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 above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom. Fails
WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Anotherclown (
talk) 02:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, I live just up the road from this and wasn't aware. Textbook
WP:MADEUP case, as shown by the lack of reliable coverage.
Lankiveil(
speak to me) 13:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC).reply
Delete the supposed micronation's website clearly demonstrates this is all tongue-in-cheek. This could maybe justify a sentence in the
Wynnum, Queensland article, but certainly not the basis for an article. Maybe redirect to an anchor point in
List of micronations.
Aspirex (
talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Deletehaving declared independence in 2014 - we must have missed it!
Epistemos (
talk) 02:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Someone could add a line about this to the parent particle, but I think that's about the best we can do until there's more coverage.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 10:17, 1 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.
Self-published books (
1) and sources(
2 which I removed from page), fails WP:AUTHOR. Please note, "Edizioni Giuseppe Laterza" is not the famous "Laterza Editore" but a lucky homonym.
Vituzzu (
talk) 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing to indicate notability per
WP:AUTHOR.
clpo13(
talk) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Per both
WP:AUTHOR and
WP:GNG. I found
this source (translated to English), but it doesn't appear to be a secondary source - it looks to be either hosted by the person's publisher, maybe
original research? The only source I found that I could assert to be
secondary is
this one (again, translated), which is fine and dandy but it doesn't cover the area that makes the person notable. It also doesn't establish significant coverage with this author, which is required to asset
notability.
~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 17:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not finding anything that would show notability. Admittedly, my knowledge of the world of poetry in modern Italy is vague. There is mention of a poetry prize from Viareggio - apparently a well-known prize, but he was put forth as a candidate, he did not win.
[1]LaMona (
talk) 03:51, 1 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. Perhaps redirect somewhere or recreate as a dab, but this might need more discussion. Sandstein 06:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Why just constructed language? More often it means something else; see
here,
here, etc.
Boris Tsirelson (
talk) 06:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete.Redirect to
Scientific programming language. This is just the article creator's definition. I was tempted to suggest redirecting to
Academic writing, but it's not quite the same thing, and that article doesn't appear to be all that great itself.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This seems to be original research or inaccurate, unless sources are cited.
Scientific programming language was at this title for seven years until moved recently to be replaced by this article; this title should be redirected to that article (moved without discussion, but the new title is an improvement) or made into a disambiguation page.
Peter James (
talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Sounds good to me. There are enough references to the programming meaning.
[2][3] I'm changing my lvote.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
How strange. True, a programmer, in professional context, can say "language" instead of "programming language", and "scientific language" instead of "scientific programming language". But this is marginal, isn't it? In most cases, "scientific language" is used for the language of science. Two links were given by me; for more, just google "scientific language".
Boris Tsirelson (
talk) 15:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I agree with Tsirel's point.
Andrew D. (
talk) 15:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete the ideas currently floating about seem mistaken as they are not the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A fresh start would be better than such confusion.
Andrew D. (
talk) 09:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
There's also an article
Scientific writing, and the primary meaning of "scientific language" is probably a subtopic of that. Disambiguate?
Peter James (
talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Similar to the difference between
academia and
science, some overlap but different topics; merging would result in a more complete (still unbalanced and inadequately sourced) article, but most of the
academic writing article is unlikely to have much relevance to scientific writing.
Peter James (
talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Wow... I was naively thinking that "academic" = "scientific" :-)
Boris Tsirelson (
talk) 20:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: A short stub that seems to be a little-used umbrella term for two topics witht heir own article. Maybe it would just be easier to put in a "see also" on constructed language and conlang.
RailwayScientist (
talk) 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails gng and pornbio. Nominations no longer count as although the case is made in the article that she passes pb#3 she does not get credited in imbd or our own articles for the priductions she is claimed to have appeared in.
SpartazHumbug! 21:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - well known, 16!!!x interwiki, many nominations to awards. Penthouse Pet and also modeled for other men's magazines, including
Perfect 10 and the UK magazine
Men's World. Capelli had a recurring role on the television series
Battle Dome and has appeared mainstream feature films such as
Van Wilder and
Not Another Teen Movie. Notable. This AfD is ridiculous. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete er the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Penthouse Pets - I don't know that the subject here ever actually appeared on the TV show Battle Dome or not, and she apparently had mostly (if not exclusively) minor roles in the mainstream films that she appeared in. A redirect appears to be the best choice for this article at this time.
Guy1890 (
talk) 05:02, 4 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. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources.
• Gene93k (
talk) 21:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - well known, 13x interwiki, many nominations to awards. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Subtropical-man. If the number of interwiki links is really important, then we should respect the consensus against inclusion, since more than 250 other wikis do not have an article.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 00:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - won of award, many nominations of award, well known, 15x interwiki, Rios was featured in the music video for Mark Ronson's 2003 debut single "Ooh Wee", playing the part of singer Nate Dogg's girlfriend.[9] She also had a non-speaking role as a stripper in an episode of FOX's 2003 television series Skin.[9] Rios has hosted radio shows for KSEXradio and Playboy Radio and TV shows for the Spice Channel and Playboy TV. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - As stunning as she is unfortunately looks don't count towards notability, per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails GNG with only passing mentions in independent reliable media. Porn trade press coverage appears to be republished press releases.
• Gene93k (
talk) 22:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:41, 8 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. Fails PORNBIO with listed award wins; no claims made to iconic or groundbreaking status.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 14:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The article seems to fulfil the
WP:PORNBIO criteria adequately. Rhodes appeared in a very large number of films in the 2000s and was named in the titles of several of them (e.g.: "Virtual Sex with Alicia Rhodes", " When Layla Jade Met Alicia Rhodes"). She also won a number of non-scene awards (e.g.: best actress, female performer of the year) and made regular appearances on digital TV.
Polly Tunnel (
talk) 13:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - As stunning as she is unfortunately looks don't count towards notability, per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails PORNBIO particularly because her UKAFTA award was for a video that doesn't exist. The UKAFTA is notoriously insignificant, and at least one award recipient is open about the fact that his "honor" was bought-and-paid-for.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 22:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Whatever one thinks about the
UK Adult Film and Television Awards, the award in question there was a scene award that doesn't qualify under the current PORNBIO standards. The other apparent award win is for a simple online poll in a website's user forum.
Guy1890 (
talk) 05:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I'm simply not seeing any better improvement. Pinging other tagger
MrX.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I found three sources, but the coverage is slight and not biographical. Fails
WP:BASIC.-
MrX 11:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
delete fails WP:BIO. Completely minor role.
LibStar (
talk) 09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails gng and pornbio. Howard stern interviews are not going t get you over the gng and the new york post articles mentions her in passing.
SpartazHumbug! 21:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete/redirect more or less per Esquivalience. That's the standard outcome for Pets who don't otherwise meet PORNBIO or the GNG. Fewer than half the Pets of the year have individual articles, and even some Playmates of the year have been redirected to Playmate lists.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 03:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Penthouse Pets - While I am still not willing to concede that being a Penthouse Pet of the Year is non-notable, it still appears (since the last AfD on this subject just last month) that the best option at this time for this article would be to redirect it.
Guy1890 (
talk) 01:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect - Seems the norm for these so may aswell be redirected. –
Davey2010Talk 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails gng and pornbio. Being interviewed is primary and doesnt count. Being a columnist doesnt count unless someone writes about your content and being nominated does not count anymore
SpartazHumbug! 21:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Article easily meets both
WP:GNG and
WP:PORNBIO. It is well sourced. The nomination for AFD is questionable.
MarnetteD|
Talk 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This AfD his hardly questionable. I'm undecided, but the subject fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. Several of the porn trade sources appear to be republished press releases. However, notability per
WP:CREATIVE may be claimed.
• Gene93k (
talk) 18:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article clearly details that she is more than just a performer. For starters, she co-founded several notable companies, some of which have either won awards for their films (
Sweetheart Video,
Sweet Sinner) or have won awards themselves as a company (
Girl Candy Films). Also, "being a columnist doesn't count unless someone writes about your content"...is this a guideline? Erpertblah, blah, blah... 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The relevant [
guideline doesn't give credit for being a published columnist
SpartazHumbug! 20:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So you mentioned a guideline that doesn't prove your point? Anyway, point #3 of that guideline clearly states: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", which she indeed passes. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - per argument by Erpert and MarnetteD. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The two sources are aabout people being prosecuted in error not this person. Therefore does not pass pornbio or gng
SpartazHumbug! 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
She has been very active in anti-pornography prosecution, this has made her notable — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
104.194.99.125 (
talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It has not just been one trial, it has bee at least 5 US trials and one UK. This pattern of activism has made her notable. Her physical attributes are also very relevant , since this is what has lead to the prosecution in the first place.
UPDATE - edit warring?
Somebody is removing productive edits on this page in an unproductive fashion.
I added well documented discussion of her activism in preventing overzealous porn prosecution in conservative districts. These can still be seen in previous version of the page. I documented it with bona fide and highly reliable sources - legitimate newspapers such as the Guardian, and US court documents, which are both public records and highly reliable and verifiable. This is a demonstration of her notability; she is well known as an activist in this regard. her notability had been in dispute, and this addressed that issue.
I would revert these edits removing this, but i don't want to contribute to edit warring, so I will wait a few days. in the mean time, I am posting this to stimulate discussion, and allow the individual who did this to explain why these highly documented, neutral objective, and verifiable discussionof her notable activism in this area should be removed. (Assuming it wasn't just vandalism, which i don think so, but is a possibility too)
Delete per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 20:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom'a accurate assessment. Only claim of notability is being caught up in a non-notable prosecution, and that's not enough to sustain a BLP.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 11:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
This is unsubstantiated, and seems to be a willful mispresentation of the facts: it is not "a" non-notable prosecution. It is at least 6, 5 in the US and one in the UK - TWO countries. They ARE notable - they received wide press coverage as documented by prominent newspaper coverage.
