Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Mike Fellows (politician) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
no basis for notability. Very minor officeholder, being the first
Libertarian Party candidate to be elected in a statewide office might be notable, but not merely winning a 40% share of the votes, but losing. (presumably originally intended as advocacy for his political carrier, he is no longer living_
DGG (
talk ) 23:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete doesn't meet
WP:NPOL, no other claim of notability.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 03:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- KEEP, clearly notable figure. Very important historical figure in Libertarian politics. according to a
Washington Times article by By Matt Volz, he had been involved with the Montana Libertarian Party since
1982.
Mike Fellows was also the
Montana coordinator for the
Fully Informed Jury Association
[1]. He was also the longest-serving active state chair of the Libertarian Party
[2]. Fellows was referred to in the
Billings Gazette as the
"Godfather of third-party politics in Montana" and for good reason! Fellows made history in 2012. In the 2012 election, Fellows actually made national history by becoming the first Libertarian in national Libertarian Party history to crack that 40 percent barrier in a partisan statewide race. It had never been passed before! He won
43% of the votes which amounts to 185,419 votes and thus carried 27 of the state’s 56 counties in a two-way race for the Supreme Court clerk position. He also was running against the incumbent Democrat Ed Smith. Not only is that no mean feat, that's a history making event! Love or loathe the Libertarian party, it made people right across the United States take a second look at the Libertarian party. And Fellows was responsible for that. His presence and historical winning of 43% of the votes has reverberations that transcend the state of Montana and reverberate anywhere in the
United States where a Libertarian party exists.
Karl Twist (
talk) 10:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Montana-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 04:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 04:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep per #3 of NPOL. Not all of the refs are RS-worthy, but most are. Still needs cleanup, though.
South Nashua (
talk) 17:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - As I see it, we have the high bar of the POLITICIAN special notability guideline in place as a filter against the propaganda of self-serving political wannabes on the make. Note that this is a non-living subject; thus a return to the more lax normal GNG standards may well be appropriate. 17:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, as surprised as I am to find myself agreeing with Karl Twist about pretty much anything. The sourcing here is substantial enough and voluminous enough to satisfy
WP:GNG — and for a fringe party that's never actually won a seat in any
WP:NPOL-passing legislative body at all, getting the biggest vote total in that party's entire history, and thereby coming the closest that anybody in the party has ever gotten to actually winning an election, is a pretty decent claim to being at least somewhat more notable than the norm for unsuccessful candidates. And yes, since he's dead we don't have to weigh this against the prospect of the article getting misused as a campaign brochure in a future election — that doesn't mean we should automatically drop NPOL for all dead candidates and weigh them solely against a very general standard of "it has sources so it can stay", but in an edge case like this where there's a pretty substantial volume of sourcing and a credible reason why he could be considered more notable than usual, that argument is a valid factor in tipping the balance.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:11, 24 July 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.
(non-admin closure)
MassiveYR
♠ 17:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Jeffrey Alan Payne (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:POLITICIAN
reddogsix (
talk) 23:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Texas-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Texas gubernatorial election, 2018. What is mentioned in the sources other than "he's running" doesn't justify a standalone article. --
Kinu
t/
c 06:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and then create a redirect to the election per Kinu. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and as of today, he's still only a candidate in a party primary, which is even less of a notability claim. At the gubernatorial level, the election campaign frequently does generate more and wider coverage than assembly races do, so he may have a valid claim to passing
WP:GNG next year if he wins the primary and becomes the Democratic candidate in the general — but even that wouldn't guarantee him an article in and of itself if it couldn't be substantively written and sourced — but nothing here as of right now already entitles him to have an article today.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Bearcat and Kinu. If he wins the primary, we can perhaps reopen the page.
MAINEiac4434 (
talk) 03:55, 19 July 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. --
RoySmith
(talk) 14:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Jarod Joseph (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:BLP of an actor, whose only listed reference is a single blurb of "local boy makes good" coverage in a hometown newspaper on the occasion of his appearing as a one-off guest character in one television episode -- while there are other roles listed in his filmography, none of them are
reliably sourced at all. As always, an actor does not get a free pass over
WP:NACTOR just because some (or a lot of) roles are listed — if the base notability claim amounts to "he's been in stuff", then it takes
reliable source coverage about his work in some of those roles, and more than just one piece of that, to get him in the door. (Note: despite the fact that this is a second nomination, I'm not willing to speedy this as a recreation of deleted content — the first version was completely unsourced and consisted only of a statement that he existed, so even if notability hasn't been properly demonstrated here the content is still significantly different from the first time.)
Bearcat (
talk) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 22:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 22:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The evidence that he's "really well-known" being...what, exactly?
Bearcat (
talk) 21:16, 23 July 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 delete. by
User:Doc James as
WP:G11,
G5.
(non-admin closure)
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Philippe Hoerle-Guggenheim (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:GNG has an unsupported claim to be a member of the Guggenheim family but even if this were referenced, notability is not inherited.
Theroadislong (
talk) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 22:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 22:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - very likely a hoax, or perhaps even part of a fraud - in any case the claim of being part of the Guggenheim family has to be proved or there is not even a shadow of a claim to notability here.
Smallbones(
smalltalk) 23:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - even if he were part of the Guggenheim family, I think this subject fails notability guidelines. See
WP:NOTINHERITED.
Gilded Snail (
talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - a strange mishmash of
WP:NOTINHERITED and borderline
WP:BLP1E with the
Alison Jackson performance art thing (two of the sources don't even mention the subject of the article). He seems to be a real person with a gallery, a knack for being photographed with celebrities, and some kind of arrest record, but that's all I can figure out with a few minutes of
WP:BEFORE research. ☆
Bri (
talk) 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Deleted Looks like paid for spam from a sock puppet.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 15:01, 18 July 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.
A Train
talk 09:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Bhakti Rathod (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not a notable actor. Has acted in non-notable films. Clearly fails
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG
Coderzombie (
talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Coderzombie (
talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Coderzombie (
talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Notable ACTRESS, MUST BE THERE. Bhakti Rathod is a notable and award-winning actress who has worked in multiple films and serials. Multiple third-party reliable sources confirm to the notability.--
Rashkeqamar (
talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- She has acted only in films and tv series that are not notable, hence fails
WP:NACTOR.
Coderzombie (
talk) 19:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Notable, Bhakti Rathore is mentioned in
IMDb
-
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm9104078/?ref_=tt_cl_t1
- Bhakti got Best Theatre actress- Tihai Gujarati Glamour Award 2014. She has acted as a child artist in Hindi serials on Star Plus like
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi and
Des Mein Niklla Hoga Chand. She later also acted
Sajda Tere Pyaar Mein. she has done many Gujarati film like Aapne To Dhirubhai.--
Rashkeqamar (
talk) 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- IMDb is not good enough source for notability. Child actors having minor roles does not establish notability either. The films she has acted in are not notable either. Please read
WP:NACTOR before presenting arguments.
Coderzombie (
talk) 07:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete: Nearly borderlining meeting GNG, and appears to have doubtful notability.
KGirlTrucker81
huh?
what I've been doing 11:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: No doubt the subject has received coverage in reliable sources but I’m not sure if the subject has played a major role in tv serial listed in the article within “Television” section so I request to author
Rashkeqamar to provide some evidence to support his claim otherwise it can be deleted per
WP:TOOSOON. I would however hold judgement and not vote since the nominator asked me to look into this AfD. Thank you –
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Weak Keep: Here is
Google search and some articles on
The Times of India found talking about the actress.
Article 1,
Article 2,
Article 3 and
Article 4. She looked some known TV actress of Hindi and Gujrati television. The article looks notable, still would urge to check if subject passes notably. --Elton-Rodrigues 20:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Elton-Rodrigues (
talk •
contribs)
- Comment: Bhakti acted in Gujarati serial Pati Thayo Pati Gayo on ETV Gujarati.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/gujarati/Pati-Thayo-Pati-Gayo-has-its-social-messages/articleshow/46342051.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/gujarati/Bhakti-Rathodis-playing-the-lead-in-Pati-Thayo-Pati-Gayo/articleshow/45214218.cms?
Bhakti Rathod is also currently playing a major role in India's 1st Gujarati rom-com web series ‘Kacho Papad Pako Papad’ which has received extensive coverage.
http://www.exchange4media.com/industrybriefing/sonyliv-launches-gujarati-rom-com-web-series-kacho-papad-pako-papad_68853.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/web-series-gets-gujarati-flavour/articleshow/58728307.cms
http://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/now-watch-indias-1st-gujarati-romcom-web-series-kacho-papad-pako-papad/1054088
http://gulfnews.com/tabloid/film/web-series-gets-gujarati-flavour-1.2029926
--
Rashkeqamar (
talk) 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Spaceman
Spiff 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Keep : Bhakti Rathod has acted in a TV serial Kanho Banyo Common Man. Her new film Wass...up! Zindagi is releasing in August 2017.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/gujarati/Sagar-panchal-makes-his-Gujarati-TV-debut/articleshow/45133014.cms
--
Rehmanbarua (
talk) 10:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- A new user whose only contribution is to the article in question. Probably
WP:SPA
Coderzombie (
talk) 14:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith
(talk) 20:54, 17 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Knappologi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article is a mere definition of a term only included in a short story. However, per
WP:NOT, such articles should not be kept. Also, there is no supported claim of notability for this very term. So I believe that the article should be deleted.
Kostas20142 (
talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Language-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - As per this nomination (and my PROD), this is only a would-be
dictionary definition, and there is no evidence that the term is used outside the story.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 05:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and WP:NOTDICT. The word is sometimes used in Swedish
[3], and is even included in the major encyclopedia
Nationalencyklopedin
[4]. That's not an argument for keeping the article, not least because this is the English Wikipedia, and as far as I know the word is never used in English.
Sjö (
talk) 06:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Knappologi is suitable for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.
Julle (
talk) 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:06, 24 July 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.
Academic Challenger (
talk) 06:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Swarda Thigale (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Badly sourced (and I couldn't find additional sources), generally non-encyclopedic tone, the creator's name,
Fiverrman, in combination with the photo declared as "own work" suggests significant COI issues. On top of that, the notability of the subject is borderline at best.
Rentier (
talk) 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Non notable subject. Finding more sources that meet
WP:VER unlikely.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 03:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete NActor and the GNG. I doubt the IndianAFD guide will help us here. Article is very promo-y (the whole personal section could go).
L3X1
(distænt write)
)evidence( 15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - fails
WP:NACTOR, and searches did tutn up anything to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969
TT me 20:55, 25 July 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 redirect to
Paradise Pier.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Pixar Pier (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable content fork of
Paradise Pier.
James (
talk/
contribs) 19:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The nominator had tried to merge but it was undone by the article creator. Redirect per nom, until such time as a page move is required to the new name. I believe that's what we have done in cases where amusement parks have been rebranded and rethemed, but if that's not so, please ping me. I see that the nominator is a member of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney so I rather think he's on solid ground, here.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I've also added
Category:Proposed amusement parks, which I think pertains, for now.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- That category has been removed by an IP account, with explanation.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- As the Disney WP seems to be semi-active, I've linked to this Afd from WikiProject Amusement Parks.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 22:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect for now –
Paradise Pier should eventually be renamed "Pixar Pier" once the new theme is applied in 2018. I don't see a reason to have two separate articles. --
GoneIn60 (
talk) 09:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- 'Redirect for now, agree with
Shawn in Montreal's judgement, as someone who is a member of both WikiProjects affected.
Elisfkc (
talk) 03:19, 20 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Girls Incorporated of Southwestern Connecticut (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Affiliate of a national organization. As a rule, these are not notable per
WP:ORG; I don't see where this affiliate is an exception. Also, the article is lacking in independent sources. —
C.Fred (
talk) 18:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 18:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- regional affiliates are rarely notable and this one misses the mark big time.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. No evidence that this particular affiliate is notable.
Maproom (
talk) 08:18, 22 July 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 one "keep" opinion by the article creator, who is employed by the article subject, does not address the lack of notability as reflected in reliable third-party sources, see
WP:GNG.
Sandstein 12:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Geneva Water Hub (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article written by the Communications Officer of the Geneva Water Hub; no sources other than its own and associated websites. Promotional COI article.
Pam
D 18:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Searches turn in nothing to add meaningful sources, and fails GNG and NCORP.
