arnold Palmer? This would be an entirely different discussion if they have, but it would also be an entirely different article. The article itself fails to mention why it's notable, and the article creator can't produce any other reason than "people live there." Delete is my vote. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) // 03:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
/info/en/?search=Ernston,_New_Jersey One last try, Ernston New Jersey is a NEIGHBORHOOD and it has an article, it past many smell tests to get where it is ,what makes Ernston more notable than Championsgate. Maybe consider merging Championsgate into Four Corners article?? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RjTa0m3Yu10D (
talk •
contribs) 03:27, 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 Delete.Michig (
talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm struggling to see how this actor/singer meets
WP:GNG criteria. None of the film roles are major, while her band self-released an album which does not seem to have achieved any success. None of the biographical information is sourced (the info about the band is cited to a press release). A very large chunk was added by a PR company. Time to decide whether this one stays or goes...
Sionk (
talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete As per nom. I don't think she passes
WP:GNG and no reliable sources available either.
Theroadislong (
talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not independently notable for sure and with no better signs of improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Those 2 sources for whole biography article are not trustful for me and actress is not known among public.
Itsyoungrapper (
talk) 14:21, 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.
Delete Per
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we do not normally keep articles about run-of-the-mill middle schools. The article is unreferenced and states that the school is closed. Although I would not object to a redirect, I see no obvious target.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirecting schools that aren't independently notable to the school district article seems like a pretty standard outcome here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:48, 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:48, 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 delete.
Sam Walton (
talk) 00:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. Negligible biographical content. Only independent reliable sourcing relates to her marriage to her notable husband, falling afould of WP:NOTINHERITED.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 16:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Penthouse Pets - Without having done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, it seems like a redirect would be the best course of action at this time.
Guy1890 (
talk) 03:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete fails the notability guidelines for pornographic actirs.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Comes up short on GNG with most RS coverage primarily being about Nacho Vidal.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:30, 22 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
WP:BASEBALL/N: He just graduated from high school, never actually played college or professional baseball, and does not have substantial coverage from multiple independent sources. The only remotely substantial article is the USA Today website one, because he was "Gatorade State Baseball Player of the Year" for Illinois, whatever that is. The other sources are mass-generated statistics pages or his family's own output.
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. (Also, per
WP:BDP, I'm removing the Death section, which consists only of a claim with a dead reference and an unsourced claim.) --
Closeapple (
talk) 06:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Comes no where near passing notability requirements for baseball.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable baseball player.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 23:28, 24 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.Michig (
talk) 12:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Can't see the person's notability per
WP:BIO. Authoring a few little-known books? Having translated Quran? Having students who published books? kashmiriTALK 21:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The person doesn't appear to be notable as a figure with a legacy in South Asian religious studies.
MezzoMezzo (
talk) 04:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Googled for "abdul qadeer siddiqui" -wikipedia; 0 news hits and found only 1 short mention in
a book (... Abdul Qadeer Siddiqui, the head of the Islamic Studies Department at the Osmania University, ...) Trying "abdul qadir siddiqui" got me more hits, including more junk hits but also this
this (Maulana Abdul Qadir Siddiqui, formerly Professor of Theology in the Osmania University, is not only a practical Sufi, but also a noted thinker. Meyar-al-Kalam (The Standard of Kalam) and the Hikamte-a-Islamia (The Philosophy of Islam) are his original contributions to Islamic thought (...?)) and
this snippet view (... Moulvi Abdul Qadir Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic Theology and Religion in the Osmania University, ...). Really pushing the "significant coverage" criterium here, but who knows what that second source has to tell beyond the snippet view. -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 07:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the second source found by HaperGaruda. That alone does not establish notability, but calling him a "noted thinker" in an English-language publication suggests to me that there are probably other (undigitized, Urdu-language) sources covering him. --
Cerebellum (
talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I believe two cursory mentions in two 1940s books, with no single mention afterwards, are rather a strong indication of lack of notability. If that person was indeed a notable scholar, he would have been the subject of many publications, in India and abroad, in the half a century passed since his death. Note that
WP:NPERSON explicitely requires significant coverage. kashmiriTALK 21:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: You might like to know that that source specifically states "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online" -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 19:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now perhaps as I would've also said reluctant keep at this time but there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement which the article seriously needs.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete dues to lack of coverage in reliable sources. The article links to a few websites, but the ones that aren't dead links are not reliable sources. The only GBooks hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors.