Who decides notability? A single user (Mr Wolfowitz)? The facts, should speak louder than the unsubstantiated (and incorrect in significant aspects) opinion of one user who provided no justification — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
104.194.99.125 (
talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I have no interest in Christian music, but a few minutes of Google searching convinced me that the subject is notable. Apparently Peck has received multiple Grammy nominations, there's an
Allmusic bio which can be used to confirm many of the statements in the article, as well as an
album review of one of her Grammy-nominated albums,
half a page in The Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music, other awards and noms (
[4],
[5]), a
page in the book This Is My Story: 146 of the World's Greatest Gospel Singers, coverage in
Stories Behind the Traditions and Songs of Easter, and
another book, included in
Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, a
review on Billboard, a
brief news item from Billboard. Convincing enough to establish notability, and quite frankly anyone else should have been able to find all this. --
Michig (
talk) 08:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
keep there is enough coverage
[6] to support an article, although the article needs major improvement.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:27, 4 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,
this and
this. It's also questionably whether this place still exists as the two websites are now closed and because it seems it was bought in 2012 and may have been changed. Pinging past user
Iselilja and medical users
Drchriswilliams and
Doc James and I'm also not sure whether Indian users
Yash!,
Sanskari,
Human3015,
SpacemanSpiff and
AusLondonder can comment.
SwisterTwistertalk 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Shalby Hospital. Actually this hospital does existed,
This Times of India news tells all story of the hospital. It seems hospital was notable when existed but now it has been sold to
Shalby Hospital since 2012. It was first luxury corporate hospital of Ahmedabad. --
Human3015TALK 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -
I have tried to improve the condition of the article. The hospital is quite notable and deserves to have a separate article. It was the first corporate hospital in the state and has performed a massive number of procedures. After being acquired, the name of the institute doesn't seem to have changed and it still operates under the name of Krishna Hospital. The hospital is functional and still one of the prominent hospitals in the state. The hospital has received enough recognition and is historically significant. Yash! 05:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Thanks for the ping. The institute seems notable in its own right. An organisation does not cease to be notable when it ceases to exist. An encyclopaedia is timeless.
AusLondonder (
talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keepI added a second article from the Times of India, to help towards having some
WP:CORPDEPTH. Because Many of the other sources that have been used are self-published, there were many recently added parts of the article that had a heavily promotional tone, so I have made copy edits to attempt to address this.
Drchriswilliams (
talk) 13:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It turned out that the reference I added was, in fact relating to a different hospital. More source reliable sources are needed to establish
WP:CORPDEPTHDrchriswilliams (
talk) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: After recent development in article I will change my !vote to keep. Even in my first comment I said hospital was notable when existed. But even if it is ceased to exist still as AusLondener said article can be kept on it. Also article has been improved. --
Human3015TALK 15:37, 1 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.
Doesnt appear to npass pornbio or gng. The only proper source is a local news interview so counts as a primary source which doees not count to notability.
SpartazHumbug! 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - well known, 12x interwiki, several nominations to awards, Penthouse Pet, appeared on
The Howard Stern Show. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award nominations. Fails GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Citations in the article are low quality or passing mentions. Independent searches yield only passing mentions. As for
Subtropical-man's keep rationale, we've been through all this before. Penthouse Pets are not inherently notable. Appearing on Howard Stern doesn't establish notability. And inclusion elsewhere on Wikipedia is laughable.
• Gene93k (
talk) 18:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - As stunning as she is unfortunately looks don't count towards notability, per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Penthouse Pets - While I haven't done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, the best option at this time appears to be a redirect.
Guy1890 (
talk) 06:08, 4 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 nominator JohnInDC's rationale. Nicely said. Unless and until continuing significant coverage is established, content may find a home in either of the two 2015 season articles for the Noles and Jackets and the Jackets-Noles rivalry article.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 00:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
2015 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team#Game summaries with any useful content being moved to the latter location. Since there is some useful content, it would be best if someone transfers it to the season article before this AfD closes.
Cbl62 (
talk) 14:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete no sources cited shows me that the article is incomplete and should be removed at this point. If sources come online then we could evaluate them for notability.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I have added some references from CNN Travel, Huffington Post, IBTimes. Much more coverage can be found in Thai national newspaper websites (Bangkok Post, The Nation). I have also deleted the original references which are unrelated to this article. --
Lerdsuwa (
talk) 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Most educational and encyclopedic. Thanks to
Lerdsuwa for the improvements, much appreciated. — Cirt (
talk) 04:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy close as keep The smell of advertising is still there but at least it is now based on reliable sources (that I did not find) The Bannertalk 10:13, 1 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 Fails NBOX and GNG since there's a lack of significant independent coverage. I question the independence of a local paper that claims he is widely regarded as the best heavyweight fighter in the world.
Mdtemp (
talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with the previous comments and reasons. The article labeled as "Switzerland honours Arnold Gjergjaj" is a bit misleading--the Swiss town of 15,000 inhabitants where he lives gave him an award. He may became a notable boxer (under WP guidelines), but he's not there yet.
Papaursa (
talk) 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Close but no cigar. If there's just one more good piece of info, then it probably qualifies.
Tippex for the soul (
talk) 16:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Every day AfD warnings are stuck on new user accounts as their welcome to Wikipedia. This one, however, is my favorite so far. Not only is there zero mention of this AfD on the creators talk page, there's no welcome, no talk. And they've been here since October 18th!!! Well, done! --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Supposed future beauty pageant with no date, no venue and zero sources. Search for sources gets only a Facebook page. A check of blue-linked contestants makes me suspect this is a hoax.
WP:V failure.
• Gene93k (
talk) 19:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
delete Indeed no serious sources on Google, looks like a hoax. There is not even an article about the parent
Miss Grand Universe. The Bannertalk 19:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
strong delete: if this were a real event, one would expect to be able to find some source reporting on the crowning last year of the alleged incumbent. No such luck. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ) 20:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 21:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete No top tier fights so he fails to meet
WP:NMMA.
Papaursa (
talk) 20:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:TOOSOON. His first top tier fight is scheduled for next year in the UFC. Coverage is routine sports reporting so fails GNG.
Mdtemp (
talk) 15:40, 3 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. This is the first time it's been created, salting seems like overkill.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
A clear case for delete, but salting the title may not be necessary if someone explains to the article creator why the last page was deleted (and this one almost certainly will be as well), namely that it fails to meet the
notability standard /
golden rule. I see no reason to assume this isn't just a case of a new editor not understanding the relevant policies. And I'll take it upon myself to do the explaining. —
GrammarFascistcontribstalk 23:29, 31 October 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 claimed but not demonstrated. Much of the material available online is from Amazon, blogs, social media and the like. Aside from the fact that the article reads like an advertisement, I do not believe that the subject satisfies
WP:NARTIST or
WP:GNG. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 18:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails GNG and NARTIST. I could find nothing of substance about the subject. The article creator improperly removed a {{blpprod}} I had placed earlier when there were no sources at all
[7]. Still not even one
reliable source in the article.
JbhTalk 19:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable, the claim of being "considered one of Americas best portrait photographers" is clearly false. There's no news articles on her at all (as far as I can see). --Kethrus |
talk to me 17:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: could be a
G11. Speedy deleted multiple times from eswiki going back to 2010.
Vrac (
talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
A Facebook page with 8 likes, plus one columnist's opinion does not warrant an article to be created on the US presidential election.
Cahk (
talk) 18:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
There are thousands of articles about this. I just cherrypicked two examples. I contest this deletion. --
ßlaïsi Furstqurzel (
talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTBLOG among many others. It can be fun for people to speculate about an impossibility like this but WikiP is not the place to do that.
MarnetteD|
Talk 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per all the above.
BMK (
talk) 20:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Also noted: article creator has been indeffed for trolling.
[8]BMK (
talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, per the above logic. This is essentially speculation.
/wia/tlk/cntrb 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - not only speculation, but trivial, silly and obscure speculation. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 22:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Just speculation at this point, is next to impossible considering how their views differ a lot on many issues.
ShadowDragon343 (
talk) 8:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per
WP:BLP1E. One news cycle of news about this hypothetical campaign is not worthy of its own article.
Bearian (
talk) 17:52, 4 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 evidence for notability--music director of one film is not enough unless the individual receives a major award for it. DGG (
talk ) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Linked references are passing mentions at best. I could find nothing after searching on 'Jack Vathsan' as well as alternate spellings and variations of his given name. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIOJbhTalk 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: No any reliable source or sources that establish the
notability, and per
music-bio to have the page on the Wikipedia.
Justice007 (
talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepEverymorning and
Jbhunley, There are so many profiles with just one movies in Wikipedia.
Everymorning has removed the speedy deletion in the history. and now he has put it for deletion. There is no consistency.
Jbhunley Wanted more articles and I have provided. Now
Everymorning wants it to be deleted. This person has just signed 2 agreements and this page would be created again with Citation. I read the Notability section and I think this article can stay because of the Hindu article. I have been asking this question again and again. What should I do to keep this article? Because, for the next projects I dont want to keep creating articles.
Statisticallyhigh (
talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Statisticallyhigh: I discussed this very issue with you on
my talk page when you asked about fixing up the article. There are just not enough sources to show notability. You have linked an article that mentions him and has a brief non-biographical quote. The other sources are a picture, his Facebook page and a very short article about the movie. This is not significant coverage - not even close. Without several paragraphs of coverage about him there is no chance of passing the notability criteria. If you can find that I will reconsider my !vote. If he gets significant coverage later then create the article then, if it is recreated without that coverage it will be speedy deleted per
WP:CSD g4 Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion (Assuming this AfD results in deletion.)
JbhTalk 13:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Originally I tagged it for speedy deletion when there were no sources, but after a reliable one was added I removed the speedy as I thought this had established a credible claim of significance. Just thought I should clarify this.
Everymorning(talk) 13:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
CommentUser:Everymorning Here is the thing. Earlier nobody has managed this page properly.The Hindu article is a proper citation if i have read the notable section correctly.But if I understand Wikipedia, it is an open source online encyclopedia; and not only for celebrities who have won awards and have millions of fans. This will be against the founder's vision.
Vachathi incident has shook the country (
India) and a movie on such an incident should be accessible to common people. He has just signed an agreement for his next album. I'll update it once it is out on a reliable site. I'll suggest you guys to remove the deletion tag and keep this page on your watchlist. It was an article which was fine. I just asked help from
Jbhunley for the other template issues and it has led to this. Please check this article now, I have removed the one's without Citation.