KGirlTrucker81
huh?
what I've been doing 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Not a particularly notable subject, unlikely that more verifiable sources will turn up. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH as a result.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 15:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: My objective is in no way to promote or advertise the, more than an organization, Initiative I work for but to inform the community and general audience about this process, also Secretariat of the
Global High-Level Panel on Water and Peace, in favour of water and peace, globally. I have been very careful to follow the
Wikipedia 5 pillars in all of my content writing. The reliability of source has particularly been at my attention, and the diversity of them will grow in the coming weeks. Regarding my involvement with the Initiative, I am taking care to comply with the
Wikipedia: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide as best as possible, be transparent and completely neutral. I hope that you will understand that I am new to the Wikipedia philosophy and how to put it into practice (technically). I am ready to follow concrete piece of advice to make the Geneva Water Hub article acceptable.--
Stephanekluser (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 08:16, 19 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Errol Black (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Black was a city councillor in
Brandon, Manitoba. With only 49,000 residents, it's not big enough for councillors to automatically merit their own articles (as per
WP:NPOL and
WP:POLOUTCOMES).
Black was also an academic, but I don't believe he meets the criteria for notability set out at
WP:PROF.
Madg2011 (
talk) 17:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 17:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 17:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 17:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Passes neither
WP:Prof or politician.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC).
reply
- Delete. The potential for notability here depends on
WP:PROF for his work as a professor, not on
WP:NPOL for being a city councillor in a small city, but the academic work is sitting on
primary sources — the
reliable sources are supporting the city council, his non-winning federal candidacy and a summary of general political views that we don't care about for a politician who hasn't held a notable office. As well, by and large those sources aren't about him in the manner necessary to clear
WP:GNG, but merely namecheck his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article whose subject is something or someone else (and/or where he's the author of the content.) None of this is enough to deem him more notable than the norm for city councillors, and none of it supports notability as an academic at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:39, 18 July 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 moved to
Draft:Joanna Pickering. Based on the discussion below, and from the discussion with the subject of the article in
VRTS ticket #
2017071910019884, there is a consensus at least that the article doesn't belong in main article space yet. Based on the subject's current work on soon-to-be-released shows that don't yet have coverage, this may be a
WP:TOOSOON situation. Therefore, due in part to the urgent nature of the agreement from the subject that it would be best to delete the article until the notability issue is settled, I believe the best compromise at this stage is to move the article to draft space so that it can be improved upon release of the subject's upcoming shows. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Joanna Pickering (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:CREATIVE and
WP:GNG. Sources are too weak to support any notability guideline. Specifically, sources #1, 3, 6, 8, 12 and 17 are interviews with the subject or related people (such as fiancé) and therefore not independent RSes. Source 14 is the subject's own website, not usable as a
self-published source. Sources 4 and 13 are blurbs from a minor 25-watt local radio station, as
stated on the article talkpage don't contribute much to notability. Many of the other sources are similarly weak: #15-16-18 (reviews of a band she's not in), #19 (name on poster w/o role, also her fiancé's production) - also #21 redirects to same site, and #11 is a Blogspot blog. Sources #7 and #20 fail verification completely: neither mentions the subject. #5 is a dead link impossible to verify but apparently serves to source subject's appearance in an unknown play with unknown writers. The only sources that really work are #2 establishing her undergraduate degree, #9 establishing her role in a single film, and a brief mention of the same role in #10, but this isn't enough for a full BLP. Unsurprisingly, the article was created by a now blocked promotional editor and the subject's personal website has had a link to this Wikipedia article since sometime in 2011, according to
Internet Archive, about the same time a New York management agency
created it. This is the result: the worst SPS/interview sources are used for the majority of the citations. Huge sections of the article on the CREATIVE's work are completely unsupported despite the management company's
socks returning to prop it up. Summary, still not notable same as in the
first deletion debate in 2009. ☆
Bri (
talk) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The article is looking a lot better than it did before despamming and cleanup but now that the fixable problems have been cleaned up we are left with the intrinsic ones and they are serious. The movie she is claimed to be notable for doesn't have an article and seems not to be notable. The TV series she is claimed to be producing has no article. The references are really not great for verification but I assume that it is basically true, albeit cast in a light to make it look far more impressive than it really is. If so, she probably works hard but working hard on non-notable projects does not make you notable. And that is where it really falls down. Where is the notability? A very few bit parts in notable films and TV shows. Some larger parts in non-notable films. The odd mention in a fashion magazine. This is no good. Finally there is the claim that she is notable as a "muse". Whatever happens to the rest of the article I'd like to see that cast into the bitbucket on account of it being 2017 CE. Personally, I don't know many women who wouldn't punch somebody who described them as a "muse". Deleting that part would be a kindness. -
DanielRigal (
talk) 17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Promotional and non-notable for the reasons given above. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 18:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete My muse tells me that she might be notable in 3-4 years, but not yet. Independent reliable sources are just not there.
Smallbones(
smalltalk) 18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
Bri sets out a detailed and compelling case for deletion.
Edwardx (
talk) 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as per case set out by nominator - attempts to clean up COI and promotional issues have clearly exposed the lack of notability.
Melcous (
talk)
- NOT Delete proper citations needed adding (now added) removing problem of weak sources (more can be added - plenty to find. Regards fiance (which a quick look at his page suggests he is not out to promote her) the sources are in big UK sources/newspapers - scotsman (music) huffington post (film). It is clear she has notable credits if more avant-garde than commercial. All her films are clarified and credited on on imdb credits. There was also proof of awards won in independent film and festival (which is not on page). The notable film - actually has far more press which needs to be added (kubricks) in known sources, as well as two other films. Non primary sources needed adding (added) and further wording needed to be taken out. Further sources are ample - Huffington post etc and major sources as well as avant-garde sources. She is clearly linked to the Creation records scene (via Alan Mcgee) and this is noted as a culturally accepted genre in itself while not mainstream. Previous reading of earlier pages since 2007 suggest she is known for such choices. I found one article noting her a fashion influencer. I agree muse is not a good word, however it is no doubt she has collaborated at this level on projects of not mainstream but cultural significance - including a film at the whitney museum which is leading gallery. Would collaborator be better for her (did a man write the muse part?!) I think we need to keep adding the more relevant sources that are there to be found and actually do the service that is needed. I would be very nervous to delete a female actors body of work, even if early days, when it is clear many sources have not yet been added. There is editing work to be done, and especially having her management confirm as they handle notable actors in first place. I would hesitate not to work on this and make as concise with proper sources than delete. Cannot find anything for the most beautiful gallery- it is clear she was involved but the source does not load - maybe delete that part. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dp0071125 (
talk •
contribs) 01:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC) —
Dp0071125 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- NOT delete - added valuable press sources from non primary sources and removed sections that did not have this - it is all verifiable in other sites such as imdb and via directors she has clearly worked with outside mainstream. Have left only information with more press sources that are not primary. Tidied up external links, corrected information that did not fit with those articles linking, and took out the filmographies that are on imdb.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.193.114.163 (
talk •
contribs) —
24.193.114.163 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Under A3
RickinBaltimore (
talk) 17:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Certified Bitcoin Professional (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article has no references and is essentially only a
dictionary definition. Google search shows only that a procedure for the certification exists, and there are no independent articles about the significance of the certification. With no independent coverage, a Wikipedia article is in effect only
promoting the examination and certification.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 16:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Consider speedy A3. I actually had it open in another tab and was waiting to see if anything else got added. But as it stands, it's essentially just a restatement of the title.
TimothyJosephWood 16:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Nominated once before with the same reasoning. Speedy-deleted as
copyright violation. This version of the article does not appear to be copyright and so can go through deletion discussion.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 16:44, 17 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
A Life in Silk (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:GNG
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Video games-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Japan-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - non notable game without a reliable source.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 10:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I was unable to find any online sources that would help indicate some sort of notability.
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 06:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Yeah, I cannot find any RSs that even mention this game.--
IDV
talk 10:19, 20 July 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. There seems to be significant reliable sources and coverage. It needs a minor clean up though, per
WP:MOS.
(non-admin closure) - The
Magnificentist 09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Gillie and Marc (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Completing nomination per
WP:AGF on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (from their edit summary) was "personal content. not content for encyclopedia.". On the merits, the article was created and exclusively edited by
Gillieandmarcart (
talk ·
contribs), which is either a username violation or an indication of autobiography. While there are some reliable-ish sources included in the article, the vast majority are from the subject's website - never a good sign. The prose itself is problematic, as with the lead where some of the subject's work is self-described as iconic. I make no recommendation as to notability, but if there is a suitable article about these individuals, I don't think this is it.
UltraExactZZ
Said ~
Did 13:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as badly flawed but still notable (media coverage, multiple books by major publishers, etc). We have a procedure for potential deletions described in
WP:BEFORE. In other words,
WP:SOFIXIT, Anonymous. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 16:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Artists-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Grahame (
talk) 02:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There seems to have been significant work done since it was IP nominated for AfD, including appropriate referencing. There seems to be plenty of secondary sources available, including some I found immediately which are not industry related, and reliable, ie plenty of
WP:NEXIST.
Aoziwe (
talk) 02:30, 19 July 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 redirect to
Solvent. Based on the discussion, it does not seem like this topic is different from
solvent seeing as Google hits do not prove anything and the Russian term simply means the same thing
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Multicomponent solvents (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is a dictionary definition plus a product listing at best. All of these products appear to be specific product codes rather than widely used in industry.
shoy (
reactions) 13:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science-related deletion discussions.
shoy (
reactions) 13:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
solvent at best, but no prejudice against deletion either. In my quick search, I find scientific articles using the term, but nothing beyond passing mention that would fulfill notability. In the term does get mention at the article, it probably won't ever be more than a sentence.
Kingofaces43 (
talk) 21:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The term is widely used in
CIS countries, where Multicomponent Solvents are widely available in the market. They are known by their name Rastvoritel (
Russian: Растворитель). Numnber 646 yields over 100k hits on Google:
[6]. --
Saippuakauppias
⇄ 11:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Do you have any reliable sources that say that these terms and numbers are widely used in CIS countries? # of Google hits is not a reliable metric.
shoy (
reactions) 12:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Just a note that Saippuakauppias is the article creator. I also have to agree that nothing in this comment establishes anything that fulfills
WP:GNG.
Kingofaces43 (
talk) 15:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. "
ru:Растворитель" is no more than the ordinary Russian word for "
solvent". See also
ru:wikt:растворитель. Nothing multicomponent in itself about the word at all.
Narky Blert (
talk) 16:38, 24 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Richard S. David (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:POLITICIAN (at least not yet) - somebody who has put their name forward for a local council election and nothing else.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 13:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Local boardmember running for a city council election. Doesn't pass
WP:POLITICIAN, and no significant coverage found, so also doesn't pass
WP:GNG
WikiVirus
C
(talk) 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 15:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. , preferably speedyA7, nobody can rationally think that membership on a community board and the mere intention to run for city council is enough to justify an article in an encyclopedia; or speedy G11, since it is obviously intended as a campaign statement.
DGG (
talk ) 19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC) .
reply
- Delete where's the credible claim of significance? Let alone notability. —
fortuna
velut luna 21:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, no indication or credible claim of notability. Why was speedy deletion declined?
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- There were sources, which might suggest a redirect or amalgamation to some list article instead of deletion. Maybe. See
User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and
Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance. Seemed better to have the full chat at AfD - I don't think there's an immediate rush to delete the article.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 16:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. People do not get articles just for announcing their candidacies in future city council elections — if you cannot demonstrate and
properly source that he was already eligible for an article under some other notability criterion before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to qualify for an article for his political activity. But this makes no valid claim of preexisting notability, and is based entirely on
primary sources with the exception of a single article in a community weekly newspaper — which is not enough coverage to deem his candidacy a special "more notable than the norm" case, either.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:50, 18 July 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. Consensus is that the article fails notability as described by
Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people notable for only one event. Since the subject did not play a significant role in the event and does not appear to be notable outside of the event, this article does not appear to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Malinaccier (
talk) 06:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Iqbal Marwat (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not notable per
WP:GNG and
WP:1EVENT.
Greenbörg
(talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
MassiveYR
♠ 12:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per no. received press coverage only for a single event. --
Saqib (
talk) 17:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I tried to find coverage so we can have a article for that event but that failed too.