Edward321 (
talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show notability. For someone who other sources quote as being a "noted thinker" - a few hits on Scholar (if it is the same person), with Zero citations.
Onel5969TT me 13:55, 23 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Not notable. The refs look impressive, but most of them really stretching it. Some are merely notices of funding. Some are press releases; some are self-serving interviews with the ceo. And some are so trivial as the ceo having been given an award as "Entrepreneur of the Year in Financial Services for Orange County. " DGG (
talk ) 20:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think the Orange County award is due to it being based in Newport Beach. It looks like the award is actually a regional award from Ernst & Young
[16]. However, that's still not good enough to establish notability. I did find several references outside of what was in the article. There are some about acquisitions and some about funding, but there are also many that talk indepth about the company
[17],
[18],
paragraph in WSJ. Here is the news section on the company website which should help keeping it straight from other "United Capital" companies out there
[19]. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 21:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - On a side note, the tone of the article pretty much falls in the promotional category so I would suggest a gutting or rewording of most of the content. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 22:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, per nom. Too many passing mentions and routine listings. I have also nominated
Financial life management for deletion (
here), because the phrase appears to be used exclusively as branding by the company. There might be a connection.
Grayfell (
talk) 22:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now but restart later if needed as I haven't looked closely but I'm not seeing anything convincingly better.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Albeit weak, a couple of sources used are iffy and it's littered with puffery. Satisfies WP:GNG imo though but not written well at all currently. Suggest cutting all the over-substantiation.
Jppcap (
talk) 22:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:54, 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 delete--
Ymblanter (
talk) 09:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BIO as I am unable to find any substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources.
SmartSE (
talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete As per nominator.
isfutile:P (
talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment needs local research, possibly in Hindi papers. There is certainly coverage. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC).reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not independently notable at this time with no better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete minor businessman with nothing making him notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:25, 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. Whereas the church is most likely notable, given that the article is almost empty and had copyvio from the first version (which needed to be revdeleted), it is safer to delete it. Everybody is welcome to start the article all over again.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 09:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
SNOW Delete Exactly why I PROD it, but you removed the PROD to nominate for discussion. Anyway I still think Delete. Creator seems to be related to the church too.
Legacypac (
talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly fails GNG and SIGCOV. Obviously copied from a "History of..." or similar.
DerbyCountyinNZ(
TalkContribs) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have deleted the copyvio text, it's so blatant that it can't stay there. That does not of itself mean that the church is not notable or could not have a decently-cited article, just that this bit of copying is not it.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 20:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- all we have now is a list of clergy, none of whom have articles: clearly NN.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment article as created was indeed a copy-and-paste from curch's website, probably by a well-intentioned parishoner. However, the church's 1902 building is old, by
Aotearoa standards. It was given to a daughter parish, moved to a nearby town, then, when that parish merged back into St. Philip's, the 1902 building was given to a Maori congregation which, form what I can tell , still uses it. In other words, From all I can see, the original St. Philip's building is notable. With all the changes of name (of both parishes and towns that morphed into suburbs, and municipal boundaries) plus the fact that the building is called by all names of parishes, locations, and whatnot in sundry sources, I don't have time to deal with it. Hope someone in Auckland will. Cheers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 21:21, 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.
Doesn't meet
Wikipedia:Notability (people). No notability is asserted as far as I can see. Three sources, two of which are primary. The only non-primary source is a review from someone who doesn't appear to be notable. --Kethrus |
talk to me 12:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Dempsey, Dianne (12 April 2008), "Desire", The Age
Carton, Donna (6 August 2006), "I was a NUN for 12 years... but left the convent to become a PROSTITUTE", The Sunday Mirror
Beament, Emily (29 July 2006), "Warts and all true story", Birmingham Post
"Books: AUTOBIOGRAPHY", Coventry Evening Telegraph, 22 July 2006
"Frank tale from nun and prostitute", Leicester Mercury, 19 July 2006
Millington, Ruby (7 July 2006), "Memoirs of a madam and a sex-worker nun", The Daily Express
Dempsey, Dianne (3 April 2004), "MEMOIR", The Age
Gill, Harbant (27 March 2004), "Beyond belief", Herald-Sun
Miraudo, Nadia (7 March 2004), "Spiritual journey from nun to callgirl", Sunday Times (Perth)
Clark, Lucy (27 March 2004), "Troubled path of a confused soul", Sunday Telegraph
Laurie, Victoria (21 February 2004), "Sister Double Act", The Australian Magazine
Simpson, Gavin (2 August 2003), "God's call girl.", The West Australian
Those with access can get more from AustLit
eg. Enough for GNG.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 10:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 05:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
delete would WP:BLP1E apply here. She is only known for one thing.