(
edit conflict)@
Statisticallyhigh: Asking for help did not lead to the AfD or only insomuch as any edits to the article would have brought it up on others' watch lists or on
WP:Recent changes. Another editor nominated the article because they saw it did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It is possible they saw all of the {{find sources}} I placed on the talk page and also saw there was no
WP:RS material for the article. I do not know and it does not matter.
At this point complaining about 'the founders vision' and making unsupported claims of 'upcoming projects' will not affect the outcome of this AfD. If you want to save the article do what I have said repeatedly. Go find some
reliable sources that talk about this person The Hindu article is not sufficient. You need several articles in good newspapers, together having several paragraphs of information talking about the subject. There is no 'updating once it comes out on a reliable site'. The material must exist in reliable sources before an article may exist.
JbhTalk 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment
Please read the below points and tell where it mentions about how notable a person has to be?
Wikipedia:Notability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]
The sources in the article do not meet the coverage requirement. That is why the article was nominated and why other editors are voting delete. Long quotes will not change that. If you wish to discuss notability criteria the place to do that is
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).
JbhTalk 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Jbhunley So what do you suggest we do now? unfortunately this is all we have.
Statisticallyhigh (
talk) 21:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Statisticallyhigh: The article will likely be deleted as a result of this discussion. If you can come up with 3 or 4
WP:RS sources that discuss him in detail - not just a quote or a passing mention but a couple of paragraphs - then you can recreate the article using those sources. If the article is recreated without new sources it will end up getting speedily deleted per
WP:G4. If their are not several sources and they do not discuss him in detail chances are the article will be brought back to
WP:AFD.
I would suggest you make a draft article at
User:Statisticallyhigh/Jack Vathsan or
Draft:Jack Vathsan and collect sources there. I will be glad to help you review the draft/sourcing once you have collected the material.
JbhTalk 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Cool
Jbhunley Thanks for your time, I have saved the draft. But, I still vote to keep. Just before you or anyone deletes, This is the mention on Hindu:-
Music director Jackson: I have used melody to capture the poignant mood of the film. One of the songs is dedicated to the Vachaathi incident — all the songs take the film forward without hindering the pace. The background music is the backbone of the film.
Music highlights
It is heartening to note that the new music director Jackson has scored all the six songs based on Carnatic ragas. ‘Manidhargale' in Harikambodhi has been rendered well by Prabhakar. ‘Chirumalligai, also in the same raga, sung by Surmugi and Devi, is pleasant. ‘Thodu Thodu Mella,' in Chalanattai, is a romantic number by Hemambika and Krishnamurthy. The lyrics of ‘Machakanni' in Suddha Dhanyasi seem to suggest that the song is sung before the wedding of the lead pair — it is sung by Sampkeerthan. ‘Uyirasai' in Gambhira Nattai is sung by Senthildas — it conveys why the lovers split. The song focussing on the gruesome incident is in raga Panthuvarali with the background music in Poorna Panjamam — it is sung by Sampkeerthan with feeling.
I will keep the draft on my watch list. For reference the material you quote consists of a 'mere quote' and a 'passing mention' and is not at all useful for establishing notability. It might be useful for an article about the movie or a review of the sound track though. Cheers.
JbhTalk 21:42, 31 October 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 article is possibly vandalism
across different Wikipedia projects and has very few sources to back it up thus possibly failing notability. Possible conflict of interest may exist with regards to the author and two other users involved in the development of this article.
Shalir Salim (
talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Articles in the "wrong" languages should be nominated for speedy or regular deletion on the respective Wikis. Editors who speak those languages may be needed. A steward or other globally-privilaged account should consider warning the editor or, if policies and guidelines dictate, blocking the account.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs) 19:12, 30 October 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. Appears to be notable after taking thorough read --Kethrus |
talk to me 11:55, 3 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 college, no notability is asserted, and the references don't assert much (if any) notability. --Kethrus |
talk to me 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to have met
WP:NACTOR. Couldn't find any significant coverage too. Think this should be deleted. —
UY ScutiTalk 14:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete while her work seems verifiable through
available sources and such as
The Hindu confirms her award, her roles are minor and she has not received the hoped-for wider coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I simply see no better improvement and the only still active and pingable user seems to be
TubularWorld.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:DICDEF: there is no substantive biographical information in this
WP:BLP.
Bearian (
talk) 17:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches turned up enough to show they meet notability criteria.
Onel5969TT me 20:32, 7 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.
Jeffrey Berwick is nothing short of a confidence trickster, and not to delete this article is nothing short of helping the fraudster promote his persona.
Delete. EDIT: Here's a proof of his fraud:
[9] --
ElNuevoEinstein (
talk) 11:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep as the individual does seem to be notable, but the article hasn't been improved much (if at all) since the
last nomination, which it should have been. I must note, your personal opinions on him that are poorly sourced (vimeo is not a reliable source) are not of interest, and shouldn't really be brought up in a deletion discussion. Strong Keep Changed vote, article has been improved significantly ans fully displays notability. --Kethrus |
talk to me 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - actually the source is not Vimeo, the source is Berwick himself talking about a third vocation not listed in the entry, "the selling of passport expediting" which according to him has not come to fruition. The Berwick entry needs to be removed because Wikipedia's BLP guidelines (and process) prevents the finding and representation of truth. It is not the place of an encyclopedia to make judgements about living people. It is a fundamental imperative that the content of an encyclopedia be be correct and truthful! The fact this entry exists demonstrates that the Wikiepdia process is broken and lacks credibility (even if its used pervasively).
Kitatom (
talk) 19:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Kitatom: Sorry, but the source is Vimeo, or more specifically, a user of Vimeo. This is not reliable, see
WP:RS. Either way, what he's done regarding that is not reason for it to be deleted from Wikipedia. --Kethrus |
talk to me 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This is a problem with the Wikipeida process not Berwick; the reason for this entry to be deleted is that it cannot be truthful within the context of Wikipedia's constraints.
Kitatom (
talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think a month is too fast to renominate an article that was a clear keep (see
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion which suggests 6 months). I've edited the article and added more reliable sources. The guy is mentioned in a ton of reliable sources. Even if a number of his plans have failed, that doesn't make him not notable.
FuriouslySerene (
talk) 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The failure has to be expressed; to do that you are going against BLP or you have to Critically Think and do research by connecting articles in a timeline and chronology. Many of the Berwick secondary sources come from Berwick via a press release with follow on coverage that picked up the announcement. You can announce and say whatever your want, that is not fact. Nefariously notable would be he same as infamous; so here we have an entry that won't meet BLP guidelines. The problem here is Wikipeida and it is a major credibility problem.
Kitatom (
talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
His failures have been expressed. There's nothing stopping you improve the article, as long as you keep to a neutral point of view. --Kethrus |
talk to me 21:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Passport scam fraud has not been expressed; and that is his current "vocation. Essentially Wikipeida is supporting fraud through ommission" Kitatom (
talk) 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If you can provide a reliable source for that (NOT VIMEO OR USER SUBMITTED SITES) feel free to add it (see
WP:IRS). To me it's evident you have a bias against him, though - so I recommend you request an edit (see
Wikipedia:Edit requests). We're not stopping anything coming onto the site if it can be proved it's factual, for anything, good or bad, Vimeo is not accepted. --Kethrus |
talk to me 21:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Yesterday, I sent a demand letter to the legal department of the Wikipedia Foundation; clearly the process here is not working.Kitatom (
talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do. This isn't a legal matter at all. Also see
WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. --Kethrus |
talk to me 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep: we just went through this, subject clearly passes
WP:GNG. SPA accounts have an ax to grind with this individual, Wikipedia is not the place for that.
Vrac (
talk) 16:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
NOTE All of Kitatom's comments have been striked out, as they have been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --Kethrus |
talk to me 22:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
"I don't like it" is not a legitimate reason for deletion, if anything (you know, if the sources were reliable) the information would be added to the article, and wouldn't be grounds for deletion. --Kethrus |
talk to me 10:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Looking at some of
ElNuevoEinstein other edits is a bit alarming.
Here, he removes two paragraphs of content claiming that the source is a "notorious liar" and a "self-confessed child-rapist". In another AfD started by
Kethrus, he flat out removes the deletion rational without giving an explanation.
[12] —Farix (
t |
c) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
TheFarix: Concerning the self-confessed child rapist: The Center for a Stateless Society, a think-tank which Spangler himself co-founded, has publicly addressed the issue and publicly disassociated from him:
[13]. He publicly confessed to it on his own facebook wall. He later removed that post from his facebook wall, but a screenshot of it is still available. [
[14]]. (I know, one can forge any screencap picture of a facebook post, and it does not serve as proof therefore, but it is understandable.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ElNuevoEinstein (
talk •
contribs)
Someone doing something that is generally considered wrong by most peoples standards is still no reason for content regarding them to be removed from Wikipedia. I really think WP:SNOW applies on this discussion, especially as the only other supporter of a deletion is a confirmed sockpuppet (including the last deletion discussion). I'll not count the one in 2005 as it was a long time ago, and a lot has changed, and there now is a claim to significance. --Kethrus |
talk to me 14:29, 1 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 and kept as the current version also seems acceptable (NAC).
SwisterTwistertalk 03:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Though I'm sure created in GF, this article on a woman who has just launched a multi-level marketing scheme involving make-up does not have the kind-of broad, reliable sourcing necessary to pass BLP, even though at first glace there are a plethora of citations. There are 13 references, grouped roughly as follows: (a) press releases and company websites - 3, (b) non-RS sources like step-up-club.net, wearethecity.com, etc. - 5, (c) very short blurbs announcing promotions or movements in RS - 1, (d) advertorial [article on The Independent is in their "Business Analysis & Features" and on Telegraph in their "Biz Idol" - both paid advertorial sections] - 2, (e) legit profile coverage on The Drum and the small
trade rag "Management Today" - 2.
Her award as an "Inspiring Fifty" woman is from a non-notable awards scheme that appears to be 1 or 2 years old, has no physical address, and no associated persons (like a board of advisers, etc.) who are themselves notable.
LavaBaron (
talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I have made an analysis of the references of the article at
this permalink. I am judging Pass/Fail on whether the references verify notability, not on whether they may be used in the article
I feel that there are sufficient references that pass our criteria. I use the following to judge them: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see
WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and
WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.