Greenbörg
(talk) 16:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Sad delete exactly per the nom.
L3X1
(distænt write)
)evidence( 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as per nom, per
WP:1EVENT.
Onel5969
TT me 20:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I think, rather dramatic, significant attack, multiple deaths . Sourcing, rewriting now. Please give me a few minutes.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:HEYMANN I have added a number of sources, expanded article a bit. National/International coverage (BBC, Indian and Pakistani papers). Some ongoing. 16 people killed in suicide attack - not sure whether this includes the suicide bomber. Target attack on this police officer, I assume that a
Deputy Superintendent of Police is a significant rant because he was being driven in his official car at the time of the attack. I also assume that the Nom and editors commenting above did not have access to news archive searches. Suggest that we change title to something like
Killing of Iqbal Marwat, or similar.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, I just looked an more news article come up on a simple google search of his name:
[7]. Article can be expanded even without access to paywalled archive searches.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- And by clicking either r"news" or "HighBeam" at the top of this page. I do so wish that Nom would have looked a little harder, or that editors would at the very least click on the tool bar before iVoting.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Clicking "News" on the tool bar brings up a number of articles demonstrating impact, and ongoing coverage.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. That there's coverage of this event doesn't mitigate the 1Event-ness of the article.
Drmies (
talk) 23:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- No, major terrorist attacks are not precluded from notability because they are "events", see
WP:NCRIME.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- An attack is an event and can be notable. A person is not an event. "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead."
Drmies (
talk) 01:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Which, as editors who look up the page will see, is why I have suggested renaming this page and reshaping it as an article about the bombing in which
Iqbal Marwat was targeted and killed, along with 15 other human beings.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 01:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note I did see some coverage of his activities as a police official that pre-dated the attack; but I am suggesting moving article to a page about the attack, which did kill a lot of people and get a lot of coverage.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Closing editor, please relist this page because 1.) it was not listed a a terrorist attack and has, therefore, not drawn many editors. 2.)
WP:HEY, and 3.) the discussion should shift to the notability of this killing as a targeted terrorist attack that killed 16 people (including the police official who was targeted).
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 01:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - No indication that the incident is notable whether we are referring to the officer alone or the attack as a whole. I'm sure there is a list that can accomandate any concerns by briefly mentioning the incident.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 03:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
User:Drmies and
WP:1E. A sad case, but the best that can be said for this person's notability is that they played a minor role (one of 16 killed) in a routine attack. If there were a page on the attack itself then a redirect might be appropriate, but there isn't and I doubt that the attack itself would be notable.
Lankiveil (
speak to me) 05:44, 26 July 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.
(non-admin closure) - The
Magnificentist 09:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
CEDC (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This disambiguation page contains 7 items, of which only 1 has article. However, per
WP:Disambiguation, dab pages are meant to deal with potential conflicts between subjects ALREADY covered by Wikipedia , for a given word or phrase that a reader might search. Here, with this acronym and these subjects included, it is not the case. Also, per
WP:DABACRONYM , items should not be included unless they are commonly known by this acronym, included in the (not existent here) articles. So, I believe this dab page must be deleted
Kostas20142 (
talk) 11:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- All items are allready mentioned in another articles on wikipedia (including abbreviation). Two of them now links to existing article. So I think it shouldn't be deleted.--
Qxbase (
talk) 09:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep now meets requirements, with 2 articles and others which meet
MOS:DABRL /
MOS:DABMENTION.
Boleyn (
talk) 15:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: now a valid dab page.
Pam
D 16:52, 18 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. (
non-admin closure)
Wylie
pedia 01:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Star Gold (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn’t appear notable
NZ Footballs Conscience
(talk) 11:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn by nominator
Mistaken in nominating this article for deletion and not applying
WP:BROADCAST properly. Withdrawing my request
NZ Footballs Conscience
(talk) 20:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Anoptimistix (
talk) 13:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Sorry it appears I made a bad decision nominating this before checking all policy. After I nominated I was wondering if it should be merged with main article on the TV station but I since also see that all of the stations channels have their own pages as well.
NZ Footballs Conscience
(talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
NZ Footballs Conscience: are you
withdrawing your nomination? —
Wylie
pedia 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Yes @
CAWylie: I believe it is best to withdraw my nomination for this article, I will do so now.
NZ Footballs Conscience
(talk) 20:04, 17 July 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. Mainly because of the
WP:NOTNEWS points brought up. I don't think that under current policy we can treat Daesh-affiliated crimes differently from non-Daesh affiliated ones, as an aside, which makes some of the notability arguments less convincing.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
June 2017 Linz Attack (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
June 2017 Linz Murder (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article about a murder, written to sound like a terrorist attack. Fails
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:10YT. -
Mr
X 10:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete. Also a violation of
WP:BLP as it says the arrested suspect is guilty of murder and terrorist offences when he hasn't been tried yet.
Lard Almighty (
talk) 10:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Austria-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Note - Page has been moved to
June 2017 Linz Murder.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for now A politically motivated, likely ISIL-inspired double homicide in Austria that have received notable coverage. An unusual and notable incident both because of the nature of the incident and the country it happened, (to 2nd comment) whether it's labelled "terror" or not is not relevant for notability, the inspiration and motive alone is notable in itself (although, according to article, the Austrian Minister of Interior and State Police Director seem to confirm this). (to 1st comment) BLP issues should be cleared up, but that in itself is not any reason for deletion.
User2534 (
talk) 15:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: You can't really clear up the BLP issues. The whole premise of the article is that this was a terrorist murder perpetrated by a named individual. It hasn't been proven to be either.
Lard Almighty (
talk) 16:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Assertions of violation of WP:BLP are nonsense. Nor only because suspect is identified only as "Mohamed H.", but because this is an article about a crime, and we do routinely keep articles about noteworthy recent homicides, and we keep significant crimes from the moment they become notable news stories even though they may take years to reach trial.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- BLP applies if the individual is identifiable, or potentially identifiable, not simply if they are identified. Only if this person does not face trial, would this person cease to be easily identifiable .
Pincrete (
talk) 06:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Chief of Police, Interior Minister, and police investigators have stated plainly that suspect is an ideologically motivated
Islamist who murdered an elderly couple in cold blood because he thought that they belonged to a political party that he did not like. It is a major national news story in Austria and has gotten international mews coverage. (I added some English language sources and put the parts of text into intelligible English as per sources.)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- And, oh, yeah, perp also pledged allegiance to
ISIS and to
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on his
Facebook page "recently".
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 21:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Nom apparently failed to run
WP:BEFORE check. Doing so would immediately have revealed that Austrian officials investigating this double murder, after investigating suspects social media accounts and computer files, began characterizing it as an
Islamist attack, probably lone wolf, by July 6.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- None of that makes the subject any more notable. We do not have content policies that give special treatment to articles about possible IS inspired violence. This seems to be a fairly routine crime not worthy of preserving in an encyclopedia. It belongs in Wikinews.-
Mr
X 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Sources for "allegiance pledges"? The Austrian ones are v.poor and the Eng ones don't say that.
Pincrete (
talk) 09:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This a news event with no lasting notability. It's one murderer of no notability, and speculation that it "may have had Islamist motives" is not enough to justify an article. If, in the future, articles appear that describe the suspect trained in a Daesh terrorist camp or something like that, maybe then it would meet Wikipedia's standards. But as it stands now,
WP:NOTNEWS.
CrispyGlover (
talk) 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
* Keep The article has improved a lot since the last time I checked. I would prefer some more changes to be made, like adding the name of the person accused rather than ISIL in the infobox. It was an ISIL-sympathiser, not an ISIL-member.
JBergsma1 (
talk) 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
JBergsma1 could you possibly rethink your vote again? The incident is still a
WP:NOTNEWS event with no
WP:LASTING impact. Gregory usually piles on sources to sway voters who don't always check the content. The article hasn't really improved; in fact, it has a lot of SYNTH and OR (see Pincrete's comment) now to carry on the narrative that this was terrorism without it being confirmed.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
TheGracefulSlick I understand what you mean with this incident having little media attention and notability for an encyclopedic article. In my opinion it is on the edge of being relevant and irrelevant, but since the article has been expanded with a wider background story and more information in general, I'll vote for it be kept.I did check some of the sources, like
https://www.thelocal.at/20170706/islamist-motive-suspected-in-murder-of-elderly-couple-in-austria-linz, which mentions an islamist motive. I think, despite little international media coverage, the incident resembles the
2016 Magnanville stabbing a little bit. In that case to french police officers were murdered and in this case two elders who allegedly voted for the FPÖ were murdered. I have to admit that I don't know the exact circumstances in which this incident took place, but I have to agree with you as well on the content being rather unfitting.
JBergsma1 (
talk) 18:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I've changed my opinion once again because new sources from the Austrian authorities are saying that there wasn't terrorism involved. As there was no terrorist motive, this incident becomes irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. The newspaper 'The Local', which is used in the article, mentions: We currently don't believe that it was an IS-motivated murder or terror attack.
JBergsma1 (
talk) 18:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for your close look at the coverage. I struck your previous vote so editors do not think you voted twice.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- No problem, at first I didn't read the whole source. Better next time.
JBergsma1 (
talk) 23:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per MrX: "Article about a murder, written to sound like a terrorist attack. Fails
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:10YT" . Claims above that the Austrian authorities are treating this as 'terrorist' are false: the "same police spokesman said: "the case was being treated as a "double murder" and not a jihadist killing ... We currently don't believe that it was an IS-motivated murder or terror attack," Furtner said" this is the source which is being relied on to establish an ISIS connection. A lot of synth or OR is required to bypass such an explicit rebuttal.
Pincrete (
talk) 06:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Regardless of whether this is a terror attack or not (right now it is being investigated as the latter), should be irrelevant to the vote rationales on both sides of the discussion. Where is the
WP:LASTING impact of the incident? If the answer is just "...well there will be a trial" then you haven't found a good reason to keep this article. Two people were murdered; it is a tragic occurrence, something the news loves to cover, but that does not mean it is suitable for the encyclopedia.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 07:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- LASTING will lie in the fact that this is being describes as the first Islamist attack in Austria.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as per
JBergsma1' arguments
Zezen (
talk) 11:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note That the murder occurred in June, however, national and international coverage followed the 6 July revelation that the killer had pledged allegiance to the
Islamic State gNews search in German
[8], French:
[9].
- First "If confirmed, Friday's killings in the northern city of Linz -- in which an 85-year-old woman's throat was slit and her 87-year-old husband was stabbed and beaten to death -- would be the first Islamist attack in Austria, which had so far avoided the jihadist assaults seen elsewhere in Europe."
[10].
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 15:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I see a big if at the beginning of this statement. As in, you are assuming that this is a terror attack without it being confirmed. Why don't you respond to Pincrete's comment above? A lot of synth (again) is being used by you to create a narrative of terrorism.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Not SYNTH. The Interior Minister and police investigators have stated that perp pledged allegiance to
ISIS before murdering the elderly couple for ideological reasons. Killer now in custody, there will be a trial. Slick, I know that you
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but national and international press are covering the story because of the jihadist stuff all over his computer and social media accounts, and because he pledged allegiance to
ISIS. Whey do you insist on
WP:RAPID rather than
WP:PRESERVE?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- So what? Are we supposed to create articles for every murder where the alleged motive as something new in a particular country, or does this only apply to the specter of radical Islamism?-
Mr
X 17:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The interior Minister's statements precede the police statement, but even if they didn't, it does not say what you claim, "perp pledged allegiance to .. no one" according to the sources. "Is clearly a radicalized Muslim" does not equal "was an Islamist attack" any more than "committed murder and 'liked' D Trump" = "is a far-right terrorist", pure synth. The possible ideological/political motive given by police is hatred of the far-right party, not support for ISIS. BTW the accused appears to have handed himself in to police, also probably a first for a terrorist!
Pincrete (
talk) 09:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- note "If confirmed, Friday's killings..." -- let's wait until this is confirmed, and then maybe create an article. For now this is a crime of no encyclopedic relevance just yet.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 01:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Read the linked articles; "If confirmed" refers to the question of whether or not the govt. of Austria will choose to deem this as a terrorist attack. Governments have political and other considerations, but they is separate from the fact that the international press has already covered this incident as a major national and international news story because 1.) perp knew his victims - who had been kind to him and had even lent him money - and attacked them because he disliked their politics, 2.) his social media and computer were filled with violent jihad, and, 3.) perp pledged alliegiance to
ISIS and
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note that it is bad from for editors iVoting delete to delete pertinent information sourced to
Le Parisien and
Agence France Presse, and as well as to Austrian sources, but especially so with an edit that reads: " rm mindless speculation."
