The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Update – Given consensus on the talk page and here, included by OP, I have redirected again. Somebody uninvolved please close the AfD. —
JFGtalk20:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as non-notable. I was about to remove a couple of sentences as a copyvio of her IMDB bio, but then again, the actor is the author of that bio, and she's presumably written this WP bio, too. So not a copyvio (and we don't know how long the IMDB bio has been online; the WP article may the older). Schwede6608:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with Schwede66. The subject might have good sources in the future. The current state of the article and my inability to churn up RS result in a delete being suggested by me out here.
Lourdes05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I've come up with many sources quoting their conferences and research papers. Even stuff they've done with European Commission. But no significant coverage about the organization per se.
Lourdes05:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotional article, the subject of which - a series of books - does not appear to meet the GNG. Single reference in the article claims to point to a non-notable award won by the author, but when I attempted to access the page, the site returned an error stating the page could not be found.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
22:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: The article as it stands has one poor source (an insubstantial Q&A) and does not indicate that the subject meets the
WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Sporadic coverage does indicate (a) name variants, as added above, and (b) that she has sought to become vice-mayor of
Tagbilaran (
[1]), but even if successful I don't think that position would meet the criteria.
AllyD (
talk)
19:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. shopping centres are not inherently notable. Of the gnews coverage there are 2 articles about an associated residential development which is quite routine given that almost every shopping centre is looking to expand or have a residential redevelopment.
LibStar (
talk)
12:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Local Houston, Texas band formed in 2015, unsigned, one self-released EP in September 2016. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. The four bullet points are more likely to be the remnants of a (future) list of external links. — SamSailor14:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 The rationale is "WP is not a news site". Then how can you explain the airplane crashes, earthquakes and other events in WP ? A human chain of more than 100 km with a 20 km unterrupted portion against nuclear plant is always a notable event and surely deserves to be in WP. (By the way how do you account for the other similar events listed in
Human chain article in WP)
Nedim Ardoğa (
talk)
14:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 as a subject not covered substantially in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability. Claim that "Nerve" magazine was one of the first online magazines is a self-made claim, not bolstered by independent coverage. Article subject has been previously deleted at AfD.
Carrite (
talk)
04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The subject has a chapter devoted in the book by Wharton professor Adam Grant called Originals, a chapter which has been covered by Forbes, Huffington Post, Guardian (Chapter 3 to be precise).
[2][3][4] The subject's life has been covered by
CNN Money,
Harvard Business Review et al. I'd like to hear the comments of delete !voters or the nominator on these sources. Thanks.
Lourdes18:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I've stricken my "salt" vote but the article is still promotional and notability is questionable, even after reviewing the book results where the subject is mentioned, but rather superficially. The three articles listed are about the book. The book looks notable, but not every person in it may be notable. Perhaps
WP:TOOSOON still.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
K.e.coffman hi. The subject here is a journalist. He has created at least two notable works/online magazines:
Nerve.com &
Babble.com. As per
WP:JOURNALIST: A subject may be notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book [...]) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In my opinion, this subject qualifies very easily per this. The Wharton professor's book dedicates a full chapter to him and to his creations. Multiple periodicals and journals, like
CNN Money,
Harvard Business Review have reviewed the subject and his work too. Why would you disregard coverage like these? What would be your viewpoint about
WP:JOURNALIST? And another query: Which lines are promotional in the article, as per you? We can delete those lines quite easily, as I would say the article in its current state does not look overly promotional except for maybe two lines. Waiting for your response. Thanks.
Lourdes03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Interesting, I've not looked at the subject under
WP:JOURNALIST but as a businessman instead (that's how he's being covered in the book). The reason I'd be hesitant to go with a keep is that I'm not sure that the two web sites are notable themselves. I removed a bunch of 'cruft from one of them:
diff. So it looks more like a promotional cluster, rather than notable subjects in their own right.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks
K.e.coffman.
WP:JOURNALIST does not require the work created to be notable but only well-known, a much lower qualification than notable. What matters to
WP:JOURNALIST is whether the work has been the primary subject of even a single book (or of other sources). In this case, the work created by the subject is well known (whether or not notable) and has been covered by a book – this is almost a copybook example of
WP:JOURNALIST's application. What might be your views on this? Thanks once more.
Lourdes07:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Assumptions of bad faith against other Wikipedians won't serve you well here. As I said on the article talk page, you're not off to a very good start in your two short months on Wikipedia. And as I mentioned on your talk page (which you blanked), you need to spend more time editing here and becoming familiar with policies, guidelines and the culture. Based on your comment above, you admit you have filed this based on an assumption of bad faith. Then you repeat the claim of lack of notability, yet the multiple reliable sources in the article contradict you. Simply put, you don't have any idea what you're doing here and it's becoming
disruptive.
The Master---)Vote Saxon(---03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The comment above by
User:The Master was removed, with no edit summary, by
User:Wikiinfomation in
this edit 11:00, 26 January 2017. Note that Wikiinfomation simultaneously rewrote their Comment - Some of the creators of the page obviously had a profit driven agenda and may or may not have been biased towards the subject
WP:NPOV but the subject is not notable
Wikipedia:Notability enough to have its own article. as Delete - The article is nothing more than a ad for the YouTube channel that is making profiting
WP:PROMOTION because the article does not have notability
WP:N. --
Hoary (
talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Corrected my own misspelling of Wikiinfomation. --
Hoary (
talk)
01:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you and as stated above I am new and learning the process but looking at it from my perspective I have someone saying it's wrong, then I fix it, then it's disruptive that I fixed it?...Reading rules...be kind to new editors this
link.
WP:KIND...
Wikiinfomation (
talk)
02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the reminder; I shall endeavour to be kind to new editors. ¶ If you say something and later realize that it was mistaken, then yes it is indeed disruptive to remove or alter it. You should instead let it stand and make it clear that you realize that it was mistaken. (For details, see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments.) --
Hoary (
talk)
03:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - No legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion or supportive evidence thereof. The article is factual, does not contain overtly promotional language, and contains multiple reliable sources from industry-specific sources as well as others.
The Master---)Vote Saxon(---02:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment for
Wikiinfomation: Other people's edits of your comments here accord with their understanding of a set of guidelines that set out extremely strict constraints on what editing of comments (even your own) is possible. You'll find these guidelines
here. Please either: (A) read these guidelines, digest them, and edit only in accordance with them; or (B) stop tampering with anybody's comments (including your own). If you realize that you want to amend your earlier comment, the best way is to leave it just as it is and to add a signed, dated amendation. --
Hoary (
talk)
01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
You're right I guess it is permitted even though personally I don't think it's encyclopedic material, I hope Wikipedia is ready for the 1 billion YouTube users when they all find out.
Wikiinfomation (
talk)
21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Right and my opinion is that it's not notable but for some unknown reason as pointed out above by
Felsic2 they are allowing it so I changed my "delete" to "comment" because editors opinions don't matter.
Wikiinfomation (
talk)
22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There's no reason to take it personally. The subject of the article meets the General Notability Guideline. It's that simple - it's not some sort of insult.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
22:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I didn't mean that against you personally but Wikipedia is what is at risk and it's policies need to change. Haven't any of you seen
this? It's only a matter of time and all of this could be gone.