I think the article relies far too heavily on references which do not verify notability, but that is a reason to edit it or to find better references. We have sufficient references that meet our policies to retain the article.
FiddleFaddle 11:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Excellent and helpful run-down. (I would only disagree on the Independent and Telegraph, since the articles in question are advertorials.)
LavaBaron (
talk) 11:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I think we stand, each of us, close to the border, but on different sides of it, over this article. Luckily, neither of us has to make the final call. The two references you criticise but that I do not are best left, I think, to other people's judgement.
FiddleFaddle 11:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep meets GNG. Implication that she is an inexperienced entrepreneur is unfounded.
WP:BEFORE would have shown RS showing that she has history going back long before current start up, thus notability has not been fleeting. Appreciate the analysis by
Timtrent and also find
[15],
[16],
[17] showing web coverage going back to 2006. Article could definitely use editing, but notability does not rely on a well-written article nor sources being cited. The guidelines say that sources must exist. Sufficient evidence has been provided to show that RS do exist to confirm her notability.
SusunW (
talk) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your argument has swayed me,
SusunW. I may have been narrowing-in on the writing problems with this article you pointed out to the exclusion of sources. I withdraw my "Delete" and am happy to see this AfD closed.
LavaBaron (
talk) 17:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks again,
SusunW, for pointing-out the writing issues here. I've proposed some basic edits
on the article's Talk page I think will eliminate the issues and prevent someone else from erroneously AfD'ing this in the future.
LavaBaron (
talk) 18:07, 30 October 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.
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails
WP:GNG.
Simione001 (
talk) 10:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: After improvements, it may pass
WP:GNG.
MYS77✉ 17:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Spiderone 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - technically fails NFOOTBALL but probably passes GNG. Playing for the first team of a team like Barcelona in a competitive match, regardless of how lowly the opposition are, is a big deal.
GiantSnowman 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Aitor is getting a lot of press in Spain.
Axlferrari (
talk) 07:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep:
WP:GNG adding to the possibility of
WP:NFOOTY. Spanish sports websites have written on Aitor, and he made his debut in a competitive game for one of the planet's elite clubs, even if the opponent was semi-pro
'''tAD''' (
talk) 14:49, 4 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. one sentence in Dutch, no evidence of notability
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 12:03, 30 October 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.
Biography for a non-notable author of, at lest, just one notable book. At best, his name should redirect to his solely notable (self-published?) book. We don't have enough third part coverage to base a biography article about this man.
damiens.rf 09:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep some sources(
[18][19][20]), if
The Tao of Programming is notable then probably enough for an article. I don't think the book was self-published - InfoBooks was publishing books by other authors two years before "The Tao of Programming".
Peter James (
talk) 23:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Note that there is a page for the Tao, but it is unsourced. It would be great to find the prizes mentioned here, or the ones mentioned on his Amazon page. However, I didn't find them. I looked on the web pages of the societies that supposedly gave him an award, and none is listed. With those, I would consider a keep. However, business books are kind of like self-help books -- there are many hundreds of them and they don't seem to endure well. That is a mark against notability, in my mind.
LaMona (
talk) 04:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, not seeing enough coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (
talk) 04:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was
deprodded by
User:Ahunt (creator) with the following rationale "It has reliable third party sources that establish notability, please read the ref list fr more details". Well, the ref consists of a single entry: " Bertrand, Noel; Rene Coulon; et al: World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04, page 66. Pagefast Ltd, Lancaster UK, 2003. ISSN 1368-485X". AGF the company is mentioned there, nonetheless without a quote we can't know if this is in-depth coverage, or a mention in passing. Either way, the source is not very reliable:
[21] describes it as " the most complete buyers guide for sport flying equipment available." - in other words, a sales catalogue. I don't see how this is sufficient, given I can't find any other sources (I tried GNews, and GBooks, and see nothing else). A company whose only listing is a (presumed) profile in a sales catalogue does not seem worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep clear precedent is any aircraft manufacturer is notable for inclusion, it could do with more reference but that shouldnt be a reason for deletion, I also dont see anything wrong with the World Directory of Leisure Aviation as a source it certainly is not a "sale catalogue" but a directory as it says on the tin.
MilborneOne (
talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: The reference entry is extensive enough to produce the article as it currently reads and so the subject meets
WP:GNG and should be retained. The cited ref is not just a "phone book" directory, but extensive descriptions of aircraft and manufacturers as can be seen by the information cited in the article. Also
a previous AfD established that the World Directory of Leisure Aviation is a suitable independent third-party reference. As an aircraft manufacturer the company is notable and I will research and add further paper references, such as Jane's All The Worlds Aircraft. It would have been more courteous to discuss on the talk page first, rather than going directly to a PROD and AfD. -
Ahunt (
talk) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per Ahunt. Also a frivolous/premature AFD. Oh for the good old days on Wikipedia when PRODs/AFDs were a last resort, not the first, and noms actually discussed deletions on article talk page before taking the drastic final step of AFD. -
BilCat (
talk) 15:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Ahunt, including the comment on courtesy. Just because an editor has only cited one source so far does not mean that no other sources exist. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Ahunt and Steelpillow.
TSRL (
talk) 15:50, 30 October 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 incident
Petebutt(
talk) 07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Further to my nomination, the extent of this incidents notability is covered by this
Dynamic Airways#Incidents. There is no need for an article on a non-encyclopaedic event.--
Petebutt (
talk) 16:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with user Ruler1091. It was a serious accident with numerous injuries. Deaths and total hull loss are not the only things that make an airliner accident notable. Thanks.
Juneau Mike (
talk) 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Actually, MilborneOne, it IS quite unusual for the passengers to all slide down the chutes while an airliner engine and wing are engulfed in flame while tens of gallons of fuel leak out. Marginal notability at this point; notability might or might not become clearer when investigations are complete. I do not see an established guideline for notability airliner accidents. There was serious damage to the 29 year old aircraft, though no statement has been made that the airframe is beyond repair. One serious injury and numerous hospitalizations. In
a Reuters story a former NTSB investigator said the NTSB "will try to determine the source of the fire and why it caused so much damage, and could recommend modifications to the 767 fleet and general airline procedures to prevent a recurrence," so there is at least the potential for the incident to have significant effects. It is certainly not a catastrophic airliner crash, but is more significant than lots of inflight incidents which get some press coverage but the articles about which get deleted per
WP:NOTNEWS. We can revisit in a year or two and see if the incident satisfies
WP:PERSISTENCE and gets more than the primary sourcing to news coverage it has now.
Edison (
talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per above
SOXROX (
talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as mentioned above, there was substantial fire damage, injuries and a full investigation. Not the most severe accident but
British Airways Flight 2276 was never considered for deletion
A340swazzen (
talk) 23:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - substantial damage, possible writeoff, old plane...all make this notable, even if this does involve a past-generation P&W engine (here, a JT9D); there are still JT9D-powered 767s flying. --
AEMoreira042281 (
talk) 01:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to Dynamic Airways as should most crash articles.
Tough sailor ouch (
talk) 04:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Keep change in opinion.
Tough sailor ouch (
talk) 03:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as notable. It may be a year or more before the various investigation are completed.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 07:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with the comment by Edison, who explains the issue well. The event is unusual because of the number of passengers who safely evacuated an aircraft that was on fire. At the same time, it is also too soon to determine the impact of this event. Per
WP:RAPID, it's too soon to determine the lasting significance of the event; it should be revisited in a few months to allow its significance to be better realized.
AHeneen (
talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Just in case it leads to some notable reform in the FAA or something, which I highly doubt it will, but still, just in case. Antonio Michael Jason 'Hellraiser' Kruger Martin (
aqui) 00;42, 1 November, 2015 (UTC)
Keep Too soon to address non-notability. We can
wait.--JetstreamerTalk 10:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment A disconnected fuel coupling does not an ecncyclop[aedia entry make!!!!!!!!!!!!!--
Petebutt (
talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The airframe was damaged quite considerably and it is a very old airframe. At the very least we can wait for a bit to address notability, since this accident resulted in a rather large inconvenience for both the airline and the airport, not to mention there being one serious injury.
Yny501 (
talk) 03:53, 6 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 unless it can actually be improved as I'm not seeing much here but there are some links at the Ukraine Wiki but in any case this may not be acceptable at this time. Pinging
Wikimandia for comment.
SwisterTwistertalk 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 14:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I added the name in Ukrainian. Obviously article needs copyediting badly. I didn't dig too deeply but it seems to me they meet the requirements for being nationally notable.
—МандичкаYO 😜 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 07:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I checked the Russian version of the article. Most of the sources are social media or YouTube links: primary sources. The ones that I clicked on that did not fall into one of those categories were blocked or dead. Unless I see some sources that support notability, whether in English, Ukrainian or Russian, I can't support their notability. The English term is to vague for good searches.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 05:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Until 2012, the group was called Кожному своє [To each his own]. Searching in English resulted in nothing but band-written festival blurbs, routine promotional announcements, and user-generated content. Searching in Ukrainian was more productive. What do you think of
[22] and
[23]?
Worldbruce (
talk) 01:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I have run a google search on the topic and the company's website comes up, yes, but there are also some business reviews for the site that I have found and it appears to use several inline citations that link to new stories about the company, as well as a listing in global 100 lists. Tjhe article is afull of issues and is written like an advertisment, although this is not a reason to delete it. I must admit that I don't fully understand your argument above, although the best I can tell is that you are faulting it through the Notability guideline, which I think that it meets.
RailwayScientist (
talk) 09:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
keep. Promotional, but fixable. I've just now fixed the worst of it. DGG (
talk ) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, but surely we have real reasons for wanting to know as much as possible from Wikipedia about highly-"impactful" "network marketing" organizations like this. Wikipedia provides a real service by organizing the information into useful, carefully-reasoned bunches so that inquirers - honest inquirers - don't need to rely merely upon 100% promotional expressions about MA.