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note - I apologize for the snotty edit summary, but I stand by my edit (which
you have already reverted, contrary to
WP:BRD). Wikipedia is
WP:NOTSPECULATION. We should not amplify speculation as if trying to convince readers that a fairly minor event is highly significant.-
Mr
X 21:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment -- not everything published in the paper belongs in the encyclopedia, and this event does not belong yet, per available sources.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Re "not everything published etc." ..... Especially when what Le Parisien actually says is not what is claimed, what it says is: The case is however treated as a double murder and not as an Islamist attack. "As things stand, we do not think it is a terrorist attack or a murder motivated by the Islamic state," said police spokesman David Furtner . "It seems that the man was radicalized, but there were no third parties who ordered him to commit these murders, and the IS did not claim responsibility for them." ..... Two other sources were speculations that preceded police statements and I couldn't be bothered to check AFP when other sources were being so mis-used.
Pincrete (
talk) 07:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Editors coming to this confusing discussion who want to look at one source in English can check this:
[11] story in
The Local, and should know that suspect is in custody and awaiting trial.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 21:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Thankyou for pointing out that there is barely one source that supports this particular narrative, even if you fail to point out that the official police position has altered since this atatement was made.
Pincrete (
talk) 07:30, 23 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Reflex (programming language) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I had tagged this as CSD A11(made up/found by page creator) but it was validly removed. I cannot find any independent reliable sources covering this programming language in depth; googling it only brings up YouTube videos of presentations of this language(which I presume were made by those creating it) and other brief mentions(like announcements of said presenations)
331dot (
talk) 10:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 10:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete We're an encyclopedia, not a preprint server. This is a notable language, but it's too early as yet to say anything about it. Not even whether it will last out the week (What happened to
Hack (programming language)?
- Note too that it isn't
RefleX (programming language) - that one's different. I think Ryan Trinkle's Reflex is another different one too.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete it might very well be notable some day, but way too soon. Wikipedia should not cover anything "currently" until it has been done enough that someone outside of it has written something.
W Nowicki (
talk) 20:09, 22 July 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.
So
Why 07:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Ramon Sean Rivas (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Hello. This article is borderline
WP:CSD A7 and
WP:CSD G4 as
Ramon Rivas (audio engineer) was deleted on 25 February 2017 following
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Rivas (audio engineer). Ramon Rivas is much certainly a gifted professional working in the shadows of giants, but neither the article content nor its sources show any sign of notability. To be clear I have not done much
WP:BEFORE. Thanks and regards,
Biwom (
talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 09:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 09:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: As the creator of this article, I would have to agree that the article does borderline on general notability, but no independent reliable sources exist covering the subject in detail. So for the time being, it does not need its own article space.
NaturalSelection (
talk) 14:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: The subject does have independent sources. The creator of this article was only focused on engineering and excluded the subject as a hip hop recording artist and record producer. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- Delete. The sources are all first-party, non-
WP:RS, and/or passing mentions. --
RoySmith
(talk) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete fails the GNG.
L3X1
(distænt write)
)evidence( 19:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - agree with the nom's rationale, as well as searches not turning up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet
WP:GNG.
Onel5969
TT me 20:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, per
RoySmith, my assessment of the sources is the same. —
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 07:50, 26 July 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 redirect to
Sipaayi (2016 film). The third relist failed to attract additional input, so I'm just going with the middle-of-the-road option. If events evolve and better sourcing appears in the future, no prejudice against moving this back. --
RoySmith
(talk) 15:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Siddharth Mahesh (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable actor. This would be a
PRODBLP case, but IMDB confirms he exists and has been in a film. —
Guan
aco 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades
Godric 13:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Draft has the lead in one film so move to draft until release of second film which will provide more coverage
Atlantic306 (
talk) 20:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I am seeing enough passing mentions, as well as some semi-in-depth stuff
here. Combined with the Times of India source already in the article, I'd say that is good enough for GNG. Especially as we know more in depth stuff will come out with the next film that is in production. —
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 13:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Keep or redirect? There seems to be no policy-based reason for draftifying if a redirect can be created until he gains more notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 09:09, 17 July 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.
Sandstein 12:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Australia–Guatemala bilateral treaties (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Wikipedia is not a mirror of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's
Treaty Database. Also nominating:
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Law-related deletion discussions.
Triptothecottage (
talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Triptothecottage (
talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Triptothecottage (
talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 08:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per nom. These are not notable topics, or an appropriate use of Wikipedia
Nick-D (
talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all per nom. Wikipedia has articles on topics which are far less notable than this, "list of worst TV shows" for instance. A page which details international relations treaties is an important part of detailing the history of the nations who are a party to that treaty. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.104.92.132 (
talk) 02:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
—
58.104.92.132 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping.
LibStar (
talk) 14:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Deleteand merge, the information could be put in under the Australia part of
Foreign relations of Guatemala, there aren't that many bilateral treaties between these two countries, not enough for a whole page.
Socerb102 (
talk) 18:56, 24 July 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. The possibility of a merger still exists. If somebody wants to pursue that, they can do so by discussing it on the article talk page. --
RoySmith
(talk) 16:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I'm seeing a lot of these cases that seem rather mundane. I can't see how this is particularly notable for inclusion.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 19:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Law-related deletion discussions.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
This case was tried in 2010 by the
Supreme Court of Canada. It is a leading case with (to date)
242 citations in the canlii database. It would be a pity if the opinions of a few wikipedia editors were to overrule the inclusion here of a case which was joined by no fewer than six other Attorneys-General and eight distinct amicus curiae who together felt it to be a worthwhile case on which to spend their time and (for some, taxpayer) monies.
Spem Reduxit (
talk) 00:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades
Godric 04:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- That isn't really the criteria.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 14:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- That is an impeccably well-reasoned argument.
Spem Reduxit (
talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- And one that doesn't explain how the article meets our criteria for inclusion.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 14:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Your most recent sentence makes no sense.
Spem Reduxit (
talk) 13:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith
(talk) 11:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed merger
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 08:59, 17 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. (
non-admin closure)
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
People with Disability Australia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The article currently has no independent sources at all. A Google search shows only minimal mainstream media coverage, thus the
notability of this organization is doubtful.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 08:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination article has been improved with good (but hard to find) sources.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 06:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: On the contrary, the organization title suffers from the use of generic terms, and recent changes have removed potentially useful information. These do not make the article suitable for deletion. The deletion proposal should be withdrawn. Current page status is not necessarily an indication of notability per
WP:CONTN and time would be better spent improving the page. Tailored searches produce good independent sources. A search for the outgoing president Craig Wallace and "PWDA" returns 2230 Google search results alone, including national media, a federal Parliamentary Library Lecture, and a statement read to Parliament on the occasion of his resignation.
[1]
Trankuility (
talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 09:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 09:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Disability-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 09:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep Very significant
WP:NEXIST, to support a much better, more in-depth article.
Aoziwe (
talk) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment My
WP:BEFORE search turned up a bunch of passing mentions and "sound bites", nothing that satisfies
WP:CORPDEPTH, existence ≠ notability. I have tagged several points that need specific sourcing - if they can be filled it would be a keeper.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I think I have filled them in. There may well be more and-or better references, but I know nothing about the organisation and specifically where to look for the ones you asked for.
Aoziwe (
talk) 09:44, 18 July 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 . After three relists, discussion does not appear to be any closer to consensus. (
non-admin closure)
Jax 0677 (
talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Keith Ferrazzi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Go through the Talk page, this page is filled with Promotion nonsense. no doubt written by some Paid editor. The aim is to make this No-consensus and keep the article. Not even a single article about this person found where notable media covered him, all about the promotion of his work, similar to paid editing made by wikipedia contributors. Complete misuse of encyclopedia. This person is non notable for Wiki standards, article is written like some promotional profile. Wiki is not social media to promote oneself. There would be thousands people in the world like him. Ca not compromise the credibility of wikipedia on this ground. book can be best selling but does not make a person Encyclopedic notable as it stands for. If we read the article coverage, it is definitely not significant.
Light2021 (
talk) 05:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- KEEP That the article is written "like some promotional profile" (which perhaps it is slightly, but can be easily fixed with some cleanup) is not a rationale for deletion. Nominator should have spent a few minutes doing a cursory search for Mr. Ferrazzi, and would have quickly realised that he meets GNG.
Kingoflettuce (
talk) 06:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Indeed I have done, and not found any In-depth coverage by notable media established by Wikipedia. can you elaborate your sources for coverage?
Light2021 (
talk) 18:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Indeed oozes promo. Sources are poor - mentions in passing,
WP:INTERVIEW. Imho fails
WP:NBIO. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I agree with Kingoflettuce that the issue is more promotional cleanup than notability. I just removed content that could be borderline promotional, and tried to edit in such a way to preserve the gist and sourcing, without being promotional. Of further note, while hunting for sources, I found some info about a new company Ferrazzi founded called Yoi, in partnership with Zappos’ Tony Hsieh and Groupon’s Brad Keywell.[
[13]] I'll set up a Google alert for Yoi and once there's mainstream media coverage, I'll add the info.
Timtempleton (
talk) 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none.
Light2021 (
talk) 19:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- You must be kidding about
http://wikn.co/ as a source of coverage? a blog with rank of "19,853,096"? and Google alert or partners or associate with any known individuals does not make anyone notable himself/ herself.
Light2021 (
talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist
(Speak quickly)
(Follow my trail) 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist
(Speak quickly)
(Follow my trail) 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist
(Speak quickly)
(Follow my trail) 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 05:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- KEEP With the promo stuff cleaned up keep. A search shows he reaches notablity.
Michael614 (
talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Can you please cite few notable media coverage you are referring to? and that also by wikipedia guidelines.
- Are we talking about these as In-depth and notable coverage?
- Fast Company : "Meet the Superconnectors: How the new mavens of networking are playing a different (and more generous) game."
- Forbes articles mentioned the name, such article are written everyday on Online version of Forbes " Ferrazzi believes it’s essential to “lead with generosity; lead with being of service to people. The more ‘of service’ you are, the more currency you have, and the more people will want to spend time with you.”
- Ny Times Books for purchase list?
I have not found any single source where this person has been covered for his notability and with in-depth coverage.
Light2021 (
talk) 18:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There is no evidence of a WP:BEFORE Google source search in the nomination, which would have shown that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Article has been here since 2006.
Unscintillating (
talk) 06:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia has several articles from many years, does not make it significant, can you please provide notable, in-depth coverage if any?
Light2021 (
talk) 06:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - While the article may be poorly written, I don't agree that it's overly promotional. Seems to be plenty of sources to show he passes
WP:GNG:
Irish Independent;
Irish Examiner,
Influencive,
Forbes;
Business Insider. And that’s just on pages 1 & 2 of the google search. The guy’s written for Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., Financial Times, Fortune, Huffington Post and Entrepreneur, all of which consider him an expert in his field.
Onel5969
TT me 00:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Business Insider and other sources are nothing relevant as not considered notable by Wikipedia. Forbes article is nothing in depth of this person.
Light2021 (
talk) 03:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:NOTSPAM; the page exists to promote the subject's speaking gigs. Wikipedia is not a speakers' bureau.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. not notable. His book was on the NYT list of the top 10 one week only, and it was the "Advice and how-to" category. I do not consider that sufficient for notability as an author. Writing for various magazines is not enough either, no matter how prestigious the magazine. Most of the refs in the article are mere announcement of lectures. The two Irish newspaer articles written above are a combination of notices and promotion. It's not enough to find articles on Google, it's necessary to see what they actually say and how they are written. Based on hundreds of afds here, very few people whose main claim is motivational speaker ar have been considered notabble, and he is not exception.