Wikiinfomation (
talk)
23:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
This isn't the place for attempts to change Wikipedia's policies. There are places for doing that. But before essaying policy revision, look at two guidelines:
WP:GNG and
WP:WEBCRIT. Suggest improvements on the talk page of each (and not here). --
Hoary (
talk)
05:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment To make this list even worse, a large number of these incidents are 1 episode in a show that ran for 4 or more seasons, where an actor played someone meant to be a clone, close relative or look alike of their main role. Others involve having one person play a set of twins.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Trivial trivia. Strangely, our list notability guidelines are one of the few subsets on Wikipedia that allow even trivia not satisfying notability guidelines to be kept, if the same serves informational purposes.
WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This list does not qualify even on that.
Lourdes05:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 totally trivial. The definition might be on the fuzzy side too. Some characters did exist as comic book ones, but may have other potential roots. Others may be in a movie like say "Batman" or "Superman", but if the specific character is not found in a comic book they would be excluded. Although this is a list, and can deal with such, it is still trivial.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment This list is not what it says it is. For example, Ben Affleck has played both Batman and Daredevil. This list makes it hard to realize this. It really is "List of comic book roles that have been portrayed in live-action television and film".
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - There is no distinguishing between important roles and minor cameos. See the entries on Willie Lumpkin (a Stan Lee cameo in Fantastic Four) and Nighthawk (who is never identified as such in All Hail the King).
Argento Surfer (
talk)
13:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Per
Vejvančický's sources. I think the nominator should search for the subject using the nom de plume too. Pinging
XXN to enquire if they might consider withdrawing this nomination. Thanks.
Lourdes05:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. There's a whole network of these types of articles (i.e., names of countries or cities in various languages). The real question here is whether the content of this article merely duplicates the material already appearing in
List of country names in various languages (Q–Z). But the instant article puts that material in a sortable table, whereas the "Q to Z" article forces the reader to search alphabetically by the other-language name (and not by the name of the other language). A good argument could be made for saying that we should have more articles of the instant type, rather than less.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
21:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The fact the best claim to fame this guy has (per the lede) is that "He is a long-term ally of controversial Republican National Committeeman Bob Asher, a mainstay in statewide and Montgomery County Republican politics" is evidence of his non-notability.
WP:NOTINHERITED springs to mind.
AusLondonder (
talk)
00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. According to the article, the highest political office he's personally held is on a smalltown municipal council, which is not an
WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — and notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED, so he is not more notable than the norm for smalltown municipal councillors just because he's "associated" with a more nationally notable figure.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally an invalid argument in AfD. "Venezuela anthems" is clearly a single topic, while "non-couverweign countries anthems" is clearly a loose collection, ripe for AfD. A rule of thumb for lists is to check whether some reliable sources considered such kind of lists.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I didn't use
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason to keep the article. I used the examples to counter the original nom's argument of how articles like it *don't* exist by pointing out that they do. I provided a reference to show that it is a topic that exists in third party publications and therefore it is not an invention of the original author.
-- HighKing++ 14:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
HighKing: This article fails
WP:NOTDIR by being an non-enclyopedic cross category (#6), a list/repository of loosely related items in this case being anthems of European Union member states (#1), and a simple listing with no context information (#7). This also would be more useful on Commons as a category to organize media there. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions)
15:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I think the strongest argument I've seen is that it is a "fork" or "subcategory" of
List of national anthems. The article could very easily be expanded by including more information on the anthems such as date it was written, origins, etc.
-- HighKing++ 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 don't think the subject is notable per
WP:GNG. The content is the work of
User:Highflyerzone and I suspect a close connection to the subject and possible autobiography. This is one of those articles that cites a lot of sources, but those sources do little more than prove the subject exists. They do not establish the significant coverage required for GNG. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
REPLY - In response to
User:Cwmhiraeth and their vote for a DELETE, YES
User:Highflyerzone wrote the article and YES Wikipedia asked for more details so what was known was added, Wikipedia is driven by community contributions and I don't know what was on here prior, I do know what I added,which in my opinion is suitable for inclusion, this is why I put the time in to add it and will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Let me note that the entertainment and business part of that article is what is notable not the wrestling part of it. comment added by
Highflyerzone (
talk •
contribs)
09:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The opinion by Lucifero4 doesn't seem to make any sense and is disregarded, leaving us with only one "keep" opinion. Sandstein 15:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Nothing but an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Except for athletes like baseball players, whether a subject is left-handed or right-handed is pure trivia, and not at all something these men are prominently noted for.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Trivia is in the eye (or hands) of the beholder. This subject, including discussions about its possible significance, has been amply discussed in reliable sources as shown in the article and in the 2008 AfD discussion, passes GNG. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
18:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Just because one AFD closed as keep doesn't automatically mean it should still be kept. Per
WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we shouldn't have excessive listings on Wikipedia. Sourcing is an entirely moot point in this case since whether a president was left-handed or right-handed carries no real significance. In other words, it's not something they're really noted for. I seriously doubt this trait is among the first things that come to most peoples' minds (if ever at all) when they think about a president.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Has a left handed more chanche to become a US president then a right handed?
User:Lucifero4
Hard to say, but I'm certain that nobody votes for candidates on the basis of being left-handed or right-handed. Too superfluous of a factor.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
22:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Are left handed clever then right handed?If the answer is yes they more chenche to become US president.
User:Lucifero4
Delete. Indiscriminate trivia, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what's important about US presidents. If and when somebody can actually show reliably sourced evidence of a real correlation between handedness and political acumen, then there might be a basis for this — but if "From a statistical standpoint, it looks like something's going on, but what it is, we don't know", then it's just random trivia.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 person. The article claims that he's a magical prophet who can perform divine miracles, so even if this article passes, it needs major cleanup to remove the bogus crap.
ThePlatypusofDoom(talk)17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
delete I had the same experience looking into this as did LL: the closest thing I could come to was a story about him being jailed which also flatly stated that he is "known by his accurate prophecies both local and international, unheard miracles, signs and wonders and timely messages"
[9], and I couldn't find out who the publisher of this was or whether they have a connection to Munyeta.
Mangoe (
talk)
19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. There are no sources to support this, nor will there be, as there is no such thing as the "House of Ruello" in the Wikipedia sense, i.e., a single noble family. This is just a collection of a few broadly similar names pulled together at random. There is not even enough here to form the basis of a surname page, as the names mentioned here are different (Ruellan, Ruello, [du] Ruel).
Eustachiusz (
talk)
17:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, given the information presented, the best chance at verifiability seems to be a purely trivial mention. Not suitable for this project. --
Killer Moff (
talk)
13:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I actually would have !voted keep if this had been a game of thrones house. This one doesn't make the mark. The nom makes a strong point for deletion, which I accept.
Lourdes05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Per nom, doesn't seem to meet
WP:GNG (the 3 or 4 news mentions are limited in scope, not focused specifically on the subject, and of the "passing mention" variety). Nor does it seem to meet
WP:NONPROFIT (not "national or international in scale" - in fact by definition and per lead is a local group with a small number of members). In short, doesn't seem to meet either the general NN criteria (for coverage), or the org/non-profit criteria (for scope).