MaynardClark (
talk) 03:39, 1 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 company article as I simply found nothing better than the usual expected links
here and this simply has not noticeably improved since starting in June 2009. Pinging
Jayron32,
DGG and
Laval and there were a few other pingable users such as Qwyrxian and Astronaut.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The company's corporate website - which is not listed on the article - does have a webpage devoted to
press coverage. I'll take a look, when I get a chance, and encourages others to.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If you Google founder "Igal Hecht" + Chutzpa (or Chutzpah, the more common spelling even though it's not the official name) one does find OK coverage on the company company's founder and principal, Hecht, which has produced some clearly notable works. This
article in Critics at large, a blog published by professional some writers,
this piece in Jewish news site Shalom Life,
this piece in Christian Week, etc. And then, with the mispelled company name Chutzpah (the more common spelling as a common noun), there's this lengthy interview in Canadian Jewish News,
here. Its films have also screened at notable fests, as well, such as Hot Docs, NXNE, etc. I wonder if the solution isn't to repurpose as a bio article on
Igal Hecht. Anyway, while the nominator raises some very valid concerns, I can find enough coverage that I think it meets
WP:ORG, in the sense that Hecht is Chuzpa, so Keep.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. , but consider reorienting the article to be on the person instead, if all of this is his personal work. DGG (
talk ) 15:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I work quite a bit on the doc side, and if it's kept I'd be happy to move the page to
Igal Hecht, do some editing to refocus and add a few references. I can't say I'm terribly motivated to work on the Hecht bio article nor am I that into his body of work, but I would not leave it as is, I promise.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The breadth and scope of the documentary work is a strong claim of notability and the sources and material here and available elsewhere justifies retention under the notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk) 00:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Quite questionably notable and improvable because my searches found nothing convincingly better at all and this article would certainly need and changing improvement if kept. A look through this history will show no significant improvement ever happening and it seems a fan or someone must've been editing the article (including adding euphemisms from "passed away" to "died") yet this article has stayed the same since starting in March 2009. Pinging
Boleyn,
TenPoundHammer and
Ariconte (me supongo que hablas Español?).
SwisterTwistertalk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article claims notability with a charted single, but this is not backed up by the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs book, which does not list a "Greatest Cowboy of All" charting for any artist. Discogs does list
some work by him, but I could find no substantial information on him, nor any other proof that he even exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per TenPoundHammer.
Boleyn (
talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and TenPoundHammer. No evidence of notability on the search engines.
Onel5969TT me 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Obviously non-notable and unimprovable article as my searches found nothing than the usual expected links and nothing convincingly better. Notifying AfC accepter
Hallows AG and I would've also notified Chzz but they're not noticeably active.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems primarily promotional in nature.
LizRead!Talk! 20:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Utterly promotional, almost to the point of G11, and not notable either. DGG (
talk ) 23:17, 5 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. North America's point is worth keeping in mind though,
SwisterTwister.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator, but I don't know why I was summoned.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 06:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - advert for unnotable company. . .
Mean as custard (
talk) 08:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment for the nominator – please provide some rationale why you pinged users you selected to this discussion. What is your criteria here for "interested users" relative to the topic? It's important to keep guidelines about
canvassing in mind when contributing to Wikipedia. North America1000 14:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. This whole article hinges a one off meeting in New York between representatives of both countries. In fact a large part of the article is a copyright violation from
http://www.foreign.gov.bb/Userfiles/File/PHILIPPINES.pdf . There is no evidence of agreements, significant trade or migration or high level visits.
LibStar (
talk) 05:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete the whole thing is a copyvio. Tagged {{db-copyvio}}JbhTalk 21:16, 30 October 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. – Juliancolton |
Talk 03:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
She is a regional representative to a state school board . Such positions do not lead to the assumption of notability. DGG (
talk ) 05:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Represents eleven parishes on state Board of Education. Qualifies as regional political office. Same with above members who represent multiple parishes as well.
Billy Hathorn (
talk) 12:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete.
Low-level politician (on state school board) is not sufficient for automatic notability (which I don't believe in anyway). Either way there are no sources that assert this subject's remarkability, as also reflected in its lack of sources. czar 14:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The story is in progress for the November 21 election
Billy Hathorn (
talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC) and has been refurbished.
Billy Hathorn (
talk) 20:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Coverage now includes four newspapers, a magazine, a radio station, and two television stations thus far.
Billy Hathorn (
talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep or userfy: I have evaluated each source currently cited in the article. Ignoring the Secretary of State, facebook and other sources that could not demonstrate notability in any case (and skipping the Google Drive source since Drive crashes my browser), here's what I found for the media sources:
Shreveport Times obituary — Clearly submitted to the paper by someone with COI and run in exchange for payment; ignored.
Shreveport Times article — Another that's more than a mere mention, yet somewhat less than substantial.
Tallying up the sources, I'm inclined toward keeping the article, even though it's an edge case for notability. A fair amount of work has gone into the article, and given the contentiousness of the fight over Common Core in Louisiana it seems likely there will be future substantial coverage of Harris in that regard. This may be a case of
WP:TOOSOON. If the article is not kept in mainspace, I advocate for it to be userfied rather than simply deleted, and am willing to take it on in my own user space if article creator
Billy Hathorn doesn't want to. —
GrammarFascistcontribstalk 16:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Local coverage of a school board member is not acceptable for inclusion in a global encyclopaedia.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
AusLondonder, this is not a local-level school board but the school board at the state level; members are responsible for policy decisions that affect the entire state, and each represent a region within the state, not merely a local municipality. Did you perhaps misunderstand what Harris's position actually is? —
GrammarFascistcontribstalk 21:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I still do not believe Johnson Harris is notable on the scale necessary for a global encyclopaedia.
AusLondonder (
talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. With so much coverage from multiple sources, this article could also qualify as local politician under the notability guideline though she is a regional figure. There is a place on Wikiepdia for "local politicians": it says so specifically in the rules. I have seen many British and Australian "local politicians" on the board too.
Billy Hathorn (
talk) 01:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC) 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. is the specific line in the rules.
Billy Hathorn (
talk) 11:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepWhy is this here? I'm of the opinion that before an article even gets to AfD some ought to check them first. If GrammarFascist can find that much info and as Billy Hathorn stated, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", it shouldn't be here... or is this just another case of no one willing to take the time to do a rewrite?! --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Seems so. I'm withdrawing the AfD, but someone else will have to close it, as there are other deletes than my own. DGG (
talk ) 22:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The song fails
WP:NSONG. All the content from background and release section is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly
WP:RS sections but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 04:59, 30 October 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. --
zzuuzz(talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Honestly the band meets CSD A7 and there is no sourcing and they aren't on a major label. In addition the band has been active since 2017. Unless we have a time machine, they haven't formed yet. To note multiple IPs have been vandalizing the page, and removed the AfD template.
Wildthing61476 (
talk) 20:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Questionably notable as it certainly seems well known locally with my searches
here,
here,
here,
here and
here but I'm not entirely sure this can be better notable and improved. Pinging the only still active user
Nihonjoe (who removed the speedy A7).
SwisterTwistertalk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: Wow. Pretty damn obnoxious to have A7-tagged it within a MINUTE after the article was created, but that was six years ago, so. In any event, as a South Shore native, I know of Lombardo's/Chateau de Ville quite well -- the site's been beloved of area high school proms and weddings for over a generation. But that doesn't qualify this for a Wikipedia article. Certainly fails
WP:CORPDEPTH, and while there are no doubt a blizzard of possible cites to the local papers, I expect the vast majority will be picture galleries of the Silver Lake High School Class of 1997 Senior Prom and suchlike. Beyond that, the article's a bit of a
coatrack for the family and its owner, and ALL of it's a word-for-word copyvio from the function hall's website, most of which I've just removed.
Ravenswing 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: In its current state, it reads like a press release or marketing piece, so it definitely needs some work to bring it up to acceptable standards. The references used (the Boston Globe and the Post-Gazetteer) establish enough notability to barely scrape by general notability. Since it's been there since the early 1960s, there are likely other articles which would cement its notability. ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I expect you didn't examine those references. The
Boston Post-Gazette is a small Italian community weekly that's just a cut above a free supermarket weekly, and that reference is a plain press release. In any event,
WP:AUD holds that "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability." Beyond that, of course it's not enough to suggest that other articles cementing a subject's notability might exist. The GNG requires that they be produced, in order to save an article.
Ravenswing 01:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You expect wrong. I know exactly what it is, and the other reference is to the Boston Globe, which meets the rest of
WP:AUD that you didn't bother quoting: "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Boston Globe meets that in spades. ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 01:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Or might ... but that'd be part of that examining thing. That's listed in the "local" section on the website, which at best is published in the Globe's appropriate local section (either Metrowest or "Boston South," I expect), with limited local circulation, and certainly not part of regional or statewide coverage, even if you ignore Hiro's objections below.
Ravenswing 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I've spent some time updating with even more sources and expanded the article some based on some of the information in those sources. I still think it meets
WP:ORG, even if just barely. ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 05:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The only notable source, the Boston Globe article, does not address the subject (the facility) directly and in detail, just one aspect of it (its chandelier) and therefore does not count as significant coverage.
Hirolovesswords (
talk) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
foxj 04:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Clearly not notable. The refs are mere notices. DGG (
talk ) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The refs are not "mere notices" (whatever that means). There are multiple big articles in multiple reliable news sources in those refs I added. These are not just passing mentions anymore. ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 19:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
But also inviting users interested with that topic, in this case an East Coast place, would hopefully gain a better consensus here. Other East Coast users I can think of that may be interested with this are
Bearian,
[email protected],
Liz and
Newyorkbrad.
SwisterTwistertalk 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Inviting several is good, especially since I know from experience some of them are impartial (not saying the others aren't just that I have no experience with them). ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 19:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping, and I personally don't have a problem with being asked to join a discussion where it's believed I might have some background. However, in this case I am afraid I don't have anything special to offer.
Newyorkbrad (
talk) 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what particular expertise being on the "East Coast" would lend to the conversation -- quite aside from that there are probably only a hundred thousand function halls within a day's drive -- since what we're discussing is whether this subject meets the requirements for an article. Someone from Kazakhstan or Lesotho can do that as well as anyone. As I mentioned above, I know of the facility, but I was born two towns away. I guarantee that there are millions of Massachusetts residents (never mind East Coasters generally) who've never heard of it, to the meager degree that matters for this discussion.