LibStar (
talk) 05:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
No it doesn't apply. A book is not an event. Coverage around that first book was maintained over an extended period, from over six months before it's release to years afterwards. She has coverage for more than one book. She maintained a profile to help publicise her books and for her work as a "counsellor, speaker and workshop leader" ("Carla shares lifes lessons", Comment News, 13 May 2008).
duffbeerforme (
talk) 07:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Another review of her second book -- Elder, Bruce (13 May 2008), "In short Nonfiction", The Sydney Morning Herald
Her first book has clearly "won significant critical attention"
WP:AUTHOR and has sold over 300,000 copies.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 07:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Notable as an author. I don't generally support using the GNG when it yields a result opposed to common sense, but it certainly does have a major role, as it does here, where it supports a common-sense decision in contrast to various quibbles,such as an attempt to extend BLP1E way beyond its intended meaning. DGG (
talk ) 03:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep generally our AUTHOR and similar guidelines are constructed to more or less consider coverage of works of a writer/artist as coverage of the artist, the topics tend to be pretty intermingled. (One can see AUTHOR as a reframing of GNG rather than an exception to it. In any case, that's been our usual practice.) DGG's comments on BLP1E are also on-point. Sources provided by Duffbearforme appear sufficient. --
joe deckertalk 06:51, 28 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. The sources have been debunked and that hasnt been challenged. The keep arguments amount to assertion and there is a refusal to bring specific sources forward for examination. On that basis the delete argument is stronger but im willing to userfy.
SpartazHumbug! 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Non-notable Indian compliance service provider, SPA-article. Sources are press releases, promotional marketing articles, and a few passing mentions as event organisators and interviewees. Article contains a lot of puffery and self-serving "we explain our vision" quotes (which could be fixed of course, if it was the only issue). Google search shows no other suitable sources for independent in-depth coverage.
GermanJoe (
talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I'm seeing a good deal of secondary source coverage amongst multiple references. Article itself may require cleanup and NPOV fixes, but topic itself is notable. — Cirt (
talk) 05:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Cirt: Could you provide some examples of independent in-depth coverage about the organization please? I checked the current sources:
ref #1 appears to be self-written by the company founder (EP usually attributes own articles, this one starts with "Vishal Kedia ... informs that ...")
ref #2 is not accessible, but looks like an interview (which may contain additional independent coverage or not, impossible to tell)
ref #3 is a passing mention (interview quote)
ref #4 is a larger copy of ref #3, with 1 more interview sentence from the founder
ref #5 is not about the company, the organization is only mentioned in passing (and INVC accepts reader-contributed articles)
ref #6 is a self-written PR article (see the last 2 paragraphs)
ref #7 is a probably self-written summary for one of their own events (non-neutral language, site publishes reader-submitted articles, no author).
There is really not much independent coverage here, but maybe I am overlooking some other sources.
GermanJoe (
talk) 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 17:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as per
Cirt, references don't have to be in the article (though it's helpful) to show that there's GNG.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment (as nom) - I have now researched possible new sources for the third time with no success, and looked closely into several of the offered Google news results and other possible references. I did a lengthy
WP:BEFORE check and a complete source check.
Cirt,
Megalibrarygirl, could you please provide 2 or 3 specific examples for this alleged independent in-depth coverage, with more than just passing mentions or self-written statements from the founder? Based on the currently available sources, both in the article and online, this promotional article (written by a company employee by the way) fails to meet
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG.