Guliolopez (
talk)
22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Recently, I've come across many not for profit organizations on the Afd desk. These organizations do credible work in their space, and have considerable mentions with respect to the conferences/events/competitions they hold and the awards they give. Unfortunately, while media reports on these events et al, they fail to report on the organization itself. This results in a strange situation, where while my personal opinion would be to keep some of these non-profits for informational purposes, they don't qualify on our notability guidelines, either for
organizations or for
non-profits. I would personally prefer a newer addition to the NONPROFIT guideline to enable some kind of leeway as is given to higher level schools or to state/country level political parties, where, even if only trivial mentions are there, precedent tends towards keeping the articles. Till such guidelines become operational, it's tough to !vote keep. Thanks.
Lourdes05:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per Giant and Fenix down. Repeating what they've mentioned, the subject doesn't qualify on either the general or sports related guidelines. I've tried to be the devil's advocate in the past on such and similar articles and have !voted keep, after finding sources. Here, there isn't coverage I could find to defend the subject. Thanks.
Lourdes05:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 person has not received
significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the tax fraud case (including the conspiracy charge); the subject fails WP:CRIME in that they are not a "renowned national or international figure", nor was either their fraud or conspiracy conviction a "well-documented historic event".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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've argued with k.e.coffman in the past on Afds. So it's a surprise seeing me on the same side as them. But coffman makes the right points - the subject qualifies on both PROF and AUTHOR.
Lourdes05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: A
WP:SPA article on a company. Highbeam returns a couple of passing mentions in start-up lists from 2011-12, which at least verifies the company's existence, but I am seeing
nothing to suggest notability, whether by
WP:CORPDEPTH or
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
17:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Couldn't find source (although I've done only a super quick Google search; if someone can churn up anything else, then my next statement applies). If there are reliable sources, the subject's article can be recreated in the future. Right now, it's clearly not required on Wikipedia. Thanks.
Lourdes05:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 covers mostly media speculation about which judges might be appointed by Hillary Clinton if she became President. She did not herself communicate on this issue during her campaign and she wasn't elected, so there is nothing to report. The whole article is
WP:CRYSTAL and has no chance to be expanded. —
JFGtalk12:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
If any material is merged, the redirect will also maintain the edit history behind that material. As for the article itself, these were simultaneously created for both candidates in response to a unique historical situation. For the winning candidate, this turned out to be a very good idea.
bd2412T12:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. The only delete-!vote said they only !voted that way because of the state the article was in at the time and he indicated the wish to work on the article instead after E.M.Gregory's edits. Regards SoWhy21:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Reluctant delete. Certainly seems to be a very successful firm, with significant and numerous mentions in regard to its projects, but seems to fail technical GNG, having very few IRS specifically about the company itself. I would be happy if someone more familiar with the subject matter could dig out some better references.
Aoziwe (
talk)
11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep (for now) -- appears to be well known firm. For example, they received the "National Landscape Architecture Awards" from the
Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, which may significant or "you scratch my back" type of award:
link; not sure. Some of their projects appear to be notable
link; their approach to the project is briefly discussed. I wonder if architects are more like academics -- notable for the work they have done?
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Keyed Wood + Marsh + architects into a news archive search on proquest and gots plenty of RS to support notability. Many of their buildings are important enough to be reviewed by architecture critics in major newspapers, they therefore pass
WP:CREATIVE much as would a writer with widely-reviewed books. I added one such review to the section on the building.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Thing is, I was using Proquest, and it is paywalled. So, I just repeated my search thus: Wood Marsh architects site:theage.com.au/ - Bingo! No paywall! (at least I think so, I access the web through aome powerful search engines, and am sometimes mistaken about what it open access) I chose to search The Age and not not some other big city Australian paper simply because it is the paper that ran the review I had added to the page. The results of that search, here:
[11] are persuasive.@
Aoziwe:. I imagine other papers have similar or more.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). References are to primary sources (almost entirely startrek.com website). No indication of importance (no non-primary sources discussing importance, reception). I an sure we could find a few sentences discussing him in passing in reviews of DS9 episodes, etc., but unless someone can dig out a reliable, in-depth, non-primary treatment of the character, I am afraid he will still fail said notability policies. While we could consider merging it to
List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, that list is a repository of otherwise non-notable content and would likely fail AfD itself. As this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway, I think we should simply consider deletion of this, as a non-notable fictional character. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I wonder if delete is decided upon then anything that is retained might be better
here in the Deep Space Nine article as it already mentions Dukat?
Dunarc (
talk)
20:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep While the current issue only references the one RS (DS9 companion), he is discussed in
multipleacademicbooks and
articles. It's kind of puzzling that the nominator apparently has no clue how much academic commentary science fiction (a genre itself rife with social commentary) television shows pick up over time. Same thing goes for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, BSG, and even relatively "fluff" shows like Doctor Who.
Jclemens (
talk)
19:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as the subject of major plotlines on the show he probably deserves his own article rather than being relegated to the "list of..." article.
Artw (
talk)
22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep given the resources provided by Jclemens, and I would imagine there are more upon further investigation. Again, the argument that "this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway" is not a valid point of discussion for AfD as the emphasis should be placed on whether or not this article is notable and can be supported through outside sources, which Jclemens as shown in the above comment.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The character arc that Dukat went through during DS9 has led to a large number of scholary articles generated as described by Jclemens above and a wide range of specific coverage in books covering the series. In fact, he's probably got greater coverage than some of the main characters.
Miyagawa (
talk)
11:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Yes, this is a long article about a minor (secondary) recurring character from ST franchise that has a GA status. Sadly, GA criteria for some weird reason do not include meeting notability, and this is a major problem here. The lenghty section on appearance, concept, development, etc. are based on primary sources: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, some episodes, as well as even
Memory Alpha, a wiki (and other wikis are not allowed as sources for Wikipedia, something that should've been picked up in a GA review because reliability of sources IS a GA criteria...). Then we get to the 'do or die' section, ie. reception, or the two short paragraphs. First, not a single source deals with the topic (character of Vic) directly. They simply mention him in passing, in few senences at best, a bit more if they are reviews of episodes in which he appears and plays a more significant role. While we could consider merging it to
List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, that list is a repository of otherwise non-notable content and would likely fail AfD itself. As this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway, I think we should simply consider deletion of this, as a non-notable fictional character. PS. I am a Trekkie myself, I like Vic, but it doesn't change the fact I don't think this kind of non-notable topic has a place here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The DS9 companion is an independent RS, as are tor.com, io9, the AV Club, and Den of Geek. All the other references appear to be used appropriately, but even if some of them were eliminated, the GNG is met by a mile.
Jclemens (
talk)
19:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep the character is a semi-major one in a major TV series and the article includes good detail. It would be a shame to lose it from Wikipedia. Because of the article's detail and the characters significance to the series, I don't think merging would be appropriate. The book source seems reasonable, even if it is a little insular. I'm inclined to think that removing the page would be a net loss to the encyclopedia.