Ravenswing 06:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I haven't checked all of the references (but I did check a few) but here in suburban New Jersey, every town has a meeting and event facility for proms, weddings and meetings, many of them family-owned. Lombardi's would have to be exceptional to warrant an article on Wikipedia otherwise we just become a business directory.
LizRead!Talk! 20:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: dubious references, likely COI (article created by someone using the username
Lombardoff), and, IMO, still reads like advert after almost 7 years. @Ravenswing nailed it.
Quis separabit? 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. Thanks for the ping, but I'm not familiar with this hall. My older sister and her hubby got married at a different place in the Boston area, but this hall was not on their radar. It doesn't look
good anyway.
Bearian (
talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. It seems just short of being notable. The awards don't seem to be particularly reputable, though I wouldn't know for certain. The sources are local/regional sources. The building the company uses isn't a registered historic building. The company has been around for awhile, but it doesn't seem to standout in its field.
Edit Ferret (
talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Well, I can see where this is going. I find it sad that we have articles on
fictional characters that almost entirely reference the DVD collections of the show, and yet people want to delete a small, but well-referenced article on a local landmark. Oh well. I'm no longer watching this discussion, so I won't be replying to any other comments here. ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 22:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply: If you think that article doesn't meet the standards, what prevents you from nominating it? In any event, the consensus is plainly that the referencing does not meet notability standards.
Ravenswing 06:11, 31 October 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, --
Sam SailorTalk! 01:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Is it really necessary to be so condescending? I appreciate your work on expanding the article. But right now, by my count, only two of the eight sources on the page even mention him at all, and the ones that do are both very trivial mentions. Also, the section "Recognition" are reviews of movies, and make no mention of Mohan, which seems like an attempt to
WP:BOMBARD the page. There's nothing in those sources to suggest that it's Mohan who deserves credit for those movies' praise, or whether he was involved in the filmmaking process at all. Generally
film producers' roles vary widely, and it's possible his role was very minor. Without reliable sources that discuss his role, it's impossible to know. I find it telling that he isn't mentioned in those articles. I've done a number of searches now for his name, and from what I have seen, there are almost no reliable sources that discuss him at all, and do not see how a page could be created with such limited verifiable information. I do not think he meets
WP:BASIC,
WP:FILMMAKER (I'll point out here that this criteria applies to creative professionals only) or
WP:GNG at the moment, but of course would reconsider if more sources are presented.
mikeman67 (
talk) 13:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If you feel my being careful and polite in explaining my guideline-supported thoughts for others who may not have made 1100 edits in nine years is "condescending", then sorry. Courtesy is per policy, and clarity prevents misunderstandings. While it would be fine if the man had headlines around the world, a guideline notability found through
his works receiving significant coverage does not also or somehow require that he himself have such coverage, else all SNGs would be deleted and we'd rely instead on the GNG and the GNG alone. And pardon, but unless you wish to
somehow refute the many reliable sources speaking toward and praising Uyyala Jampala, a film he both
wrote and produced, it seems his "creative" endeavors ARE being recognized. While you may tacitly imply or personally feel Sify or The Hindu or The Deccan Chronicle or International Business Times somehow do not meet the
criteria for reliable sources, I cannot change my own belief that they do unless
WP:RSN agrees with your evaluation. And on
a lighter note, when you request the removal of
THIS notability clarification, or
nominate the SNGs for deletion, please ping me so that I might respond in those discussions. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
foxj 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I consider MQS as the WP authority in this field, and since he thinks the refs are sufficient, the article should be accepted. DGG (
talk ) 05:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This is just a type of
WP:ADHOM argument. No doubt he's a very experienced editor with lots of great contributions, but nobody gets a supervote. I don't agree his sources indicate substantial coverage of Ram Mohan P himself. They show light coverage of movies in which his role isn't entirely clear. Totally fair if you disagree with me, but perhaps you can take a closer look yourself before voting.
FuriouslySerene (
talk) 14:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I could of course have paraphrased his arguments. But I give him credit for finding and evaluating the sources. DGG (
talk ) 15:57, 30 October 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 Speedied so considering this is no longer part of the article mainspace, there's no point with continuing this (NAC).
SwisterTwistertalk 06:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
User doesn't exist.
Wlin72 has being using the spot as their personal playground. I've moved the article to
User:Wlin72/Culture and Aviation Safety. I also deleted the redirect from the article to user space.
Bgwhite (
talk) 05:44, 30 October 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 06:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I simply see no convincingly better signs of improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unnecessary content fork of
Ark-La-Tex, where all sourced content is already included. --Kinut/c 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. In addition to this article being unreferenced, there is no significant coverage from any reliable secondary sources for any of the episodes. WP:NOTPLOT also applies as there is nothing but plot summaries within the article.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 02:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although the nominator brings up a good point in regards to
WP:NOTPLOT, there are, in fact, some good sources to be found.
[24] and
[25] are a couple fairly good examples but there's even coverage from the Washington Post
[26]. I won't argue that the article isn't a mess but it's definitely worthy of inclusion and can be improved. --Non-Dropframetalk 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Redid the plot sections altogether and added secondary coverage.
23W 02:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I have to admit, I was surprised when my pre-AFD searches didn't turn up any decent refs except for TV Guide pages, which only gave brief plot descriptions. Speaking of which, the plot sections definitely look better now without the excess detail. Thank you both for providing links as well as cleaning up the article. I now withdraw this AFD as the article is now decently referenced and doesn't solely consist of bloated plots.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 05:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
No problemo, what else is there to do on a Friday. I remember watching the first two films on TV and thinking they went on forever, but nothing to spill 1879 words over.
23W 06:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete A google search didn't produce anything. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NCOLLATH. If enough references can be found to prove notability and it's kept then it needs to be moved to Miles Smith (Rower).
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 15:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Clear coi too.
Boleyn (
talk) 17:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the above. I just put a "notability" tag on this, then checked the history and saw that the creator and its ilk have persistently removed similar tags. Oy vey.
Pegship (
talk) 23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Milessmith4life keeps removing the AfD template, blanking the page, and/or creating nonsense. I hope this goes away soon.
Pegship (
talk) 00:58, 5 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.
Redirect to The Misfits or simply delete as unless better can be found, it's unlikely this can be improved.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - the coverage does not appear to be in-depth, rather simply listing him as a member of the The Misfits. There is some in-depth coverage, but this appears to be for another performer of the same name, a comedian.
Onel5969TT me 13:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
redirect to The Misfits - should be merged into The Misfits unless he is notable for some other event, since the group is notable.
DangerDogWest (
talk) 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The third reference is a 404. The AOL ref won't let me view it either because I'm Canadian or because I have an ad blocker (or possibly both) and the first reference is not only weak, it only supports the notability of one member. The search term is so vague that it did not return a useful Google search.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 05:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Brain damage (disambiguation) - and mention the drummer on that page. "Brain Damage" is a searchable term and people might search with the "D" in capital letters. They would just get confused if the term redirects them to Misfits' article. Also, we have to add a hat-note on the Misfits' page about the disambiguation page. It is better to mention the drummer on the disambiguation page rather than having a hat-note about "Brain damage (disambiguation)" on the Misfits' page. Yash! 04:48, 8 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.
Five years ahead of this election anything in here is pure
WP:CRYSTAL. Article was created way too soon.
Stabila711 (
talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Adding United States Senate elections, 2020 as CRYSTAL as well.
WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is a terrible argument. Having the next election is fine having anything past that is
WP:TOOSOON --
Stabila711 (
talk) 01:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
No I don't. The U.K., Russian, and French election is the next election for those countries. The U.S. 2016 election has not happened yet so the page for the 2020 election is too soon. The UN elections are more plausible. --
Stabila711 (
talk) 01:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It's more plausible the UN Security Council will hold an election in 2020 than the United States will hold an election in 2020? Are you serious, bro? This isn't a placeholder page like a page for the 2050 elections might be - this is a page curating significant RS commentary and reporting currently happening.
LavaBaron (
talk) 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You misunderstood me. The UN elections are more plausible for a deletion discussion than the other elections you listed. --
Stabila711 (
talk) 01:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand you. It's clear you're all over the place. You didn't even code your
WP:POINTY AfD for U.S. Senate Elections, 2020 correctly.
LavaBaron (
talk) 01:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
LavaBaron, please try to be
CIVIL when discussing this topic.
Stabila711 made a mistake when they added the Senate AFD tags - have you never made one yourself?
Primefac (
talk) 01:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If I'm being honest, not when I'm going through mass AfDing other people's work, no, I haven't made a mistake. I try to make a point to proceed slowly, carefully, and with respectable caution instead of just firing-up the bulldozer and flooring the gas pedal.
LavaBaron (
talk) 01:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I just noticed that it was you that caused the AFD template on Senate to point to the wrong page. So where exactly did Stabila go wrong? Multi-page AFDs are perfectly acceptable.
Primefac (
talk) 02:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your noticing skills are lacking, I'm afraid. Look again -
[27]. There's a process for multi-page AfDs and it's not being followed. See:
WP:MULTIAFD. It exists for a reason, specifically, to avoid the massive confusion that is being created by the current, incorrect coding.
LavaBaron (
talk) 02:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The 2020 Senate election article consists of speculation from reliable sources, so it does not fail the crystal ball requirements. It is also not "too soon" for this article because 2020 is the next election for
class 2 Senators; in other words, it is the next election for these particular seats. This is what separates it from, say, an article on the 2020 presidential election or an article on the 2018 house elections. If nothing else, the article is useful for showing what seats are up for election in 2020 and who currently holds those seats.
Orser67 (
talk) 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, I think there are two reasons
WP:TOOSOON and
WP:CRYSTAL do not apply. (1) People are already making concrete plans to organize campaigns (
Kanye West registered a Super PAC), and (2) the U.S. Constitution specifies that a presidential election must be held in 2020. Both of those facts have been discussed by reliable sources. You can always call any future event speculative, because we simply don't know if
World War III will break out tomorrow and wipe out every human on Earth. However, Wikipedia does allow for articles about future events when there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources (see
WP:GNG). This article satisfies that threshold. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 03:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The election has already received significant media coverage (even though it is five years from now), and several people have already expressed interest in running for president, or have considerable speculation about a possible presidential run: as mentioned above,
Kanye West, as well as Senators
Tom Cotton and
Cory Booker. It seems not to fall under
WP:TOOSOON.