DGG (
talk ) 05:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades
Godric 08:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Trying one last time to generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 08:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Any time on the NY Times list is significant, but primarily because at elast three of the cources already cited in the article seem in more than sufficient depth to pass the
WP:GNG. And the find soures search reveals several others, blus at least some book sources. I don't relaly belive that a
WP:BEFORE search was done here, or else everythign was jsut dismissed because marketing is this person's field, so "its all just marketing". Well there can be notable marketers, and here is one.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 02:37, 23 July 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. Thanks to Hugop777 and Lockley for improving the article during the debate.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 08:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Cambridge University Wine Society (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
A purely local organisation. Being 200 years old and having notable members are not evidence of notability. I question whether it is notable even within the university itself. —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC) —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete notability is not inherited from famous alumni
Seasider91 (
talk) 18:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete GNG not met, and as stated above, you can't inherit notability from event speakers or alumni. The previous AfD closed as "Redirect" but I don't see any justifiable reason to reinstate a redirect.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 20:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I think this society is a well-known society, not only within Cambridge but also within the international wine trade. This society gave rise to a number of famous alumni who got into wine related career after frequenting it. Notably
Hugh Johnson, famous for being a wine writer said he "began his lifelong passion for wine as a member of The Wine and Food Society at Cambridge University".
David Peppercorn, also a wine writer, was the president of this society in 1952 and decided to start a career in wine writing instead of law (he was reading law at Cambridge) after frequenting the wine society. A number of books and articles are mentionning the society whose members are competing in international blind wine tasting competitions around the world. Part of the history of this wine society along with the history of the Oxford University Wine Society has been documented in Reds, Whites & Varsity Blues, edited by Jennifer Segal and cited in this article. Some of the events organised by the society have been relayed in the press such as the 350th anniversary of Samuel Pepys mention of Chateau Haut-Brion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hugop777 (
talk •
contribs) 00:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I've have a go at this, expanded and sourced some of it, but I'm not going to vote because it's still not notable. In its favor it's a real thing, yeah it's had a big impact in the world of British wine writers (....), and we seem to carry articles about other Cambridge clubs. --
Lockley (
talk) 08:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 12:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of England-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 12:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Wine-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. some student societies at the most famous universities can be notable. This is one of them,because of its apparent influence
DGG (
talk ) 07:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete reluctantly because of it apparent influence, but it still lacks good solid coverage, and fails
WP:GNG. For example, the cited New York Times article about collegiate wine rivalry does not even mention the society, neither does the Wall Street Journal article. Actual mentions are in passing. --
Bejnar (
talk) 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep reasonably well-sourced; enough at least to pass GNG
Chetsford (
talk) 22:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
Chetsford: I strongly disagree, please point to two independent
reliable sources that contain significant coverage of the society. --
Bejnar (
talk) 03:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades
Godric 08:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Also to discuss a potential merge/redirect instead of keeping/deleting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 08:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as I agree there's clear significance in an article, and there exists no promotionalism which otherwise would be different.
SwisterTwister
talk 23:29, 19 July 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 merge to
Pedestrian railroad safety in the United States.
Sandstein 11:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Death of Mary T. Wojtyla (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:EVENT. This incident did not receive any significant lasting coverage. The only news coverage that the incident received in reliable sources was in passing. The article states that an edited version of the video of Wojtyla's death has been shown at many
Operation Lifesaver events, but I was unable to find any reliable source to support this. Of the sources currently in the article, the first is a family death notice, which does not help establish notability. The second is
Find a Grave, which is not a
reliable source. The third is a news article in
The Chicago Tribune, which is a reliable source, but their coverage of the incident is routine and in passing. The fourth reference is
LiveLeak, which is not a
reliable source.
Tdl1060 (
talk) 07:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep this is a notable event in the history of
Pedestrian railroad safety in the United States. The article is very helpful for people to quickly access what happened in the widely shared video. This event happened before the widespread use of internet sources. It is clear based on forums that many people saw this video at Operation lifesaver events. --
JumpLike23
(talk) 04:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Internet forums do not qualify as reliable sources, and do not help establish notability.--
Tdl1060 (
talk) 05:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Not being used to establish notability, using them as circumstantial evidence that the video is widely used in railway safety trainings. Here is another source citing the historical importance of the video
http://www.ramseyhistory.org/2010/08/another-death-by-train/
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 08:47, 17 July 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 subject turns out to be unverifiable, and may be a hoax.
Sandstein 12:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Roman Catholic Diocese of Highveld (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No sources and no ghits for either the diocese or Simonpierre Nnolumfu, the current incumbent. This is not a conventional diocese within the Catholic hierarchy but an "Autocephalous Catholic jurisdiction" (quoting from article). The creating editor has been repeatedly advised to add references to their articles, but has not done so. There appears to be a strong sense of "Ownership", as in the talk page message in response to a CSD nomination.
Pam
D 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Further to nomination, the key point I didn't make: Does not appear to be Notable.
Pam
D 07:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- And
this is interesting, and the bishop has a
page in Who's Who of Southern Africa - which
describes itself "an online platform that assists professionals in creating, managing and growing their personal brand and reputation"
Pam
D 08:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Given the history of this page/topic, it seems no-one has been able to find any independent reference to it, so deletion is obviously appropriate.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 08:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 12:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 08:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as a probable hoax. This is an interesting one. The Roman Catholic Church (as far as I know) does not provide any public listing of dioceses or
sees. A frequently-used reference for Wikipedia's articles about dioceses (for example,
List of Catholic dioceses in Great Britain) is the website GCatholic.org, which is (apparently) a comprehensive and frequently updated list of Catholic Church bodies and institutions. GCatholic does not include Highveld in its
list of South African dioceses, nor does it list Highveld as
a titular see.
- I am interested in this topic but not an expert, and I'm not saying that GCatholic would hold the same weight as an official Church record, if one could be found. But combine this with the lack of sources uncovered elsewhere and I would argue that this article fails the most elementary tests of
WP:Verifiability.
A Train
talk 10:14, 25 July 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 withdrawn per request by krian. Otherwise, GNG and NACTOR meet.
(non-admin closure)
KGirlTrucker81
huh?
what I've been doing 20:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Navi (Impersonator) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran
(talk) 08:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 09:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Request withdrawn After going through all the sources in article carefully (except BBC, I skimmed), and an internet search, i thought it was a case of
WP:BIO1E, and
WP:DEGRADE. But after
KGirlTrucker81's comment, I did a thorough (and a lot time consuming) search, and I realised this is not a case of degradability. Subject is notable. I apologise for the inconvenience. —usernamekiran
(talk) 20:20, 17 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Kayla Short (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Per
WP:AUTHOR.
Classicwiki (
talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 07:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 09:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Nomination for deletion is unfounded. Kayla Short is considered a notable person per Wiki guidelines. Please refer to references, and
Fashion Blog for impact assessment. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Halifax1749 (
talk •
contribs) 20:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article when she's the subject of
reliable source coverage. "Fashion Blog" is a
blog, not a media outlet, so it can't cover off notability, and the only sources present in the article are a directory of her own contributions to another blog, her own
primary source website about herself, and a local alt-weekly's "Best Local Stuff" reader poll — which means the only source that's independent of her is a blurb. A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article by self-publishing her own web presence; she qualifies for an article when she's been given enough attention by media independent of her to pass
WP:GNG, but none of the sourcing present here shows anything of the sort whatsoever. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better — but this, as written, isn't even beginning to show the type, let alone the volume, of sourcing required.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Bearcat.
2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (
talk) 22:23, 20 July 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 CSD G11 - Article repeatedly recreated. Sock accounts tagged .
Alexf
(talk) 17:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC).
reply
-
Akshaya Pvt. Ltd (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
no major awrds, refs are notices and PR, nothing more, nothing more to be expected. Blatent conflict of ibterst in the contributor, apparently an emlpoyee,
DGG (
talk ) 07:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
DGG (
talk ) 07:05, 17 Julyy 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Delete The article has
WP:RS by The Hindu and Forbes. However the page author seems to be an employee of the company. It seems to be a case of
WP:COI.
Anoptimistix (
talk) 08:00, 17 July 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 deletion (G4). (
non-admin closure)
AllyD (
talk) 05:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Martina Hoffmann (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Failing
WP:GNG and
WP:ARTIST
Arthistorian1977 (
talk) 06:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Germany-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Artists-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Previously deleted by AfD less than a month ago, now recreated by the same
WP:SPA editor. The article text is packed with uncited superlatives and generally promotional tone. Note there is also a
Draft:Martina Hoffmann, also featuring promotional text. I am not seeing sources to meet
WP:ARTIST,
WP:ANYBIO or
WP:GNG, so see no reason to overturn the recent AfD decision.
AllyD (
talk) 08:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Speedily delete as G4. There is no reason this needs to go through AfD again, nothing has changed from the last version and none of the reasons have been addressed.
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Speedily delete as G4 per Chrissymad -
GretLomborg (
talk) 19:08, 17 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Stitching AKN (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Largely nonsensical article with an unclear subject.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 06:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete : Nonsense article, with no reference BetterSmile:D 06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 07:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. A rather incomprehensible article without sources. It looks very much as though it's a machine translation from Dutch, in which case it may also infringe copyright. If the subject is notable then it will be much better to start a new article from scratch than to try to salvage this one. (Incidentally, the word "stitching" in the title appears to be a mistranslation of "stichting", which despite looking similar actually has a quite different meaning.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, looking at the other editing from the same editor, I have decided it is more likely to be just a Dutch child whose competence at English is very low, rather than a machine translation. However, that doesn't substantially change what I wrote above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 14:41, 19 July 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 merge to
List of Forgotten Realms nations. --
RoySmith
(talk) 19:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Evermeet (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This doesn't establish notability.
TTN (
talk) 16:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
TTN (
talk) 16:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or merge to
List of Forgotten Realms nations.
BOZ (
talk) 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Merge as above. The article remains of limited quality since the previous AfD many years ago. I we have articles on the books about the city, and that seems reasonable. I'm not convinced that we need an article on the city itself.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 21:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and redirect name only to
List of Forgotten Realms nations. Not notable & there's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. The article content is unsourced original research and fancruft. Two citations offered are both to in-universe publications.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Merge or
Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades
Godric 08:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per BOZ and
WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 06:35, 17 July 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 merge to
Zhentarim.
(non-admin closure)
f
e
minist 04:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Castle Darkhold (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This doesn't establish notability.
TTN (
talk) 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
TTN (
talk) 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or merge to
Zhentarim.
BOZ (
talk) 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- not notable. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Merge or
Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades
Godric 08:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per BOZ and
WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 06:32, 17 July 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 redirect to
2019 Winter Universiade.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Ice hockey at the 2019 Winter Universiade (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:CRYSTAL. An article about an event in a competition 2 years in the future. No non-
WP:ROUTINE sources.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C) 08:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom for crystal ball reasons. --
Lockley (
talk) 18:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Russia-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or Merge into
2019 Winter Universiade with possibility of building out as competition nears and more info becomes available. A quick google search does show there's verifiable articles about the event. It is the next Winter Universiade so does fall in line with conventions for large-scale international sporting events, creating the article a few years in advance. This does not fail
WP:CRYSTAL which explicitly states that future events can be included on Wikipedia if they are notable and almost certain to take place. --
Bhockey10 (
talk) 23:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 01:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
2019 Winter Universiade until information other than the venues is available. Also, a list of venues should be added to the main article as per other multi-sport competitions. If venues are not added to the main article for whatever reason, then keep this as it will have information not available in the main article. But that info should be in the main article, so ideally add it and redirect for now.
Smartyllama (
talk) 13:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 05:55, 17 July 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 after two relists. (
non-admin closure)
Jax 0677 (
talk) 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Young Pappy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The contents fail to show effort of popularity or circuit of fame whatsoever.
DBrown SPS (
talk) 09:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 12:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 12:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - As I said at the first AfD, while tragic, all the press is related to his shooting, which would be a case of
WP:BIO1E. Closed as no consensus, the single "keep" !vote was based on a single article, which ignored the fact that the article was focused on the rapper's shooting. Again, going to BIO1E.
Onel5969
TT me 13:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty in Google news search shown above (it isn't necessary to reproduce them) the Vice article
here is significant coverage about his whole life not just his shooting and states that he was famous before he was killed with over a million and half downloads on soundcloud so
WP:BIO1E does not apply
Atlantic306 (
talk) 14:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I agree with the significant coverage of periods of his life other than the fatal shooting.
here is another one.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
68.189.200.18 (
talk) 08:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete as I found this to be more unnoticeable as an artist, with no popularity at all.