Mortee (
talk)
23:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: the article has several independent, reliable sources that support its existence, and the sources provided by Jclemens further supports this.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I only ever expanded this from a redirect on the basis of having sufficient sources to evidence notability. The DS9 companion is an officially licenced work, but it is not a primary source. The authors are one step removed from the process, as in they spoke with the person(s) involved with production. That is the definition of a secondary source. Within this source there is a section specifically on the creation of this character. Unusually in the article there is a reference to Memory Alpha - this is because they've archived an AOL Chat on that website which isn't available elsewhere, but this isn't part of Memory Alpha which is user generated.
Miyagawa (
talk)
11:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Just coming from another Afd supporting Jclemens sources and their argument. The story is the same here. Per Jclemens, I support keeping this article.
Lourdes05:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment well he's had a charting single, so that gets over the bar per
WP:MUSICBIO number 2. But it needs sources which are proving a little hard to find as there's some youtuber tween with the same name out there now.
ValarianB (
talk)
15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Forgot to mention that - thanks for bringing up Johnny Orlando
ValarianB. Apparently this BLP's subject's real name is Johnny Ortiz though, but people were getting confused between the two; see the page edit history.
Patient Zerotalk21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Admittedly, I'm struggling to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. However, I added references for this artist's chart appearances, which at least demonstrates that he meets
WP:MUSICBIO #2. Given that, I'm inclined to favor keeping rather than deleting this. Gongshow talk21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 (periodicals) requirement. Student newspaper at a major university, but I don't see what makes it pass said policies. It doesn't seem to have any major impact, etc. Yes, it won some kind of an award (
[14]), but that award doesn't seem major. This kind of entity doesn't deserve an independent aticle, IMHO, but at best a brief mention (at Oxford University, perhaps, that it exits. Regarding circulation, please note that circulation numbers are not considered relevant to notability, since it is difficult to compare them and say what is high, what is low (just like, let's say, the size of an organization is not a criteria for notability of an organization). Also, circulation numbers for this publication are sourced to primary source that has a clear purpose of advertising/promotion, so their reliability is hardly full-proof (another reason most data on circulation, as self-reported number which inflation is in the interest of the reporting source, is generally dubious). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here11:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coverage in reliable sources shown in the article, more in Google searches, passes GNG. And I might add that I do not think it's a desirable goal to reduce Wikipedia's coverage of bona fide media sources.--
Arxiloxos (
talk)
17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There are multiple references in the footnotes to "real" newspapers, although some of these links appear to be broken. In addition, Google shows coverage of the paper's activities in, for example, the BBC
[15], The Guardian[16], The Register[17], Times Higher Education[18][19], and more. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
22:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The Oxford Student, very much like the Cherwell or the Isis, is a point of reference of student life at Oxford. Deleting this article would not only be illogical, considering that its circulation is larger than say the most-circulated national newspaper in Liechtenstein (which obviously has an article too), but it would also bring immense discomfort to those who research the third oldest university in the world, its unique student culture, and its history. For all such researches the student media within the University are an invaluable source of information. I would furthermore like to stress out that this article has been suggested for deletion by the same person who has on multiple occasions suggested the deletion the Oxford University Russian Club's page, in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to discredit the article's references, which include "The Oxford Student". User:J31ox 11:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
J31ox (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Unlike the pages of other student associations at the University of Oxford, this club has no references that denote any kind of notability of its members, or its events. Both of the other two societies that have a Wikipedia article - the German and the Russian ones - have a much better reference section. User:J31ox 11.30, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
J31ox (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 per
WP:NRVE and
WP:NEXIST . Most notable ever? Nope. But notable enough through coverage and commentary in suitable independent reliable sources? Yes. Sorry, but not using available sources of commentary and review does not mean automatically non-notable... it means the project benefits from work not deletion.
[21],
[22]Schmidt, Michael Q.06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Commentaries aren't reliable sources atleast as far as I'm aware, Found a book or 2 but other than that there's nothing to establish notability, FWIW I've sourced far less known stuff than this so it can be done however in this case it can't be done because it's not notable. –
Davey2010Talk20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge. I am sorry, but this NYT review is anything but such, it is a mention in passing, 1-2 sentences, and I am not even sure the article looks reliable. Since we cannot find anything except a single review on
DVDTalk, I am afraid it fails
Wikipedia:Notability (films). A merge to
BBC Atlas of the Natural World may be best. Frankly, probably all of the series parts (episodes) fail notability and should be merged there. If we add their refs together, they may be sufficient to keep the article on the documentary series. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here11:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. At this point, there doesn't seem to be any particular consensus on this low-traffic AfD. There is a slight numerical majority of keep !votes and User:Julle has brought some sources in Swedish. However, it has not been verified if these sources can support the content. User:LibStar's query about third party coverage in newspapers has also not been answered.
As there have already been 2 relists with low participation (and there is a possibility that sources may not be in English), this is a tentative close as a no consensus, with a hope that editors will try to find sources. Should no sources be found, there is no prejudice against re-nominating this again in 3-6 months.
Keep Coverage is generally not in English (as could be expected for a Chinese-Swedish subect) – "駐瑞典台北代表團" seems to mainly be of the English sort when it comes to coverage, but there's a bit in Swedish if we look for "Taiwans ambassad", "Taiwans representation", "Taiwans representationskontor", "Taipeis representationskontor" or "Taipeis ekonomiska och kulturella representationskontor". /
Julle (
talk)
09:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I've started expanding the article a bit, adding a couple of sources etc (and removing less reliable, as well as making sure they don't look like they cover more than they do). /
Julle (
talk)
10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
the references still merely confirm it exists and who held the post. I don't see significant coverage in third party sources like newspapers.
LibStar (
talk)
15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Supporting character in Star Trek. Quite an amusing character, I remember him well, but as written, this clearly fails
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and I cannot find any independent sources which would help to establish notability. There are some mentions in passing, of course, since ST is a major franchise, but I don't see any independent (non-primary) works about him (to be clear, independent/non-primary means - other than in Star Trek books, encyclopedias, almanaces, etc.). PS. Could be perhaps merged to
List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation, through I have doubts about the notability of that list in the first place... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here11:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep click the 'scholar' link above, find multiple independent RS discussing this fictional character in the context of media depictions of stuttering.
WP:GNG met, without even having to disagree with the spurious definitions of non-primary sourcing advanced by the nominator.
Jclemens (
talk)
19:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: Here are two examples of sources on studies about the character in the context of stuttering and social anxiety:
1 and
2. This source
3 may also be helpful; it is an episode review, but it focuses on the episode that the character is introduced and includes analysis/reception of the character; the same applies to this website/episode review
4.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article's not in a great state, but it does seem that there is some serious discussion of the character from academics and critics. The material discussing his anxieties and stutter is particularly interesting, and would be a valuable addition to the current article.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
22:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As the nominator, I am hereby withdrawing this article from Deletion, as discussed below we have decided to remove the portions that don't meet Wikipedia's instead of blowing it up per
WP:TNT. Amin(Talk)16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
This page is problematic, and I think we can serve it best, by blowing it up and starting over (
WP:TNT).
The problems:
The article relies too much on the primary source of kauffman.org
Some statements have no reference at all
The tone is promotional throughout the article
It contains a lot of data that isn't worthy of being included in an encyclopdia
WP:SUMMARY
There are 8 external links within the text, most of them to kauffman.org
Two of the most prominent contributors, @
Flip51: and @
Juvensophist: have only contributed to the Kauffman Foundation page and the Ewin Kauffman page, and nothing else. Though I don't want to jump to conclusions, I thought it was worth pointing out
The introductory text leaves room for improvement, it just says it's a non-profit from Missouri.