MB298 (
talk) 03:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - topic has received enough significant coverage to merit an article --
William S. Saturn (
talk) 04:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment We should probably just
WP:SNOW this one closed.
LavaBaron (
talk) 09:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
CommentTaiwanese general election, 2020 was recently deleted based on
WP:CRYSTAL. If these articles are kept, then restoring the Taiwanese one should be considered (concerns re systematic bias here).
Number57 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Provided it had broad RS discussing it, as with this one, I have no problem with that.
LavaBaron (
talk) 10:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's not too soon to put it as at least a short article. The election before it, the 2016 race, is underway now, so it's just the next one. —
GoldRingChip 11:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep However, the article is far too early to have the welter of content that it does, a lot of which is speculative, even if referenced. I feel more stringent editing criteria are required this many years in advance of the inevitable event and would like to see it reduced substantially in content.
FiddleFaddle 11:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:GNG. However, I also agree with the above comment by Fiddle Faddle regarding the content and editing of the article.--
NextUSprez (
talk) 16:07, 30 October 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.
At first, this corporation would seem notable especially considering they have several brands but my searches simply found nothing better than
this and
this. This has existed since September 2006 with not much change and the only active user to ping seems to be
Northamerica1000.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. by common sense. A $1 billion company is notable. Sources may be difficult in this area, but this is a problem with our resources, not the subject. DGG (
talk ) 09:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 16:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - You may have to look for food industry specific publications like
[28] for some additional information. Companies like these that don't have a strong consumer-facing product line generally get ignored by the mainstream press.
shoy (
reactions) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
keep - notable. needs more refined sources.
DangerDogWest (
talk) 19:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 30 October 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 song fails
WP:NSONG. All the content from background and release section is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly
WP:RS sections but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I suppose as there's nothing else here.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:20, 31 October 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. consensus is now clear DGG (
talk ) 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now unfortunately as although I'm very fond of conservation and nature, my searches simply found nothing better (with "Trekforce Expeditions United Kingdom") aside from some links at News, Books and browser. This simply hasn't changed much since June 2007 and it's unlikely it's going to happen anytime soon. BTW
LibStar were you watching this since January 2014 or had you randomly encountered it again? Pinging
Stepheng3.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Swister, I had watched it for a while.
LibStar (
talk) 23:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 02:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I can't imagine why I have been pinged, as I have never edited the article or the Talk page. That said, it's in very bad shape and needs neutral sources and a rewrite.
Jusdafax 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah OK. I Googled the org, which is apparently a charity, but don't see a lot of
WP:RS in the five minutes I looked, but there are numerous hits of sources of various quality. I'm on the fence, frankly. The org exists, and may be notable by our standards with some work. Or not.
Jusdafax 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can't see any significant notability here and I am equally dubious about the environmental credentials. Catering for Gap year students is often cloaked in the respectability of "environmentalism" but doesn't often deliver. From the article and what little seems to exist on the web I cannot make a judgement about this outfit except that if fails
WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 21:11, 5 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.
Contested PROD. Only the Kansas City Star article qualifies for notability. The Jesus Freak Hideout article is about an album and only mentions the subject in passing. Similar to other links. The rest are similarly poor sources.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. As a member of several notable bands he satisfies
WP:NMUSIC and there are sources that can be cited to verify the basic facts, e.g.
[29],
[30],
[31],
[32],
[33]. --
Michig (
talk) 09:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That's nonsense. Show me where the subject himself gets coverage. He himself is not notable. See
WP:GNG.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What are you on about: "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Just because they meet one of the criteria does not mean that the subject is notable. This subject has only had one feature story about him. That tells me that he is not notable. If he were notable, he would get more than passing mentions in the articles that mention his name as a member of the band. So let me ask you again, what are you on about? NMUSIC is not stand-alone criteria that presumes that anyone who meets any criteria automatically deserves a Wikipedia article. You've tried to make this an absolute criteria in the past and have been told you're wrong in the past. This is just one more instance.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 14:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You've been told several times that the GNG is not the only notability criterion but it never seems to sink in and you continue to insist that GNG is satisfied every time. Now that you've found the relevant guideline it should be clear that what I wrote is not 'nonsense', even if you disagree with it. I am applying what
WP:N actually states. You are not. --
Michig (
talk) 14:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry that you think I'm relying only on GNG. I'm not. I'm relying on a clear understanding of notability.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Return to author's userspace as a compromise as I am split because the article would seem minimally acceptable but until then, userfying may be best until a better article is available as "Jason Gerken drummer producer" found some links at Books and browser but not much.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 02:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:23, 30 October 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.
Ostensibly a BLP, but really an article about a crime. Moreover, the person named was never arrested or tried for said crime in (currently) 12 years. There has been no significant coverage in years, and no active campaign to even have him arrested at this point. In the end, this is NOTNEWS, and the flurry is over.
MSJapan (
talk) 02:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
José Couso. No need for a separate article. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 09:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Except database there is no sources.
Sismarinho (
talk) 09:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 02:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NCORP, borderline speedy A7. No independent sources listed and a search only revealed passing mentions, nothing in-depth.
shoy (
reactions) 17:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete allowing recreation if the company receives suficient coverage in the future. There are only refereces about some products, not the company. If at least two indepent references from reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company not just a product are added to meet our
notability requieremets for companies or our
general notability guidelines I would change my vote. --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepPage should stay in my opinion but edit severely; as others are already doing seeing the history page.outdoormen— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
OutdoorMen (
talk •
contribs) 09:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep . I am willing to edit it and leave it open for a re-review should I get a week max. We can move the page in the interim too as an alternate option. I see the obvious problems of creating a page in hurry.
Devopam (
talk) 12:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete a weakly disguised advert--
Petebutt (
talk) 07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I have tried to edit the article. Please have a re-look when feasible.
Devopam (
talk) 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Hey thanks
Devopam but it's still likely not enough but we can draft and userfy it to your userspace if you wish.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree
SwisterTwister , on the notability part definitely . If, the final decision goes for a Delete, then rather please move it to my userspace and I will try to enhance it with available info at a later moment.
Devopam (
talk) 07:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I have edited the article and hopefully improved it. The referencing could be better but the task is very difficult because of all the OS-X systems and the like. Given the current references, I think we should allow this article.
gidonb (
talk) 12:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is incredibly weak, self published material and product reviews. There is nothing in-depth about the company. It just does not meet notability requirements. If this company disappears, are we even going to be able to find that out?
Smallbones(
smalltalk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete (or userfy) - agree with Smallbones, the current sources are mostly minor, SPS or quotes of company statements. Maybe a deeper search within Dutch sources can reveal more information, or wait a while until the company has received more coverage. Looking through the article, some of its main claims would definitely need stronger sources too ("only" manufacturer - self-sourced, "X-Systems' products are HEXA-Proof" - unclear sourcing and certification background for only 1 product, "background of company name" - unsourced and a bit PR). I appreciate, that it's difficult to find sourcing for such specialist companies (and it is only 2 years old), but the topic seems to be
WP:TOOSOON for now.
GermanJoe (
talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: Company seem to be only dutch manufacturer of smart phones. But name of the company should be moved to
X-Systems (company).--
Human3015TALK 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The company would appear not to be notable, as stated, but the sources indicate that one or more of its products may well qualify for inclusion. As a process matter, I would ask that we avoid recommending speedy deletion (even though A7 does in fact provide for organizations) except in the gravest of circumstances where
WP:AGF has failed us and the integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake. To my mind, this is more of a case of mis-stated notability. --
69.204.153.39 (
talk) 01:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and userfy as per
Devopam's request. Not enough coverage at the moment.
Onel5969TT me 13:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment In the 9 days that passed since this AfD has started, major improvements have been made in the referencing of this article. Hence I suggest that those who had earlier reached the conclusion that deletion may be in place, will review their opinions in light of its current references. It may even be in order to withdraw the nomination. As someone pointed out, it is not ok to speedy articles like this entry even before said improvements.
gidonb (
talk) 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I believe that the article still doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP only three of the references talk about the company rather than individual products, and of those none seem to be independent. The first is the corporate page, another is clearly and advertisement with a link to the corporate page (visit our page) and the third also looks like a paid promotional article. To justify keeping the the article at least two independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company should be inserted. If they can´t be found at present time I suggest moving the article to the userspace of
Devopam as requested so it can be recreated once the company receives the minimum coverage to meet our policies for inclusion.--
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Crystallizedcarbon, I have added even more references, mostly articles about the company! The article meets
WP:NCORP.
gidonb (
talk) 21:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello @
Gidonb:: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG are met for this article. In both cases we need at least two independent(neutral) reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company not just a product. Most of the sources in the article are not valid
reliable sources, as many are just
blogs. Additionally many of them are clearly
promotional.
In the current version I see three references about the company and not individual products I don´t think any of them is valid to establish the company's
notability:
"About X-Systems Brand". X-Systems: Links to the company page so it is not valid to establish notability.
"What Is X-Systems – All-Weather Rugged Quality". cryptbond.com: Broken link the site is no longer working.
"Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German): Talks about products not the company.
"X-Systems Has Rugged Waterproof Phones And Tablets". Gizmo Editor: Even though it's a blog, it's author might be considered a reliable source for that field, but the article does not talk in depth about the company.
"X Map Systems Proudly Launches Lineup of Revolutionary Rugged Devices". Go Guides: Blog and clearly promotional article.
"X Systems: Stoere telefoons en tablets – gebouwd om lang mee te gaan!" [X systems: Tough phones and tablets - built to last!] (in Dutch). Enduro: Blog and clearly promotional article, it ends up to with a link to the corporate page that reads "visit our page".
To meet
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG I think we need at least two references from sources which are clearly reliable and with in-depth content, not promotional articles. I still think that this is probably a case of
WP:TOOSOON as the company probably will receive the needed coverage to meet our guidelines in the future. what do you think? --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk) 07:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
OK you asked me to share with you where we disagree. Two articles, the first comes with the strongest disagreement:
"Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German). QUAD-ATV Magazin. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
This is not, as you say, "about products not the company", but an article about the company and its entire product line!