GermanJoe (
talk) 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now until a better article can be made.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cirt. Needs a rewrite but the writers on Wikipedia are stretched thin! (I'll do it, but only if there's a guarantee it won't be deleted!) --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree with Onel5969's suggestion. If other sources really exist - although none of the contributors here have provided any specific examples after several requests -, working on the article in draft or userspace may be a reasonable outcome (see also the current
WP:VPP discussion about "AfD culture", which might be relevant here).
GermanJoe (
talk) 17:29, 29 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.
Subject does not appear to be notable. Searching "Antoine de La Fosse" on Google Books appeared to largely come up with editions of his works; on News, Scholar, and Web Search, nothing useful that I could see. I also couldn't see anything searching "Antoine de La Fosse" on jstor.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 17:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: While one would scarcely guess from the sub-stub article (unless one takes the hint to look at the French Wikipedia article), the subject does seem to be just about notable as a playwright and poet - even if his reputation seems to rest mostly on just one play and one or two translations. But the play seems to have been popular for a century or so, the subject still gets entries in specialist but selective reference works (
this and
this, for instance), and
this monograph focusses on the play at some length.
PWilkinson (
talk) 00:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Sam Sailor:: excellent work. The sources you found seem to conclusively demonstrate that my inability to find useful sources was user error, not lack of notability. There's also much more to work with for future editors, which is an excellent outcome all around.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 15:24, 22 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.
Subject fails
WP:NACTOR, as they have played only minor roles so far.
WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Subject maybe mentioned in the personal life section of his father's article:
Lester EllisJimCarter 19:15, 24 October 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, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - notability not established.
GiantSnowman 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as an improvable stub on a person who meets
WP:GNG and whose easily sourcable career meets
WP:ENT: Major character Mitchell in all six episodes of Ja'mie: Private School Girl, major character Johnny Tedesco in Fat Tony & Co., as Bryce Ridley in Wentworth Prison, major character Pete in all episodes of Nowhere Boys, and most recently as Joe in Downriver. Had his work been minor character roles such as "third man" or "student" or "man with newspaper", I might agree that WP:ENT was not met, but that is not the case. The
inexperienced contributor
Alicialivia could be encouraged to add the available sources to avoid scrutiny in the future... as sourcable
notability is assured. This stub needs attention, not deletion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
(READ IT) WP:ENT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THERE MUST BE 200 EPISODES (OR ANY NUMBER OF THEM) IN ORDER FOR A NOTABLE SERIES TO BE DETERMINABLE AS NOTABLE OR THAT THERE MUST BE SOME MINIMUM NUMBER OF EPISODES BEFORE A MAJOR ROLE CAN BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT. WOW INDEED.!!!! Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
MichaelQSchmidt While the burden was not mine but I felt the need to fix the article, I did what I could, maybe a bit hasty, a copyedit might require. I'm still worried that the subject may fail
WP:ENT, the roles are pretty minor except "Ja'mie: Private School Girl", which may or may not be enough to make the article pass
WP:ENT. However, this article may pass our general notability threshold. Pinging
GiantSnowman and
SwisterTwister to get more opinions. On a different note, Michael, your comment really looks exaggerated, please avoid capitalizing every word, it doesn't looks good. :) JimCarter 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Jim Carter It was capitalized only in response to someone doing it to me right above it. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
delete no evidence of in-depth roles to meet WP:ENT.
LibStar (
talk) 07:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep had a major role in one series,has potential
46.208.73.116 (
talk) 21:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Even with the current improvements, I'm simply still not seeing enough convincing and IMDb especially summarizes his career well; not yet notable but feel welcome to restart the article when better solid.
SwisterTwistertalk 21:39, 20 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 no consensus.
Michig (
talk) 09:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The article does not establish Tandon is
notable. There is no significant coverage of Tandon in reliable sources; conversely, the article's content largely is not based on the provided sources. A Google News search found some celebrity gossip in the Times of India, but nothing significant enough to base an article on.
Huon (
talk) 19:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Then it should be easy to provide the references that discuss her in some detail. I tried to find some and failed. You're welcome to prove me wrong.
Huon (
talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now unless this can actually be improved as I'm simply not seeing enough to convince me keeping (News and browser instantly found links but nothing convincing and IMDb was also not convincing).
SwisterTwistertalk 04:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Saumya Tandon is a very very popular television personality in India. She is currently playing the leading role in a very popular television series
Bhabhi Ji Ghar Par Hai! on a top Hindi language entertainment channel,
&tv. If that is not notable, what is? I have no clue how this nomination came to pass.