Let me state again, that I do believe there should be a page for the Kauffman foundation on Wikipedia. Though I think the readers are better served by having a shorter page that meets Wikipedia's standards, than a long one that is promotional and not well referenced. Amin(Talk)10:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and snow close this Afd. The foundation qualifies on notability by even the strictest of standards (if you want, I can list out around 25 reliable sources; but I think you already know that). Just a quick query. If you really want to TNT it, why bring it up to Afd? You can start working on the article and cut out all the spam that you may see. I agree with you that the article requires a lot of editing. But Afd is not the way to do what you are proposing. I'll suggest, just go ahead and edit the article than proceed with this Afd. I don't want you to get dissuaded by my keep vote out here. I'll encourage you to rather withdraw this Afd. Ask me for any assistance in editing the article. Thanks.
Lourdes10:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Lourdes: If you really want to TNT it, why bring it up to Afd? Because I think it's easier and faster to start over. I'd like to improve this article, though I think it requires me to remove 75% - 90% of the content, that's why I thought
WP:TNT made sense here (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, I must say). I have just withdrawn the article from Deletion. I simply removed the Afd notice, hope that's sufficient. Anyways, thanks for weighing in. I will work this article soon Amin(Talk)15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Amin hi. I think I'll also chip in at the article once you start editing it so it becomes better. And by the way, you don't need to remove that notice from the article's page. Let the administrator/editor who closes this Afd do that. You can undo that edit of yours. What you should do is, just write clearly at the top of this Afd that you are withdrawing the nomination. Thanks.
Lourdes15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lourdes, I did some editing last night, so feel free to add on it. I'm curious to see those "25 reliable sources" come to life. Did some research and could not find that many. Amin(Talk)21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Sure. The next handful of days I'll be tied up in fixing the 25 odd references for my
Featured List candidate. Next week am on a performance tour. Will get onto sprucing up the sources for this probably after 10 February. Hang around till then. Thanks.
Lourdes05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. I would like to see
User:Lourdes 25 reliable sources, because we could add them to the article, but I have found at least one (Helmut K. Anheier; Stefan Toepler (24 November 2009).
International Encyclopedia of Civil Society. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 649–.
ISBN978-0-387-93996-4.). Now, the article has major problem with sourcing, possibly POV/COI (in the context of
WP:NOBLE), but it passes notability, and I do not think the content is as bad as to merit
WP:TNT. The article has been tagged with problems, any editor (including the nominator) can try to rewrite/shorten it, removing promotional material if any is present. No need for a nuke IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here11:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't meet the criteria for
WP:BAND notability, I can't find anything substantial in google news other than a few mentions as an opening act, reviews outside of RS, and some mentions in festival lineups.-Ich(
talk) 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Ich(
talk)22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The characterization of Nihilism in the lede sentence, and the implication that anarchists or nihilists have anything good to say about capitalism is misleading and false. In addition there was very little relationship between political nihilism and anything else called nihilism. Either this article needs an overhaul or it needs to be deleted. Literally the only relevant material in this article is the quoting of a single political nihilist.
Ollyoxenfree (
talk)
16:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect back to
Nihilism#Political nihilism, leave the history for whatever use the scanty material might be to a future editor. This brief article has been around a long time but doesn't contribute incrementally to the discussion, and I didn't see anything better in the article history. The GBooks and GScholar results above show many potential sources to expand on the topic, so eventually this article could be split back out again, but right now it's not serving a purpose. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
17:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Why trouble ourselves over this when all of life is meaningless, knowledge is impossible, reality does not exist and there is no moral or wisdom based standard on which judgment can be based? In short how are we to judge when we float in an existential swamp of delusion? in short, Delete or redirect back to
Nihilism#Political nihilism without merge; it adds nothing.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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
Transformers (toy line). Its certainly not notable enough to sustain its own article, and has no sources aside from fansites and now-defunct product pages. But, I doubt this article name is going to be needed for anything else, and as this toy line is included on the "Transformers (toy line)" page already, I think a Redirect would be fine.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
17:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not true; see cited Atlantic article from 2013 in the Wikipedia article. The term has been around for a long time, and it's been mentioned in ~10 other Wikipedia articles. It's a procedure that isn't discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia.
Ethanbas (
talk)
21:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is not established by being someones daughter or a junior championship - this was a Prod contested by an IP with no explanation.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
09:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment She has won the 2016 bronze in the Indian senior national wrestling championship
[24] and is the 2016 official Indian national junior wrestling champion. Also, what might be your views in relation to
WP:SPORTSPERSON, which mentions that an individual is presumed to be notable "if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor"? Listing out a few sources for your perusal, that seem to make the subject qualify on
BASIC:
ESPN news report on Sangita's rivalry with her sister Babita.
I notice there is an article abut the sisters and the references cited all appear to be in that context - I could see a redirect to
Phogat sisters but the subject herself is not independently notable enough for a stand alone article.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
15:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't believe she meets
WP:NSPORT because she has never competed at an adult world championship or Olympics. There does seem to be a fair amount of press coverage, although almost all of it is in conjunction with her sisters. I'm wondering if a family article might be more appropriate.
Papaursa (
talk)
19:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Phogat sisters. With thanks to the nominator to consider changing his delete assertion, I think the redirect is a wonderful workaround in this case. I'm pinging
Fitindia to consider changing their !vote to redirect too (I'm confident they would see the logic in this). Thanks.
Lourdes04:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Peter hello, would you consider bolding your Redirect suggestion to enable the closing administrator/editor to clearly see the same? Thanks.
Lourdes04:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Student organization that seems to have made headlines for a week in 2005 and then disappeared. There are not enough reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG or
WP:ORGTM12:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - I found a couple of other sources on this group, but nothing substantial enough to indicate long-lasting notability.
GABgab02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep More than a week's coverage in reliable sources. The group has tried various approaches, such as sponsoring a debate and protesting a National Day of Prayer, but nothing generated headlines like their annual "Bibles for porn" exchange. To the 2005 NBC News and XBiz sources cited in the article, add:
Jason P. Olivarri (9 April 2006). "UTSA Evolution and Creationism debate a see-saw affair". La Prensa de San Antonio. p. 4C.
Jason P. Olivarri (7 May 2006). "San Antonio Celebrates National Day of Prayer". La Prensa de San Antonio. p. 4C.
Weak Keep: Flash in the pan, but a notable flash in the pan per sources. Possibly a rename to the main incident that made them a big deal per BIO1E and related guidelines.
Montanabw(talk)19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nom's argument is that the organization [only] made headlines for a week in 2005 and there are not enough reliable sources. There are headlines from 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, in at least a dozen different reliable sources.
GAB wrote a couple of other sources, but nothing substantial enough to indicate long-lasting notability. Not counting the two La Prensa pieces, which don't focus primarily on The Athiest Agenda, the other eleven sources range from 127 to 924 words and total over 4,800 words. That is substantial in number and depth. Whether the notability is long-lasting is a fair question. Coverage is spread over six years between 2005 and 2013. That satisfies
WP:SUSTAINED. At that point the group changed its name and tactics. It is probable that their less confrontational approach generates less coverage. I haven't looked for any under the new name, but
notability is not temporary, so if the group has disappeared from the headlines for the last three years, it shouldn't matter.