BJPlaya10 (
talk) 23:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: The above rationale is not a qualifier for speedy deletion.
North America
1000 05:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 05:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete wikipedia is not for profiles/ biographies. nothing worthy for encyclopedia
Light2021 (
talk) 21:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Not a meaningful rationale for deletion - Wikipedia is for biographies (among other kinds of articles), and this article should be evaluated according to the criteria on
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:BIO.
Dreamyshade (
talk) 20:15, 23 July 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 merge to the appropriate sublists of
List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001.
A Train
talk 10:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Bomb blasts in Parachinar since 2007 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Completely arbitrary. Fails to establish its notability. Who said Bomb blasts should be there? and why since 2007?
Greenbörg
(talk) 07:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and expand. Sources:
- Shias in Pakistan's Parachinar caught in the middle of proxy wars, DW
[14]
- Sixth attack on Shias in Parachinar highlights growing intolerance in Pakistan Hindustan Times
[15]
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 18:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
E.M.Gregory: We could have article on
Persecution of Shia Muslims in Pakistan but can't have this arbitrary pick.
Greenbörg
(talk) 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- There are a series of notable bombings, and as per
WP:PRESERVE the proper course is to keep this article on a notable topic and to move the discussion about how best to improve it, either by refocusing it as a broader discussion of anti-Shia persecution that would include terrorism, or keeping and improving this article by connecting it to one or more broader articles on the situation of Shia in Pakistan. Those questions can be raised here, but should, ultimately, be handled on the talk page.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 13:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 03:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Reason behind this Page
Parachinar is a Shiite majority area and since 2007 there are frequent bomb explosions in a small area which need attention. Since 2007, the bomb explosions in Parachinar started because the people of here fought against the Taliban, (
War against Taliban in Parachinar )and Taliban & its allies are now bombed to take revenge. Social media regarding Parachinar is full of propaganda, most of these propaganda may cause more explosions in future, so it is important to tell the world, the facts.
Haider4Pak (
talk) 00:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - That's all fine and good, but per
WP:SOAP, wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, regardless of the worthiness of the cause. Reporting reliably sourced information is fine, but not issue advocacy, and as it stands the entire "Reason behind the attacks" section is sourced only to a non-reliable source, and several of the other references go to web forums or facebook, which also aren't exactly reliable. Whether the article is kept or merged, the sourcing needs to be improved.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 14:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Consensus at this time is for a merge, but two potential merge targets have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 05:42, 17 July 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. However, those who expressed an opinion to delete did so out of regret and minor frustration they were unable to improve the article. If any of the participants would like this moved to
draft space, let me know.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Eriko Satō (footballer) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I can't find any evidence of her passing
WP:NFOOTBALL or
WP:GNG, nor any evidence confirming the birth and death dates listed in the article. The one reference in the article doesn't mention her.
Joeykai (
talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Japan-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Football-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - also struggling to find anything other than
Wiki Mirrors - no evidence she even exists, let alone is notable.
Giant
Snowman 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Played for national team. She exist, reference mentioning her.
62.140.137.140 (
talk) 07:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Certainly evidence she existed; listed in the ja:WP article for this school
[17] for example. She was a victim of the 2011 tsunami... but even so I can't immediately find any Japanese sources above the blog level which mention her. No newspapers, for example, so given the one-sentence nature of the stub, I think best to delete it.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 07:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Many results searching in Japanese. Profile:
https://blog-001.west.edge.storage-yahoo.jp/res/blog-8e-ff/shimizumasaki196868/folder/1547857/32/51977632/img_0
62.140.137.140 (
talk) 07:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - This is kind of sad. She was a footballer who was captain of an established woman's team (
Kumamoto Renaissance FC) before women's football took off in Japan. She died in the 3.11 disaster at the young age of 31. There is no doubt she existed and played for the team (
here is the team announcement of her death). What I can't find is any record that she played for the national team. The Japanese wikipedia article does not mention it (
ja:佐藤恵利子), nor does the team announcement. The reference in the English article to her being on the national team in 2008 refers to the wrong Eriko Sato (佐藤衣里子 not 佐藤恵利子--see
[18] and
[19]). All else on the net is just from blogs. While I feel sorry about this, I am afraid she does not pass
WP:GNG.
Michitaro (
talk) 08:10, 17 July 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 redirect to
Femina Miss India 2015.
(non-admin closure)
f
e
minist 04:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Aafreen Vaz (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable person. Lacks GNG.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 04:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Femina Miss India 2015 The winner of Femina Miss India takes part in
Miss World as the representative of India. But Aafreen is not the winner. Instead, she is supposed to take part in Miss Supranational, which doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Other winners of Miss Supranational (at the world level) do not have articles either. So a redirect is good enough.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 14:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete there is a lack of the level of sustained coverage needed to show notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:23, 24 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Debra Medina (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable state-level politician, fails
WP:POLITICIAN. Medina has run for state office twice, losing both times. According to the article, she has never held public office. Her only other claim to notability is a minor controversy regarding a statement she made on Glenn Beck's show, which she quickly retracted. Note: The previous deletion nomination for this article name was for a disambiguation page, and not for Medina's article itself.
caknuck
° needs to be running more often 04:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
caknuck
° needs to be running more often 04:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Texas-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as per nom; I don't see any claim to notability other than losing in Republican primaries.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 07:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The only discernible claim of notability here is being a non-winning candidate in party primaries, which is not an automatic free pass over
WP:NPOL, but the referencing is 9/13 dependent on
primary sources rather than
reliable ones — and of the four citations that are to reliable sources, one of them is an unnecessary reduplication of one of the other three. But three reliable sources isn't enough reliable sources to make a person notable just for being a non-winning candidate for political office, because every non-winning candidate for political office could always show three pieces of media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Per first editor and nom, small level politician.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 13:42, 23 July 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 merge to
David Brin.
(non-admin closure)
f
e
minist 04:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
The Giving Plague (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Delete Declined prod; no sources to indicate this work meets the
general notability guideline.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Keep it's taken you 8 years to think this might need deletion ? Must be worthy
Dave Rave (
talk) 03:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Remember,
there is no deadline.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 03:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. No sign of notability, and sorry Dave, bad articles don't earn tenure by avoiding deletion. --
Lockley (
talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep I see several mentions in the Google Scholar results, but I've not seen anything that screams notability. At the very least, it should be Merged to Brin's own article.
Jclemens (
talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: To discuss the merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 07:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Merge to the author's article, as proposed. If we had more references to show that the work is notable in and of itself, you might have an argument to keep. But I'm not finding that here. The author is unquestionably notable, so a merge/redirect is the best option.
UltraExactZZ
Said ~
Did 14:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to the author,
David Brin; not independently notable. A plausible search term, but the article is all plot and does not list any sources. No usable content would be lost due to a redirect.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:12, 19 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
DJ Seezy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article is one year old, and has no sourced content. The article contains one outside link - which is one of those do-it-yourself webdesign sites, therefore lacks any credibility, nor does the site contain any information of value. Even the content of the article shows no reason to keep, as it is simply a list of people that this DJ has worked with - all unsourced.
Kellymoat (
talk) 03:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Additional nominator Comment - page was previously nominated for AfD one year ago. The nomination was closed because a sockpuppet was the nominator. The only contribution to the AfD stated that the only mentions of this guy is on social media, which is still the case today. Also worth noting, the article appears to be written by one user, and that user's only contributions have been to this article or to add this name to other articles.
Kellymoat (
talk) 11:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Nothing to back up these claims of notability. Google News turns up nothing for this person under their given and DJ names.
caknuck
° needs to be running more often 04:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Germany-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Don't Delete - I don't know what the problem is? I really don't know why you/they wanna delete the site of my client DJ Seezy? He is a (underrated) Producer from Germany and really worked with this artits via sending them beats and these listed artitst picked the beats for there tapes! We all know that the new producers in the hip hop community don't get the recognition they deserve especially producer from overseas who placed beats on notable tapes for well known artits. He is right now on that point to level up his career and this site helps him. 00:26 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding more evidence as to why this should be deleted.
- First, you have a COI. Big no-no.
- This is an encyclopedia. We report on events of the past. Not the future. This site isn't here for free advertising.
Kellymoat (
talk) 00:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Can you read? The list of the production discography are events from the past! What I mean is he is on the point to get more recognition for his work now and this has nothing to do with wikipedia but people here can read what he done so far! What is wrong with that?
- What's wrong with that? Spend $50 on your own web-domain. WP isn't your own personal ad agency.
Kellymoat (
talk) 10:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I never said that this is my own personal ad agency. As I see you have been hard dogged to delete this page? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zaza716 (
talk •
contribs) 12:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- My neighbor has a Grammy and doesn't have an article. My late-ex is in the Hall of Fame of both of the organizations in that industry and only has a stub-article. The article doesn't even have the right birth name, and I can't correct/edit it because I have a COI. Me, myself, I recently found my name on the unclaimed royalties section of AFM & SAGAFTRA. I received a six-figure check, all because I moved a couple times, some checks were sent to the old addresses and never cashed. I do not have an article.
- Do you think that your "client" is at that level? His career, as of today (not what could be in the future), is considered encyclopedic, while the 3 mentioned above are not? This is an encyclopedia. It is not a celebrity fansite. But, again, you have a COI, you should not be the one creating, editing, or debating the article.
Kellymoat (
talk) 15:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - per nominator. No significant indication of notability, references are profile pages.
Hayman30 (
talk) 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - per nom. There is a lack of notability.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 18:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - per nom, no real notability and lack of sources to support the claims in the article.
Shellwood (
talk) 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I was wondering if an admin can close this Afd. The article creator, primary content provider, and admitted "agent" of the subject has taken it upon himself to delete all content (except the Afd template) from the article. It is now a blank page with an AfD box.
Kellymoat (
talk) 12:53, 22 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Night Guard (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No evidence of notability. Not yet broadcast TV shows are seldom considered notable. Promotional tone.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment IMDb says it was broadcast in 2011 in South Africa, so it's not an unreleased series. There's coverage in South African media although not sure how high quality sources like these are:
[20]
[21]
[22] It's a horrid, promotional article so I don't blame people too much for not doing
WP:BEFORE, and
WP:TNT may still apply. Unless someone wants to do a total rewrite. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 09:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – ref. #2 concerns a completely unrelated series. That leaves ref #1 which is IMDb, which itself cannot be used to demonstrate notability under
WP:GNG. Therefore, the article is effectively unsourced. So no notability demonstrated + a promotional tone = delete. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 15:37, 18 July 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.
A Train
talk 20:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Guangdong Loongon (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
non-notable toy company. The trademark dispute does not show notability by itself.
DGG (
talk ) 03:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of China-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- delete as not notable; per nom a small trademark dispute does not establish notability, and searches turn up nothing better.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds 22:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- keep this is a notable company, the Danish press is consistently covering this company because of its copies of Lego. Just this weekend there was more coverage
Lego knock-offs from China spreading to the European market. This maker also licenses creations of popular Lego creators as well, unlike other brands and it has its own non-infringing brands, such as Cogo. This manufacturer sells a ton of product, much more than the other Lego compatible brick companies that do have Wikipedia articles:
Why does Wikipedia include these European and North American companies and exclude larger Chinese companies? I do not understand the reasoning for that, although maybe some Wikipedians have played with these smaller North American and European brands and thus have emotional affinity to them and that personal connection is lacking from this Chinese family of brands?
Also, this is not a trademark dispute as but rather an intellectual property dispute, Lepin took the full designs of the Lego sets in question. --
Nipnop88 (
talk) 12:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Lastly the reason I created this article is that many people were confused about who was manufacturing Lepin and Xingbao. Some people were saying it was Meizi Model.
see here, ". In a post on Facebook, there are images of a company called Xingbao (星堡) who is owned by Meizi Model (美致模型), which is the same company that owns LEPIN" But the manufacturer is actually Loongon. This is why Wikipedia exists - to clarify questions that confuse me and provide a reference so that when people talk about the multitude of Chinese brands of Lego clones they can get correct answers. Already someone is covertly editing the Loongon page to remove mentions of Xingbao here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Guangdong_Loongon&diff=prev&oldid=788562340
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Guangdong_Loongon&type=revision&diff=788562566&oldid=788562502 -- maybe this person could clarify the relationships between these subbrands? --
Nipnop88 (
talk) 12:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Nipnop88 Any additional details you could include from Denmark's media (home land of Lego) ?
Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo (
talk) 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Articles I found in the Dutch media:
--14:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nipnop88 (
talk •
contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 02:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete because promotionalism nearly always outweighs our policies and it's because these sources (1-8) are only general news, and not the significant coverage we need in notability, even when considering it was a noticed lawsuit. The author has signs of a possible COI, but even if not, there's enough to support removal. In the current article, 1-3 and 5 are literally listings and the 4 and 6 are general news. As always, there's Draftspace if anyone wants to restart a better and improved article.
Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
Talk 18:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I have no conflict of interest. What do you think of the 8 Dutch language articles I linked to above? --
Nipnop88 (
talk) 20:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Nipnop88. The company passes
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no promotionalism. The sources and the Wikipedia article both discuss the company's getting sued by Lego for allegedly manufacturing and distributing counterfeit Lego sets.
Cunard (
talk) 06:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: The articles said to be in Dutch media are actually in Swiss and Danish media (which makes more sense for Lego).
Matt's talk 08:59, 25 July 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.
A Train
talk 10:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Combimac (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No evidence for any notability for this manufacturer of electric motors. They may be used in many different applications but that , of itself, does not equate to notability. Only two references, one of which is back to Wikipedia and the other a newspaper cutting. Searches reveal nothing that would count to notability - own web -site Linkedin, other Wikipedia articles etc. Fails
WP:GNG
Velella
Velella Talk 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks you for your input. What would increase the notability? Compared to Wikipedia pages of other manufacturers and their history in our naval business, example
Thales_Group or
Schottel_(company), we do not spot genuine differences. We have a Linkedin site, would this help linking it to Wikipedia? --
Duc1199 (
talk) 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @Duc1199, see
WP:GNG and
WP:CORP - particularly
WP:CORPDEPTH. An organisation requires multiple in-depth sources which are completely independent of the company in question. Whether other companies have articles is irrelevant to whether this one is notable, but the ones you linked have independent sources listed and one is a Fortune 500 company. Combimac currently has far too few sources to support claims of notability, as the only ones provided are to a local paper covering a minor industrial dispute 45 years ago. Also, by use of the pronoun 'we' I assume you are editing while being connected to the company. This is strongly discouraged as to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and to keep Wikipedia free of advertising and promotional material.
El Pharao (
talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the feed back and the link WP:CORP en WP:CORDEPTH. The information is clear and understood. We (a group of people gathering the information) just started and are trying to get adjusted with the do and don"ts on this platform. We will try to amend the information in line with the guidelines on organizations and companies. By the way: the dispute was not minor as it lasted more than 6 months and it became the longest in Dutch history. The union said they would put the company out of business and so they did. The attitude of the unions changed afterwards, as instead of saving jobs these were destroyed. The University of Groningen still provides the example as teaching material on unions. It became regular national news in the papers and television and the company was re-erected with help of the former Prime Minister.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Duc1199 (
talk •
contribs) 07:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Of note is that the article has been significantly copy edited after the nomination for deletion, and several new sources were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 03:02, 17 July 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. If anyone wants to continue the merge discussion, the talk page can be used for that
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Bowel management (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The biggest problem with this article is that it does not define its subject, "bowel management". "Bowel management" might mean "the practices which encourage regular bowel movements". However, this article does not take that perspective. Instead, it has some information about unusual treatments for unusual medical conditions, as for people who use daily enemas for all their bowel movements. I think this is mostly about treating
fecal incontinence and could redirect to there.
The first two citations from emedicine do not have information on this general subject. The other citations are for very specific medical conditions.
Some information here might be salvaged to merge to other articles, but I think this article is too incoherent to persist. If anyone wishes to keep this topic, I would like to see the subject defined and information not matching that subject deleted. Thoughts from others?
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Merge or redirect: I feel that some of the information is worthy enough to merge to other appropriate articles.
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk) 23:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Disability-related deletion discussions.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 17:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep this is a major topic in the field of disability, this article can easily be expanded by looking outside of the narrow confines of exclusively medical sources. For many disabled people bowel management is simply an
activity of daily living, not a medical procedure.
- I could go on, but I think I've made my point, this deletion nomination is clearly lacking in
WP:BEFORE. --
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 17:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Withdraw nomination I still think the article is unclear and I feel like I made a fair go at research, but thanks for sharing these links. While I find many of these and other sources to be poor, I at least came to understand what was being discussed here. I used these sources to develop the lead of the article to try to give it a unique focus. Thanks for your patience in hearing me out and responding. And yes, it is true -
PubMed is a hard place to find articles on this topic but much more is in general Google search. Thanks.
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 21:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Relisting because despite the nominator withdrawing, an !vote exists for merging or redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 02:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - as per Dodger67. The subject seems notable.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:10, 19 July 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 delete. Deleted per G4, and page
salted
RickinBaltimore (
talk) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Solutionary (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not a
neutral point of view treatment of the views of secondary
reliable sources. Partly a
neologism, partly
WP:POLEMIC, partly
original research, and partly
promotional.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for the reasons listed above. This is the third nomination, and the article is just as problematic as the last two times.
Choard1895 (
talk) 02:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- If it's just as bad as the previously deleted article(s), let's try speedying it -- and salting. I've tagged it
WP:G4.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:37, 17 July 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 soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Lina Condes (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable artist.Promotional article.
Winged Blades
Godric 09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist
(Speak quickly)
(Follow my trail) 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist
(Speak quickly)
(Follow my trail) 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist
(Speak quickly)
(Follow my trail) 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
MRD
20
14 00:55, 17 July 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 and moved to
Al-Dhira'. There's some question here about whether the topic is notable at all, but the bigger issue seems to be with the name. Arabic names that get transliterated into English tend to have variable spellings (that's actually true of any pair of languages, not just Arabic to English), but from what I see here, most people think Al Dhira' is a better choice.
I'm leaving a redirect behind, if for no other reason than to keep the hat-note in
Alderaan from going red.
If people want to continue to discuss better names and/or possible merges, that can all be done on the article talk page without need for further
WP:AFD involvement. --
RoySmith
(talk) 14:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Alderaan (astronomy) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The article itself fails to give any references supporting the existence or use of this name, and I couldn't find anything. The article does link to a source for an asterism with a similar name. I couldn't find any popular sources using the name. In short, this name doesn't appear to exist and fails
WP:GNG.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
MRD
20
14 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The article is currently fairly poor, but there are references to be found. Here's one
[23] where entries 2 and 3 on the linked page 559 extensively refer to al-dhira' . Here's another book
[24] that calls it "the Dhirá'án", and cites Lane's Arabic Lexicon, page 962. This one
[25] calls it "Aldryan", as well, citing the Lexicon again. On the current only reference at the Wikipedia page, it says "Al Dhira' ", the plural of which is (at least in some transliterations) Alderaan. It definitely exists and passes
WP:GNG. --
Hameltion (
speak,
spoken) 06:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Seemingly zero sources support the name "Alderaan", not even the one already in the article. The sources may support Al-Dhira and the like.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 19:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Would you support a Move to
Al-Dhira' or some other name? --
Hameltion (
speak,
spoken) 20:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- This is my basic issue. Lots of references for all sorts of Arabic names, but not a single source that says any of them decline or transliterate into Alderaan. I don't know if they are equivalent to Alderaan or not, but without a source it seems a step too far for Wikipedia to say they do. A move to one of the names that is actually given in a source would be fine. Allen, the only source currently in the article, is considered a (somewhat antiquated) bible in this respect, so whatever it says would work. Note that what the article currently says bears little relation to what Allen says. The original creator of the article did want to make the connection to Star Wars, but the OR about that is long gone.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- If it's an alternative name for the two brightest stars in
Canis Minor and two from
Gemini (constellation), then judging by the mentions already at
Canis Minor like "asterism Shuiwei, which literally means "water level". Combined with additional stars in Gemini, Shuiwei represented an official" and "The Aztec calendar was related to their cosmology. The stars of Canis Minor were incorporated along with some stars of Orion and Gemini into an asterism associated with the day called "Water".", it probably belongs at
Canis Minor.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 20:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Strong Keep. NOTE: sources that are about the topic support its notability, even if they do not use the name that we use for our article. If there are lots of sources with Arabic names, or with the name Al-Dhira, or others, and these are all clearly about the same topic then we keep the article. The issue of none of the sources using the name we do is a possible justification for a
move request but not for deletion. Edit: Note that I would support a merge to
Canis Minor. —
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 04:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete no sources that use this name, and this is an obscure term for a constellation, not an astronomical object. It likely only has a page due to its name coinciding with the planet from
Star Wars. If the additional references on this page are relevant to
Canis Minor they can be added to that article, but I don't support any merge.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 05:06, 25 July 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.
North America
1000 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Asim Ali (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The straight case for speedy deletion. Fails
WP:GNG. Not a single source to verify this claim.
Greenbörg
(talk) 09:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Comment: If this is a straight forwad
speedy deletion case, whi is it not tagged for speedy deletion instead of being at AfD?
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C) 09:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete fails to meet
WP:GNG . couldn't found any RS. it seems the IMDb profile is not of this guy. --
Saqib (
talk) 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for lack of notability. The article claims notability (won a major industry award), but I don't think the award itself meets our criteria. As a claim of importance, it dodges
WP:CSD#A7, however.
UltraExactZZ
Said ~
Did 14:09, 17 July 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.
czar 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
John J. Miller (journalist) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable person. Sources are his personal website, a lecture he once did, and a passing mention about an unnotable online website he made.
PeterTheFourth (
talk) 03:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 17:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 08:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for your admission of
being a paid editor with having a COI. I don't think this article shows enough notability for
WP:Author, just two reviews of a book on football. Don't be discouraged though, I am sure there is plenty of good work ahead of you.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 01:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC).
reply
- So everyone is fully aware: I am not a paid editor and I have not been paid to edit this article. My disclosure is that I am a contributor to The College Fix, which Miller founded.
Mark Schierbecker (
talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the clarification.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 22:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC).
reply
- Keep as certainly enough. Rpclod noted the need of independent substance sources and they have now been availably shown.
SwisterTwister
talk 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
SwisterTwister: Is a review of a book somebody has written, or quoting that book, evidence of notability of the author? I don't believe it is.
PeterTheFourth (
talk) 01:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. @
PeterTheFourth: One review by itself is not enough for notability. Multiple reviews, especially in high-profile publications and of multiple books, are evidence of notability per
WP:AUTHOR #3 ("subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and 4c ("significant critical attention"), as well as likely providing the in-depth coverage needed for
WP:GNG. Now, in the case of the subject,
- The Big Scrum was reviewed in the NYT
[27], National Review
[28], Fox News
[29],
Publishers Weekly
[30], among other sources.
- The First Assassin didn't have any noteworthy reviews that I found
- A Gift of Freedom had an academic-journal review
[31] but nothing mainstream that I found
- Our Oldest Enemy was in the NYT again
[32], Foreign Affairs
[33],
Publishers Weekly
[34], National Review
[35], among others.
- The Unmaking Of Americans was reviewed by Foreign Affairs
[36], Publishers Weekly
[37], and
Kirkus Reviews
[38] among others.
- So with three solid hits, I think he clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. The other two lesser-known books don't help, but they don't hurt either (if a subject is notable for something, it doesn't matter that they're not notable for something else). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- "
That a book as shoddy and biased as this one should be published by a reputable press is eminently regrettable.
" Ouch. Still, this does establish that he's an author of sorts.
PeterTheFourth (
talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Well, yes, "notable" and "respected" may be two completely different things. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:19, 20 July 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.
czar 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Hit Collection 2000 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non notable compiliation album. This was merely one in a long series of albums released by one company with songs by a particular artist. Not even an official Ricky Martin release
Gbawden (
talk) 10:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 10:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - no significant coverage found; appears to fail
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM. I might have supported a redirect but there are "Hit Collection 2000" compilations for other artists.
gongshow
talk 18:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: fails
WP:NALBUMS. As noted above, the compilation was unofficial, and appears to be one of literally dozens of identically titled single-artist compilation albums created for the Russian market
[39].