Crackjack (
talk) 18:41, 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 19:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless better sources can be offered. I found a few articles in Times of India and Hindustan Times
[26],
[27],
[28], but only the first one is substantial, and barely so.
LaMona (
talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:17, 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 no consensus. The article needs some serious attention. There is certainly great room for improvements. If the issues remain and if the state of the article does not change, it can always be renominated. (
non-admin closure) Yash! 06:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Although this person seems to be doing interesting work, I don't think he passes
wp:academics. No named chair, no awards that I can find, and his academic writings are cited a couple of dozen times only.
LaMona (
talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: The subject might be notable - his
h-index, according to Google Scholar, is only about 7 but that actually seems to be quite high for law academics. But, while it might be very weakly suggestive of notability, what it mainly establishes is that citation rates are an ineffective way to prove notability for law academics. Again, the
California Innocence Project, which he apparently founded and leads, seems to be genuinely notable. But while I am seeing the possibility of the subject's notability, it is disappointing to find that the article does absolutely nothing to help establish the subject's notability, while doing everything it can to promote him - references all seem to be either to the subject or to organisations closely connected with him (sometimes OK for verifiability, almost never directly for notability) and we are given external inline links to websites connected with the subject when Wikipedia articles could be linked to instead. The article would therefore require a thorough rewrite to establish notability - other people are welcome to try, but I can't be bothered.
PWilkinson (
talk) 20:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment My grounds for deletion are not related to notability or lack thereof. I believe this is
WP:SPAM which reads in part Articles considered advertisements include those that ... are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. I don't want to be
WP:OUTING anyone but a quick Google search convinced me that the main contributor has a close personal connection to the subject.
SageGreenRider (
talk) 22:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep he is clearly notable, not as an academic per se, but for his innocence project work and getting innocent people out of prison. Clearly meets GNG. --JumpLike23(talk) 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep He's notable. I searched Google News and the Google Newspaper archive, adding "Innocence Project" to the search terms. There are dozens of articles describing his legal work. Of course, the article ought to have more independent sources and would benefit from work by uninvolved editors. Our guideline against spam is intended to eliminate "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." I do not see the article as purely a "public relations piece."
Cullen328Let's discuss it 00:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:12, 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 no consensus. The article has been improved since nominated. If the issues that support deletion still remain, this can always be renominated. (
non-admin closure) Yash! 06:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Non-notable individual. Does not meet
WP:GNG. Does not have significant coverage across multiple
WP:RSZpeopleheart (
talk) 20:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete No RS, not much information at all. Only one day old, but if editor is serious this should be done in draft space.
LaMona (
talk) 19:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep appear to meet notability criteria. I have updated the article - he is cited in NZ and Australian media, is well published, and holds a signficant academic position. The initial article did not do him credit
NealeFamily (
talk) 02:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The way the article now stands, there's enough evidence for notability. Schwede66 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |
Talk 00:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep As per WP:ATD editing to improve the page is preferable to deletion. The examples added in show that with editing the page can make the cut.
Markpackuk (
talk) 12:58, 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 Speedy delete g7, author requested deletion on article talk page.
NawlinWiki (
talk) 21:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
No evidence of any notability. All the artist refs are Wikipedia articles. Two other refs are own web-sites and another is a very local source to Cedar Falls. Nothing here anywhere close to
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Evidence of Notability - Request before article completion. Assistance from WP to properly cite and create reference. Citations updated. Edits to correct- still learning cite, systems and abbreviations. Notability is referenced and cited. Need wp assistance. Updated since find source request- added- updated third party sourced. Categorized — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kristay2017 (
talk •
contribs) 20:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is my very first wikipedia article so I am learning as I post. I have taken my time, updating it daily as I do more research. New cites from third party sources addedreply
Delete unless better third-party can actually be found as I found nothing.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Notability sourced- with reference, link, cites. - Requested before article completion. Assistance from WP to properly cite and create reference. Citations updated. Edits to correct- still learning cite, systems and abbreviations. Notability is referenced and cited. Need wp assistance. Updated since find source request- added- updated. Categorized. ```` — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kristay2017 (
talk •
contribs) 20:37, 19 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.