Andreas Philopater wrote that most coverage cited is in the local press. Three of the dozen sources are local, although in this case local means the seventh largest city in the United States, with a population of nearly 1.5 million. Next come four notable national media outlets. The sex industry source is admittedly a niche publication. The religious news sources are not as mainstream as The New York Times, but it would be difficult to argue that the national Christian press has a limited audience in the United States. Next are three of the "Big Four" national TV news networks. One of their pieces originated with the Associated Press. The eleventh is a notable news company in the United Kingdom. Finally, there is the official Mexican news agency, whose story was printed in newspapers throughout Mexico and the United States. These plainly satisfy
WP:AUD.
Andreas Philopater further suggests that something analagous to
WP:BIO1E for people should apply to organizations. The "Smut for smut" campaign was annual, not a one-time affair. There were nine events (plus minor ones, such as sponsoring a debate and protesting a National Day of Prayer, although those were only covered by local press).
WP:BLP2E applies. Even if it were one event and if the guideline applied to organizations,
WP:BIO1E is about whether the focus of the article should be the event or the person. At most it would support moving the article to "Smut for Smut". It would not support deletion.
That is true (the two are from 2005, but were added to the article in 2008), but is one of the
arguments to avoid in deletion discussions because it is easily surmountable and does not require deletion to fix. If it bothers you, you could copy the eleven sources above into the article. Articles for deletion is not about whether an article doesn't currently satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but about whether it could never be improved to do so.
Deletion is not cleanup. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
17:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per
WP:SK#1. The premise of the nomination is for merging, which is outside of the general purview of AfD. A merge discussion can be initiated on an article talk page if desired. North America100002:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The founder(s) may be notable, but the proposed channel has not launched yet, and notability is not inherited from founders to their enterprises even before they are launched.
WP:TOOSOONChunnuBhai (
talk)
08:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think there is enough coverage of the upcoming launch itself to meet notability for now. More sources will come when in time given it is a new venture. --
Whats new?(talk)09:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. GNG appears to be clearly met. There is not enough support for a NOTNEWS deletion seems like. Mergers and name changes can still be discussed on the talk page, of course.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Depth of coverageN We don't have an in-depth review so far. Only some short news article.
Duration of coverageN Very short duration of coverage, because it's nothing special.
Diversity of sourcesY Well, seems to be fulfilled, although we only have news reports so far. No text books. No scientific articles.
On the other side, this event can be best described as Routine coverage. It's winter. Temperatures drop. That's how it has been for years. Furthermore, Sensationalism may also be the reason for some of the news reports.
Keep This certainly goes way beyond "Its winter, let's post some pictures of snow in the Daily Mail" coverage. Snow and severe temperatures in places, that do not usually see those iE first snow in 25 years where the last flurry only lasted 30 minutes.
Agathoclea (
talk)
07:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Winter#Exceptionally_cold_winters where it merits a brief entry. As a free-standing article, it is unsatisfactory because it is ill-defined. Right now, it's still January and it's cold here in London. The newspapers are full of reports about freezing fog, airport closures, inversions, &c. Is this part of the supposed phenomenon or not? How do we tell when this stops being something special and starts being the usual winter weather? The atmosphere is turbulent and chaotic so the news media always have something to say about it every day. Either we should have some broadbrush coverage such as a European equivalent of
2016–17 North American winter or we should stick to clearly named local phenomena like
Hurricane Andrew.
Andrew D. (
talk)
08:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
London is a
notorious example in such cases. But London is in Europe and it's cold and it's January so this fits all the parameters of the page title. If this isn't valid, then what are the exact parameters then? When did this thing start and when did it finish? The article currently gives a start date of 5 Jan but note that this is cited to a forecast and the source seems to be a blog. And there is no stated end-date.
Ghmyrtle cites the Guardian as a source but note that the Guardian had another
similar story this morning. This says, "A new bout of cold weather across southern Europe ...". So is this the same topic or a new one? Are we going to have a new page every time the Guardian reports the weather somewhere? Please could Ghmyrtle or someone provide a clear definition of what the topic is so that we may understand what we are debating. This should please include an authoritative source which supports the definition, not just a
newspaper report.
Andrew D. (
talk)
13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indeed, the article needs to be improved. If the title is insufficiently precise, it could be moved. Any suggestions?
This report of the "polar spell [that] gripped a large swathe of the continent" says that the extreme cold was forecast to abate later in that week (of 11 January), and there seems little suggestion that it is continuing now to the same degree. But all that is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it.
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
13:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Yes, it clearly seemsThe question is whether it meets GNG as a bona fide member of
Category:Cold waves in Europe and other such categories. Plus, the colourfully adorned nomination rationale that this cold wave needs to and fails to have "Lasting effects" is not policy. I daresay no single weather event ever does.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The cold wave broke several temperature records as mentioned above and in the article itself, and it did have severe impacts which were reported on worldwide (
UK,
Singapore,
Malaysia,
India), especially on migrants and refugees living in camps. These effects can certainly be elaborated upon; a simple search shows the word "refugee" occurs zero times and "migrant" occurs five times in the article. ~ KN2731 {
talk}
14:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep WP:NPASR This is from my !vote at DRV. "The close has elements of both SNOW and SK, and the remedy is to overturn the SNOW part of the close. The closer reasonably cites WP:POINT given that the nominator can't decide if the topic fails notability, and is using the AfD process to get assistance from the community to help him decide. WP:NPASR allows the nominator the opportunity to review the deficiencies in the nomination, and if re-nominating, to correct those deficiencies."
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: the article meets the general notability guidelines and the coldwave was big news in Hellas where such weather phenomena had not been seen for 30-40 years.
Andreas Mamoukas (
talk)
09:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NACTOR. 2 of the links are dead. The third source doesn't even mention her. Only one known role and that was a minor one. Created a single purpose editor so potential self promotion.
LibStar (
talk)
15:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Deadlinks have archives, so sources exist. Google search shows
more recent coverage as well. While they all seem to be from the same parent corporation, the fact that these different community papers have each sent their reporters to cover this person multiple times over the years makes me consider them as sufficiently separate sources. Passes the GNG.
Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Here is a formatted citation for the link listed above.
Delete as I concur there's no actual notability as an actor given the works are simply so few, and the links are only about themselves hence no actual substance for a better convincing article< therefore all we need for deletion.
SwisterTwistertalk07:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Apparently borderline, but nobody wants to advocate keeping, so it's deleted as an uncontested deletion proposal. Sandstein 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
I see fairly little coverage, mostly in the form of organizations advertising their showings of the film. Doesn't seem to meet
WP:N, despite the HuffPo piece.