Second, the article:
Manning, Ric (8 September 2015). "X-Systems Has Rugged Waterproof Phones And Tablets". Gizmo Editor. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
We agree that Ric Manning, as a technology journalist of stature, is a trusted source, also when writing on his own news source. The article, while short, contains sufficient information about the company to be considered "in depth". Importantly it also fails to qualify any of the points that lead to failure to achieve this criterium.
The above by itself leads to a clear conclusion that the article meets
WP:NCORP.
On an beyond, the width of articles on the company's specific products also deserves some some credit.
gidonb (
talk) 14:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello @
Gidonb: the "Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German)" is mostly about products it mentions the company very briefly just to say that it makes those products. The other thing I also have questions about the independence of the source. It looks to me like a paid-for advertisement. The article just showcases the products (pictures included) and ends up with a link to the company's page. I am still missing at least one clearly independent source with true in-depth coverage of the company to be able to justify meeting
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP.--
Crystallized C (
talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Lets take this one step back for a moment. What is X-Systems? It's a Dutch company (real structure is a little bit more complicated from what I've read) that directly designs and manufactures (through third parties) rugged electronic devices. If an article discusses the company, its product line, and product timeline than that is about as much depth as you will ever get for such a company. End of story one would think, but no, now suddenly the article is not independent. In other words, this has become a moving target. It was only show me where I'm wrong, and I'll change my opinion, now it has become: doesn't matter what the facts are, I'll find new ways to attack this. Fair enough. From what I can tell, QUAD-ATV is an independent German source for the terrain vehicle interest, hence also the interest in outdoor tracking, navigation, and communication systems. It is also distributed in print. The author, CHK, is in it with initials, as are other authors in this magazine. Pictures of products are often taken from websites. This is common practice in almost all magazines. A relevant link at the bottom is another piece of information on the company and somewhat undermines the prevailing 'lack of depth' argument. That's right, it only strengthens an article! To end on a positive note, there seems to be no argument about the article by Ric Manning. In conclusion, we have two in depth sources about the company, and it fully meets
WP:NCORP.
gidonb (
talk) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello @
Gidonb: I am sorry but we seem disagree on what is in depth coverage. To me just a phrase informing that the company started in the Netherlands two years ago followed by a product listing with release dates features and prices is no different than the routine coverage that can be found on any sales page. There is no significant additional information or analysis other than what can be usually found in any sales listing. Just routine product descriptions along with retail prices and a link to the company page, no comparison with its competition no mention of any issues or cons, no context of usage etc.
We both agree that sources can verify that the company exists and makes rugged cell phones in the Netherlands but this alone is not enough.
WP:ORGSIG asks for sources with in depth coverage that show that the company "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". I don´t see this as being the case.
To summarize, no, I don't think the source provides the in-depth coverage of the company necessary to satisfy
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG and even if I can't prove whether the article is paid by the company or not, it still looks like a promotional piece to me. I will feel comfortable recommending its inclusion as soon as we have a new reliable source that is clearly independent and with true in-depth coverage of the company. That is why I recommend moving it to the user space until the company does receive the needed coverage. Regards.--
Crystallized C (
talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The page of the discussable company is in my opinion relevant for Wikipedia, as it contains one of the few tech companies within the Netherlands. Next to this its most likely that only
Wikipedian(s) who specifically search for the discussable company will read the information on the page, they as I did will appreciate the additional information/insight of the company. Last but not least; currently the page contains narrow and encyclopedic writing of the content.
GameAlien
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. unmistakable PR article. The reviews are either not substantial or not from sources we would consider reliable. DGG (
talk ) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Which phrase still came across as promoting the firm?
gidonb (
talk) 15:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
NN software firm with no in-depth coverage - other than it was once acquired by Axiell. All of the sources in the article are primary from customers or a marketing site. Fails
WP:CORP and
WP:GNG.
The Dissident Aggressor 23:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete likely as I'm not seeing much to suggest better.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The company is important as a specialist provider of software for cataloguing museum collections and archives. It has been described as ...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services for natural history museums, cultural history museums, art museums, herbaria, botanic gardens, archives and special collections. The company’s clients include the three largest museums in the world.[34] Its role in museum collection management is recognized in the large number of museum users world wide. note I was the writer and so declare my interest
Garyvines (
talk) 07:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) I have added a bunch of other third party sources which identify the importance of the company's KE Emu program to museum cataloguing and management, some with quite extensive discussions of the role of its main product KE Emu in museum operations.
Garyvines (
talk) 04:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Gary, you have been here long enough to know that to deny a speedy A7 it is enough to have a credible assertion of notability, not proven notability. That's a very low barrier. At AfD, criteria are more stringent and if you want to argue that an article should be kept, an assertion is not enough but notability must be demonstrated by references to independent reliable sources. --
Randykitty (
talk) 08:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I have added an up-front statement of notability and additional independent sources to support this - see refs 7 and 8.
Garyvines (
talk) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@Garyvines, #8 is just a customer saying they used the product and all #7 says is that the product complies with some standards body's spec. Neither of those - or all of them together - satisfy either
WP:CORP and/or
WP:GNG. That's what we're looking for here.
BTW, you may notice that I've
WP:THREADed your comment above as it is a continuation of that discussion.
The Dissident Aggressor 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The article seems to be abundantly sourced, with (at this point) 11 references. However, this is deceptive. I looked at every one of them and they are all press releases, a few in-passing mentions, and dependent websites. Not a single one constitutes in-depth coverage in an independent reliable source. As an aside, I'm confused by the preceding !vote: we're at AfD here, not speedy deletion (for which no discussion page is created). --
Randykitty (
talk) 08:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete remember that unless there is a specific guideline that holds that importance in the field supercedes the need for adequate coverage, that the
WP:GNG applies. There is no such guideline for software, nor does the essay
WP:NSOFTWARE suggest that. Therefore delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, even though people say nice things like KE Titan (KE Software Pty Ltd), a post-relational information management system that was able to retrieve information at a speed not previously attainable. in passing. --
Bejnar (
talk) 23:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)reply
thanks
Bejnar, but what about the Jenny Sinclair article? 'Tracking 16 million artefacts', The Sydney Morning Herald May 20 2003; and how about the Hart and Hallet Article, which puts the development of the program in the context of changes in museum information management from the 1970s on -Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia
ISBN978-1-876944-92-6, and also note that the first of the pc based collection management programs, was developed by the associated
Vernon Systems, and note a new paragraph referring to exhibitions in Museum and Heritage Conventions.
Garyvines (
talk) 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. on the basis of Gary Vines' material here. Clearly documented as a leader in its field. The documentation meets the GNG. In any case, leader in its field is indeed a better standard of suitability for a WP article than the arbitrary standard of GNG--it sayssomething about thr RW. DGG (
talk ) 04:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have found dozens of sources, but none of them does more than list her name as playing a part or being involved in a show. There is no independent or significant coverage to indicate notability.
Primefac (
talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as this seems easily obvious here with no better signs of improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Significant roles in multiple notable productions satisfies
WP:NACTOR. TV,
Crownies and
Janet King (TV series). Film, Alex & Eve (
[35][36][37] Dent, Nick (18 October 2015), "Cultural divides explored in opportunely timed rom-com", Daily Telegraph). Stage, multiple such as Sydney Theatre Company’s 2015 production of
Arms and the Man (Jones, Deborah (21 September 2015), "Is it a Shaw thing? The audience is split", The Australian - Blake, Jason (21 September 2015), "Shaw farce precision crafted", Sydney Morning Herald - Hook, Chris (17 September 2015), "Heroine a Shaw bet for Andrea", Daily Telegraph - Blake, Elissa (13 September 2015), "Love contest goes beyond a good laugh", Sun Herald - Litson, Jo (6 September 2015), "Andrea's latest theatre gamble is a Shaw thing", Daily Telegraph) Coverage primarily about her satisfying GNG (Fortescue, Elizabeth (13 September 2014), "AT HOME WITH ... Andrea Demetriades", Daily Telegraph - Blake, Elissa (21 January 2012), "'I don't look like the Eliza Doolittle people imagine. I'm not Audrey Hepburn.' Andrea Demetriades", The Sydney Morning Herald).
duffbeerforme (
talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Just given a significant mention in this article in Junkee for her role in Alex & Eve, a notable Australian film in which she has a leading role.
[38]Grahame (
talk) 14:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:19, 30 October 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 06:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Created by myself over ten years ago, but not a notable TV series. It ran for one series, and has very little to link to it and provide references.
Cloudbound (
talk) 22:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
sst✈ 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as I see no obvious better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete – Does not meet
WP:GNG. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. North America1000 08:47, 6 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 article was reported to us at OTRS by someone who received an email proposing a business relationship. Not exactly the classic Nigerian scam but close. I glanced at the references and external links. The single reference is behind a pay wall. The external links aren't contributing to a belief that this is legitimate. I did a quick Google search, and didn't find anything very supportive. This may well be a hoax but I'd like a couple of their eyes to take a look at it and possibly consider a CSD rather than AFD.
S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'll also add I haven't ruled out the possibility that Sam Jonah is legitimate, but someone other than him, pretending to be him is perpetrating a scam and linking to the Wikipedia article.--
S Philbrick(Talk) 23:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I suppose as I was aware of the improvements but looking at it now makes the article seem better and acceptable. Delete in any case because it seems he actually exists per
this and
this but I'm not seeing any better improvement.SwisterTwistertalk 05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
SwisterTwister: Thanks for revisiting the discussion. Just a note that as per
WP:NEXIST,
topic notability on Wikipedia is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather, notability is based upon overall available sources. As such, even a topic with an article with no sources can be notable, as per whether or not the topic itself it has received
WP:SIGCOV in
WP:RS. North America1000 09:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Sam SailorTalk! 00:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. He's received an honorary knighthood for God's sake. Clearly qualifies under
WP:ANYBIO #1 if nothing else. Having a scam perpetrated in his name does not invalidate his notability. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep references now in the article provide evidence of notability.
Peter James (
talk) 23:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Has received significant coverage and passes notability criteria.—
UY ScutiTalk 07:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm convinced, nice work finding sources and improving the article. I can't think of anything we could do to the article to prevent it being used in a scam, and, arguably, that's not our responsibility.--
S Philbrick(Talk) 13:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Nothing arguable about it. It's certainly not our responsibility. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:50, 6 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.