Richard3120 (
talk) 00:49, 24 July 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Earl Dittman (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Tagged for notability since 2010, appears to be only notable for movie reviews in 2005. Fails GNG IMO
Gbawden (
talk) 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 12:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 12:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and fix. Dittman is spoken of or quoted as a critic in
multiple books and
news sources... like a poor man's Roger Ebert. The project is served by this being better sourced, not by its deletion.
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 12:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I have added some more sources to the article. Basically, the contrast between the frequency with which Dittman was quoted in movie ads and the obscurity of his work otherwise led to his receiving profiles in some reliable sources. --
Metropolitan90
(talk) 04:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 10:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Texas-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:57, 19 July 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. Consensus is that the article is best Kept and improved upon.
(non-admin closure) —
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 04:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Camp Quest (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Promotional article for the camp and its sponsor. NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy, regardless of quibbles about notability The promotionalism is evident by the photos of routine camp activity, the details of camp activities, the excessive detail about spin-offs, and such phrases as " a space where children who are already nonreligious can feel comfortable and accepted." the elaborate discussion about the meaning of their logo, and the paragraph about " Murrow Indian Children's Home donation".
DGG (
talk ) 03:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 02:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Of all the sources, most are primary and autobiographical. Only two or three are from secondary sources, and of those, none are neither not about the camp itself nor are routine.
alphalfalfa(
talk) 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and improve. I don't see so much advocacy or promotion, just a "fair enough" description of the camp and its activities, which is somehow notable. It sure can be improved with extra sources and the like, but not deleted.
MaeseLeon (
talk) 09:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and improve. I don't see this article as "promotional" any more than other articles devoted to similar educational organizations and events. Camp Quest events are conducted by disparate groups of people, and involve a large number of children and adults in several different countries. The article would certainly benefit from press articles from international sources, but it deserves the chance to be improved.
VaDawn (
talk) 21:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep an improve. I agree with the contents of the original nomination. The article is poorly written. It can be re-written to to fit within Wikipedia guidelines.
8==8 Boneso (
talk) 10:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Well, than I would re-vote to keep it. :) After thoroughtly re-reading the article, I don't see anything especially promotional, it's more of an introduction and a pretty neutral description of what they do at that camp. Actually, it's way less biased that many religious and religious activities-related articles. If it's guilty of something, it's guilty of being a too-plain explanation of the activity. But camp Quest is somehow notable and the article is pretty fair and properly referenced.
MaeseLeon (
talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep & Improve. Once again I agree with the comments about the logo & Murrow Indian Children's Home donation. I have edited the page to reflect this. To be honest I don't understand why the section about th Murrow Indian Children's Home donation wasn't just deleted anyway. I'm not concerned either way about the other issues raised the deletion nomination. The page definitely needs improvement, but not deletion.
8==8 Boneso (
talk) 00:09, 21 July 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.
Sandstein 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Laith Hakeem (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Was dePRODed due to having a raft of references, but a closer examination reveals that none of them are RS, especially if the social media sites and concert sites are been removed.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 12:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
I think it'd be helpful if social media links that are against policy are removed from the article to help people assess it. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned! 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Nudging
Kudpung --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned! 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The referencing here is far too strongly tied to
primary sources and
blogs, with no evidence of
reliable source coverage in media shown at all. Neither
WP:NMUSIC (for his work as a musician) nor
WP:CREATIVE (for his work in radio) hands a person an automatic notability freebie just because he exists — he needs to actually achieve something that constitutes a claim of notability, and even more importantly that has to be supported by reliable sources and not just by his own PR materials. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but literally nothing here is enough to get him a Wikipedia article today.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:34, 17 July 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. Per the uncontested sources provided. I see there is a merger discussion underway and quality concerns can be raised on talk or directly addressed by editing the article
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
All Media Network (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Ridiculous blatant promotion. nothing significant about it.
Light2021 (
talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Not even close to a G11. I'd decline that instantly if someone tried that. Terrible assessment of this article.
Sergecross73
msg me 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
So
Why 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- a directory-like listing complete with 'Products & Service' type of content. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure or investor prospectus.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 01:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete in violation of
WP:NOTYELLOW.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 18:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Video games-related deletion discussions.
Izno (
talk) 00:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Cunard's sources. Accusations of WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMO,
WP:G11 are not supported by the article. Claiming "nothing significant about it" for an article with thousands of incoming links is disingenuous. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to
Michael Erlewine. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 03:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Cunard; obviously notable even if the article is incomplete. AllMusic is linked to or mentioned in more than a hundred thousand Wikipedia articles, and AllMovie is linked to in more than 11,000.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep – Meets
WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article.
North America
1000 13:12, 24 July 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 Merge section on the Pensionado Act to
Education in the Philippines during the American rule.
Malinaccier (
talk) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Filipino Americans in higher education (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Reads like
WP:NOTESSAY
Gbawden (
talk) 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Education-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of History-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Repurpose as
Rise of higher education in Phillipines or similar. It should be possible to add paragraphs between the Pensionado Act and the initiative under Marcos and as to what has happened since. If we have another article on the subject, I would support merge/redirect. The final paragraph on Filipino academics in US should be removed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, drafify, or stubiffy. The article as written reads like a mix of
WP:ESSAY and
WP:OR. It's possible that a good article could be written on this topic (possibly with a different title, as suggested above), but this isn't it. So, either delete with no prejudice to recreate a better version, or
WP:TNT. Somewhat more specifically, I'd be more inclined to let this stay if we had in-line references for statements such as the main goal for the Spaniards were to spread Christianity in the Philippines, and removing obvious
WP:OR/
WP:POV such as If lucky, Filipinas were limited to learn some primary education. --
RoySmith
(talk) 14:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Partial Merge to
Education in the Philippines during the American rule. The section "The Pensionado Act" has information that could be combined but the rest is a
WP:ESSAY. No independent notability for the concept is sustained by the sources used.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Oliver Goldsmith (company).
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 08:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Claire Goldsmith (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No indication that subject meets
WP:GNG and has had sustaining coverage in
reliable sources. A
WP:BEFORE source turned up promotional coverage, but nothing else significant.
Smartyllama (
talk) 16:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 18:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 18:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Delete or Redirect to
Oliver Goldsmith (company). Her grandfather, Oliver Goldsmith and his family company are VERY notable eyewear designers and pioneers of 20th-century glasses (they effectively turned glasses from functional necessaries into valid fashion accessories), and ought to have an article - maybe I need to do one. His granddaughter does not inherit his notability, and isn't on the same level yet. I would suggest a basic mention on an Oliver Goldsmith biographical article in the "family and legacy" section (as it is part of the Goldsmith family dynamic) but I don't believe she is valid to have her own article at this point.
Mabalu (
talk) 16:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment:
Oliver Goldsmith (company) has been created, with the Claire Goldsmith namecheck which I feel is sufficent.
Mabalu (
talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- OK, I had a look at the sources in the current article. While Claire isn't quite independently notable enough yet, she is much more significant than I thought, particularly in her role as reviver of the Oliver Goldsmith brand. I would now firmly say that a redirect is very appropriate.
Mabalu (
talk) 16:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
Mabalu (
talk) 10:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Oliver Goldsmith (company). Only seeing one good reference for notability here (Guardian). one of the others probably should be deleted, and the writer of the other one is clearly connected to the artist as a personal friend. Should probably merge the Guardian ref into
Oliver Goldsmith (company) with a sentence or short paragraph about here there. —
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 04:31, 25 July 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.
czar 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Baazaar (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Contested PROD (removed with no rationale). There is only minimal coverage of this upcoming film, which the one source provided indicates isn't meant to be released until the end of the year, making this clearly TOOSOON for an article. While the cast members listed are notable, notability isn't inherited.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. It may be worth mentioning that there's certainly no prejudice towards the recreation of this article if and when the production is further along and/or the coverage justifies it. As the facts on the ground change, an article subject can always become notable.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Response: with filming confirmed and production having suitable coverage,
WP:NFF is met and the film topic is proven notable, thank you.
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 23:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- An opinion you've expressed elsewhere, yes. This comment was written earlier in the piece, and responded to what appeared to be a concern at that time.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 03:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, but IF their inclusion brings press coverage, then notability is brought forward too.
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 20:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- If there's coverage, and that coverage satisfies either NFILM or GNG, then it doesn't matter what prompted the coverage. No disagreement there. My point is that notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED, and the article doesn't get a free pass simply because a phalanx of performers with notability are in it. The film needs to be notable itself, no?
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 04:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Jupitus Smart 04:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- alts:
-
WP:INDAFD:
Baazaar
Baazaar
- KEEP per
filming being confirmed in
Bollywood Hungama and the
production IS being spoken of directly and in some detail in such as
Times of India (1),
Times of India (2),
Deccan Chronicle,
Hindustan Times,
Indian Express,
Bollywood Hungama,
First Post (1),
First Post (2),
Daily News & Analysis (1),
Daily News & Analysis (2),
Bolyspice,
NDTV, and many more. This needs to be expanded and far better sourced to more obviously show it meeting
applicable criteria and
WP:NFF.
BigHaz..?
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:11, 17 July 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. Arguably meets
WP:CREATIVE, and with plenty of local coverage in reliable sources and a bit of wider coverage. Consensus of editors is borderline to keep, so this is a pretty easy keep close.
(non-admin closure) —
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 04:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Johanna Spinks (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Local artist. Her notability does not extend beyond Ventura County and Caliornia Art Club.
Arthistorian1977 (
talk) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Artists-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I just found that
California Art Club's award may actually grant passing
WP:CREATIVE, taking into account the scale of organisation. But I am still on the fence about it.
Arthistorian1977 (
talk) 21:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I'm still on the fence too, although she has coverage in American Artist Drawing Magazine, an article in NY-based Epoch Times (is that a
WP:RS?), and lots of local press, so she's got some coverage outside southern California as well as locally. The article as originally created was very promotional. Note that the NY Times article cited (twice!) is only a brief mention and doesn't contribute to notability. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 14:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for now, there is a good amount of coverage of her art, especially in the
Malibu Times. Her work is possibly more notable than her but if that's the case then the artist goes along with it as well.
Karl Twist (
talk) 12:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. She seems notable. I updated the WikiProject assessments to get more consensus,
TeriEmbrey (
talk) 15:53, 23 July 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. And I hope
Cunard will rewrite the article to incorporate the material that he located
DGG (
talk ) 04:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Core77 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-significant Blog. Coverage are nothing notable. Nothing to write except 1 paragraph. purpose is promotional and nothing else. Helps building links afterall we are blog! Wikipedia is used as corporate spam.
Light2021 (
talk) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Blogs are not reliable sources, even for themselves.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 22:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC).
reply
- Keep - I was just about to vote delete based on the thin article and poor outdated sourcing, but on a hunch went to their site. Seems very slick to call just a blog. Did a little more digging and found more coverage, and improved the article. Apparently this is a very notable digital publication in the design world, and many well known design schools are heavily involved in submitting work for Core77's Design Awards program - so it must be prestigious. I don't want to canvas and taint the already fragile AfD process, but I think others who focus on editing design articles could speak better to this site's notability.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
jcc (
tea and biscuits) 22:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- If it's well-known then give the sources.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC).
reply
- I added some coverage I found - it's there now. I think that since we're not (or at least I'm not) in the design industry, it might be useful to let editors who are in the design field chime in as well.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont) 00:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the sources found by Cunard, plus the work done on the article since opening the AfD.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 16:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:08, 17 July 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.
Alex Shih
Talk 12:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Tahir Imin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:NBIO. Coverage in independent reliable sources not found.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk) 02:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as per nomination. It's also worth noting a possible Conflict of Interest, as before I removed some language from the article quite a bit was written in the first person (see here for example
[41]). The article has the additional problem of some references being in Uyghur, and I'm not sure that a single currently active Wikipedian with knowledge of
WP:RS reads Uyghur. Certainly I've been unable to find one so far.
Alephb (
talk) 08:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) 00:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of China-related deletion discussions.
MassiveYR
♠ 09:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Typical. They would post an article just about anyone who has got arrested in China. Does not pass
WP:GNG.
STSC (
talk) 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000 10:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Intro states that he is "an activist, reformist, public scholar, and journalist", yet the main body does not give any sourced examples to support these four potentially notable occupations. As it fails to provide examples of notable activity, it thereby fails
WP:BIO.
Loopy30 (
talk) 19:43, 17 July 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.