Largoplazo (
talk)
02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: The HuffPo piece was part of their blogs, so it wouldn't be seen as a RS on here because it's a SPS essentially, as the HuffPo doesn't really regulate that section of their site. I did find
this, but the article on the
Daily Sabah gives off the impression that they're not a non-partial site on the topic of the Gulen movement and probably wouldn't be a RS in general.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)06:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
So far I only have two in-depth RS, an interview with the Wichita Eagle and an article in the OC Weekly. It's pretty weak sauce, unless any of the above can be used.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)06:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I see a few points. First, producer Mark Hall is an experienced documentarian and this isn't exactly a local-interest only work. Also, on top of the sources already listed, there is this story in the
Houston Press (an alternative weekly).
[25] However, I agree that coverage has been a bit sparse and fringe. Given the continued relevance of Gülen and the continued importance of the charter school movement, this film could continue to receive light coverage and eventually meet GNG/point #2 of
Wikipedia:Notability (films). Currently, I'm not sure.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Maybe worth a note on the pages for the individual songs but I agree he is not notable enough for his own page. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)02:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Jesse Lawrence didn't 'appear' but 'starred' in three massively popular and now iconic Bob Marley videos. One video on youtube has over 17m views and 34 thousand likes [1] For over 10 years there has been speculation and debate on internet forums about the identity of Jesse Lawrence [2] and a Wikipedia entry clears things up and makes them official. While his film The Knot was not a favorite among critics, it was reviewed widely, featured a top cast of well known actors including Hollywood A lister Mena Suvari [3] received a major theatrical release in the UK and Republic of Ireland and is popular enough among a world wide audience to merit the involvement of various distributors and sales agents [4] It also continues to find an audience on the itunes [5] and Amazon [6] streaming platforms. Jesse is a filmmaker of pedigree who has been picked as one to watch by respected trade magazines like Screen Daily[7] Two of his shorts were UK Film Council backed - a film fund (now replaced by the BFI) which only awards to the most talented filmmakers across the UK in a highly competitive selection process - and they screened and competed in some of the most lauded and respected international film festivals such as the BFI London Film Festival [8] This is a filmmaker who is already notable and whose notoriety will only increase along with his film credits. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ragner5000 (
talk •
contribs) 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) note This editor is the creator of the article
Domdeparis (
talk)
10:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The videos are popular because of the songs that were performed by an iconic musician. No one's watching them for Jesse Lawrence; let's not kid ourselves. Anyway, none of the sources you listed here are suitable for Wikipedia (IMDb; a passing mention on randommedia; iTunes; internet forums) and do nothing in establishing notability of the article subject. Actors or directors working with A-listers does not automatically establish notability either, under
WP:NOTINHERITED. The Knot (which has a zero rating on Rotten Tomatoes) was not given the green light because of the choice of director, and he hasn't directed anything since.
sixtynine• speak up •02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Company fails
WP:ORG. Unable to locate anything but local press with announcements about the company. The rest don't add up to
WP:CORPDEPTH. Speedy declined and I failed to see that another speedy was declined last year in 2016 (with no improvements since that recommendation). The page would also need a complete rewrite as it reads like the company website would.
CNMall41 (
talk)
18:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 declined both a PROD (which may have been a mistake) and a CSD A7 request (the subject deals with education). That said there is little evidence that this is more than a list of organizations as opposed to an org in its own right. At the moment the article fails WP:V and I am not sure that it even exists as its own entity. Thoughts?
Ad Orientem (
talk)
20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sounds like an alright guy, but not really notable. Having a grammar school named after you is the only apparent claim to fame, but that hardly constitutes sufficient noteworthiness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Looks more like a genealogy than an encyclopedia article, only covered in local-interest and primary sources. No larger or lasting notability.
Fyddlestix (
talk)
16:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Michael Moates is a registered candidate for office in 2020 election for house of representatives in the United States. He's registered with the Federal Election Commission. He serves on the board of directors for American Youth in Politics and has been feature on many news and media outlets. He is feature in TheBlaze, Huffington Post, The Odyssey Online, In-Detail Media, ect. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Americanyip (
talk •
contribs)
05:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Michael Moates is a native of the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. Michael is currently a student at Tarleton State University, a member of the Texas A&M University system. He is pursuing his bachelor’s of science degree in psychology and minoring in criminal justice and applied behavior analysis. He is an honors program student in psychology and is a member of Sigma Alpha Pi, Omicron Delta Kappa and an external member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Texas. Michael currently works as the Director of Communications for American Youth and Politics and also a Journalist for multiple news organizations and covers government, military and politics. He is currently a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives district 26 for the 2020 election cycle.
Delete run-of-the-mill college student trying to run for office...in 3 years, The wikipedia is not a place to advertise a candidacy, come back when the media considers you a viable candidate, since as of now there's just self-published or unreliable sources in the article.
ValarianB (
talk)
14:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election is not, in and of itself, grounds for a Wikipedia article — we maintain articles about holders of political office, not candidates for it. If you cannot make and properly source a credible case that the candidate was already notable enough to pass our inclusion standards for some other reason besides their candidacy, then they do not get an article unless and until they win the seat they were running for. And furthermore, even the primary for a 2020 election is still over three years away, let alone the general election that actually he'd have to win to qualify for a Wikipedia article — not to mention that the 2018 House elections still have to happen first, so technically we don't even yet know who the incumbent is that he'll be primarying. No prejudice against recreation if and when he wins election to a notable political office, but a person does not get an article on here just for declaring himself a candidate in an election.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry to say but that does not seem to be a truthful statement. There is no citation to Huffington Post, only an inaccurate claim that the subject quote "works for" them and others. If a person submits freelance writings to a publisher, you can't really say the person "works" for that publisher. TheBlaze links are just links to the subjects own submitted content, not to articles written by others about the subject.
ValarianB (
talk)
18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non-notable neologism. We just had
Alternative facts which deals with similar issues
kept by AfD earlier today. I don't think a new article should be created every time someone thinks of a new term to describe issues concerning the Trump administration's relationship with truth. --
Metropolitan90(talk)04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
A mention isn't the same as a merger. It doesn't seem notable enough for more than a single sentence, and anyone could add that to
Truthiness as long as it is referenced (if it isn't already there).
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
19:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect and merge into
Truthiness. Whilst not as well covered as
alternative facts (already), enough reliable sources can be found in international news outlets to establish notability. I therefore think we need an entry for this, but not necessarily in form of a separate article. I suggest to change this into a redirect and merge the contents into the related
Truthiness article. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 do not believe this borderline promotional article is on a notable topic; if a
single article in the Washington Post makes an outfit notable, we're going to run out of paper. This club is...let me see...a day old, and is not proven notable. I'll gladly take a redirect to Young Turks.
Drmies (
talk)
04:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I just saw the talk page, where the old "oh this guy must be a political opponent" nonsense is brought up. Pshaw. Anyway, I do find it odd that we have a number of accounts (and an IP) that appear out of nowhere, all of a sudden, to support this brand-new article, and I sure hope that we're not going to get a
wall of meat here in this AfD.
Drmies (
talk)
04:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Ever consider that a rapidly expanding movement is obviously going to exponentially attract more people over time? Or that a notice for deletion increases the pressure to improve the page? It's interesting to note the dismissal of the claim of deletion out of political opposition (a claim which I disagree with, for the record) while simultaneously claiming meat puppetry. Come on, look at the article revision history, and it's obvious that it's clearly not a scheme because the patterns of the revisions. I'm sure most of the people are people like me, who Googled "justice democrat" after hearing it, saw that there's a Wikipedia article in desperate need of work, and decided to improve it. Its considerable growth (over two hundred candidate applications and 17 thousand signups in less than one day) makes it notable. The wording bias in the articles can be remedied to make the article less "promotional." And clearly,
it'smorethanonearticle. -- Firestar493 / Nightstar648 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This was started awfully early, and the editors didn't know how we define notability, but in addition to the Washington Post and Wired sources—both of which are
reliable, especially the first, but neither of which was properly identified, so they were lost in the pool of primary sources (two sets of references to the platform) and dubious sources that I have kept because they reference the full list of founding names mentioned in the article, and who knows, some of those without articles may someday become notable—I found an article on the
Univision site. That makes 3 reliable news sources, two indisputably major, so although the New York Times article that comes up on search didn't actually cover this group when I checked last night, I believe it now meets
WP:GNG. I have accordingly rewritten it to tighten it up.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:PROMO and as waaaaayWP:TOOSOON. Yes WaPo and Wired ran articles when it launched. But let's wait until it has done more than launch. No prejudice against re-creation in 6 months or so if coverage at that point warrants.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Yngvadottir. How many other political organizations are able to attract fifty-thousand-odd registrations in two days?
68.132.76.144 (
talk)
23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep, I really don't see what the problem is with the article. I'm not exactly sure what type of political organization this is (I'm not that familiar with the inner workings of the US system), but Political parties are by definition notable. If someone founds a "People's Democracy Party" in Luxembourg and runs for elections, they are still notable and should have a Wiki article. Just because a party is small (or even dead), doesn't mean it can't have a Wiki article. There are already tons of articles about micro-parties that have like 200 members and get 300 votes. This is no different. --
Hibernian (
talk)
03:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Clean up and Weak Keep Should have some work done to make the tone a bit more neutral, and the article is a bit light with the number of sources there now, but given that there are a few strong ones, and it seems likely there will be more, I lean to keep.
Nwlaw63 (
talk)
21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, if there can be a list of Pokemon, why not this? 50,000 sign-ups in one day is pretty notable. It's not like Wikipedia is running out of pages.
Asaturn (
talk)
22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, There are Wikipedia articles for small third parties like the Alaskan Independence Party, which only has 13,000 members. The Justice Democrats had 17,000 sign ups in 24 hours. I say that if there are people passionate enough to write and maintain an accurate and quality Wikipedia page, why delete it and discourage them from contributing to other articles in the future?
Weak Keep, Although I feel this article was created a little too early, I will say keep as it is a movement of the current time. I do believe more information will become available in the next couple of months but that will take time. For those unfamiliar, this is a movement within the Democratic Party that is similar to the Tea Party movement of the Republican Party several years back. I will admit, it is quite interesting to see how many people have supported the movement so far. As for the New York Times article, the only mention of the Justice Democrats appear in the article link but not in the article itself, which is why the article appears in a Google search for Justice Democrats. It's a pretty deceptive practice by the news agency but that for another day.
Elli21486 (
talk)
08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As long as the article is neutral and not too promotional of the movement, I'm fine with keeping the article. I also think it's prominent and relevant enough to be featured on a Wikipedia article. -
Bokmanrocks01 (
talk)
20:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Absolutely keep, this is a movement made from the people that brought you one of the largest anti-corruption/political movements in history. It would be absolutely ridiculous to delete this when known Punk Rock bands who start side projects have their band's bio on Wikipedia before they even release a successful record, as if they had already sold millions of records. No reason to delete this, AT ALL. 23:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep I don't think this should even be a question. It's a political movement with, as of January 29 2017, over 60,000 supporters, just within the first few days of existence. The party has a clear objective and has been mentioned by several major sources. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. Of course, it should be objective, but that's not a reason for deleting an article when it is clearly noteworthy. -
Throast (
talk)
22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As the last commenter noted, this movement already has over 60,000 supporters, so it's definitely important enough for an entry. I myself have already consulted it several times for reference, so I can attest that it is helpful for at least this Wikipedia user. Also, the original complaint that "if a single article in the Washington Post makes an outfit notable, we're going to run out of paper" is silly, because this is the internet (paperless). This is a useful page, and so it's worth the cost that is ACTUALLY real in maintenance. comment added by Monica, user — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:193:8280:50E4:1994:425A:2C0F:A7AB (
talk)
22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I previously closed this discussion as the article was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. It has been recreated, though, so I'm taking the liberty to re-open this (as it hasn't been archived yet). --
Paul_012 (
talk)
14:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 The basic premise of the precedent behind school outcomes is that GNG does not require that sources be in the article or even that they be accessible to anyone on the English Wikipedia. It simply requires that they exist and that someone in the right geography and the right language skills could find them. We keep secondary schools under this presumption that if they are a real school, these sources likely exist even if the country they are in does not make them easily accessible online to Anglophones. The current RfC on secondary school notability might lead to a reconsideration of the practice the compromise on schools that has existed over the past decade, but until such a time, we should continue to keep articles of legitimate secondary schools.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
05:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep on grounds of avoiding
Wikipedia:Systemic bias - this deletion discussion shows why the current practice of "keep secondary schools" is good for avoiding systemic bias: A Russian school in Egypt is not something native English speakers often think about. I've encountered difficulty finding Russian sources on the internet but I'm sure sources in Russian and Arabic exist, and perhaps some Egyptian newspapers may have a story about it in English...
WhisperToMe (
talk)
22:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - I... also think this may be a hoax. The entire language is spoken by 150k people, and centered about 2k miles from St. Petersburg. Even if this actually was a newspaper, I have a hard time believing it would be notable, and even more so without a Russian language article.
TimothyJosephWood19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- not a hoax. According to the source listed in the article (by
Shirin Akiner, which is an RS), it was one of the three periodicals in the Lak language, and it existed longer than just in 1912-14, as it was reissued under the same name in the mid-century. Here's the
link in Google books preview. Being one of only three newspapers in a given language (1948 - ?), I believe this meets
WP:NNEWSPAPER #1.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying it is a hoax, only that it may be a hoax, notability is a separate matter. I could not find other sources other than what is already listed, which is why I thought that. - CHAMPION(
talk) (
contributions) (
logs) 00:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The sources online are about the day to day working of a CEO and not something remarkable about the person. In addition there are usual announcements by a company (dialpad) which the subject heads. Most of the sources like
forbes,
fortune and even
techcrunch only have announcements about the day-to-day running of a non notable company and trivial mentions of the subject.
Kansiime(chat)00:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - A CEO of a non notable company. The mere mentions in the sources only speak about him in passing mentions while doing what an ordinary company would be doing in its day to day running. Nothing encyclopedic about this subject and a search online doesn't return any coverage in a
reliable source.
Gachangi (
talk)
06:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ultimately, none of the sources given are provide reliable in-depth coverage of Mr. Swerling. The NY / LA Times articles are about other people's careers or deaths. Mr. Swerling is quoted in each but is not the main topic of concern. I concur with the arguments for deletion. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)11:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
IMDb and FilmReference.com are reputable databases often cited in Wikipedia articles as reference material. Accordingly the page should be accepted.
Bayscribe (
talk)
01:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.