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. Consensus now clear to keep.
Tone
19:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Sandra Appiah (
|
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 outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of her news coverage are primarily for the company.
Meeanaya (
talk)
04:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Meeanaya (
talk)
04:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose The press coverage linked in the lemma is about her as an individual. The "30 under 30" is about her as an entrepreneur, it's a list of individuals, not of less-than-thirty-year-old companies. That is markedly different from cases where an individual is only mentioned in passing in press coverage of their company. That she is notable primarily for her work with one company is irrelevant, as long as the coverage is primarily about her as a person, as in this case.
Markus Pössel (
talk)
20:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Publications coming out annually with "30 under 30" and "40 under 40" and othersuch lists, getting on such a list is no where near a sign of notability.
Meeanaya (
talk)
04:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- All of the sources are not reliable, interviews are primary sources, clearly fails
WP:BASIC.
Meeanaya (
talk)
12:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The Ebony piece goes to notability, but the rest of the sources do not make any convincing case. Neither are the awards notable. Article was created by SPA, who also created the
Face2Face Africa, the only article having a meaningful link to this one. It seems then, that this is a little walled-garden and this article is basically an orphan. All-in-all, it seems likely to be promo/fan/vanity page.
Agricola44 (
talk)
14:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep. The "30 under 30" listing does not count as a significant award (there are too many of them), but it does count as in-depth coverage by a reliable source. So do the newsone (via Huffpo) and Le Figaro pieces. So I think she passes
WP:GNG. I've removed some of the more egregiously promotional writing from the article but it could still use more help. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
15:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The write-up in
Le Figaro is not long but it is solid
[4], and the pieces in
The Grio
[5] and Newsone (picked up by HuffPo) are adequately in-depth. The BET interview
[6] is a primary source as far as Appiah's statements about herself are concerned, but it does represent the world taking notice and thus counts in her favor for wiki-notability. (This is generally true of interviews; after all, publications have their choice of people to interview.) That's enough to pass
WP:GNG.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Face2Face Africa, co-founding of which is the subect's sole claim to fame and the context in which she has received coverage. Firstly, I'll note that the article as it stands is clearly promotional and shows clear signs of COI/UPE, such as containing details and content (eg, birthdate, schooling details,
photograph) not obtained from any of the cited sources. It also misrepresents its sourcing and what they say. Examples:
- Appiah was not included in a
Forbes 30 Under 30 list. The
cited list is simply one compiled by an individual Forbes Contributor. See
WP:RS/P's entry on "Forbes contributors" and linked RSN discussions for details on why such content is deemed "generally unreliable" and should not be used as a source, especially in a BLP. Note too that
another of the cited sources in the current draft is simply a press-release about the column in Forbes, which nevertheless describes the list in a (technically) accurate manner, "Writing for Forbes.com, contributor Mfonobong Nsehe pulled together a list..."
- The cited
Huffington Post article is simply a blurb to an article published in
NewsOne.
- Overall, the write-ups/press-releases about Appiah are linked to the launch of Face2Face (thus the concentration of sourcing around Jan 2013), or launch of a
a program on the website. The content is therefore best covered at
Face2Face Africa itself.
- PS: The
Face2Face Africa article itself will need a clean up, since it too is written in a promotional and misleading manner. For example, Face2Face is not a "pan-African media company"; it is not even an African company. Rather it is a New York based website that covers Africa with a view to promote pan-African themes.
Abecedare (
talk)
16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I have moved the sources listed under References to inline citations, and added some more sources and information. While a lot of coverage of her was generated by the launch of the Face2Face print magazine, the Figaro profile is from 2015. There is enough coverage about her to meet
WP:BASIC. (I also found two paras from 2004 about a Sandra Appiah attending the English High School in Boston
[7], which sounds like her - she had helped form an Africans Around the World club, for example - except that this article says she went to high school in the Bronx.)
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
05:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per non-trivial
WP:RS meets
WP:GNG
Wm335td (
talk)
21:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I agree with User: RebeccaGreen who wrote: "...added some more sources and information... There is enough coverage about her to meet
WP:BASIC." In some cases it is better to upgrade and source an article rather than be quick to try to delete it. Many of the AfD nominations could be completely avoided if people did this. So much drama and unproductive work could be avoided if more editors were like User: RebeccaGreen. Also, User:Senegambianamestudy made a strong argument. Namely, User:Senegambianamestudy wrote: " plenty of reliable sources that establishes notability
[8],
[9],
a catched copy of a 2013 interview by BET,
[10], and one of the
Most Influential People of African Descent (MIPAD) as well as
one of the top 50 CEOs in Ghana." After all is said and done there is sufficient depth and breadth of coverage to keep the article. Finally, doing business is very challenging in many parts of Africa due to excessive regulation and that it is a developing country.
[11] So why make it harder on her? I think it is great that she has an article and I find her work admirable. She could have done business in the USA easily, but she chose the tougher path. But I am sure it is very rewarding for her (I know a couple of people who have done business in Africa and it rewarding to make a poor country more prosperous).
Knox490 (
talk)
03:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Deleted /A7 by Bbb23.
(non-admin closure)
——
SerialNumber
54129
06:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Sandra Pinel (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Recently deleted as A7. The only independent source in the article is a video clip/transcript of her being interviewed once on French TV. I can't find anything else independent about her under either of the names the article says she uses. (Note if you are searching that there are a couple of possibly-notable people called Sandra Pinel, an American academic and a Honduran politician; there is also a Korean drama with Kim Sam Soon in the title, so it's possible that I might have missed a viable source because of all the hits I was getting about things other than this person). No evidence of notability per
WP:GNG or anything else.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.
GirthSummit
(blether)
23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Also, according to the creator's talk page, something similarhas been added by said creator on the French version of Wikipedia. Kirbanzo (
userpage -
talk -
contribs)
23:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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
Lizardfolk. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Lizard king (Dungeons & Dragons) (
|
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 fails to establish notability.
TTN (
talk)
21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
TTN (
talk)
21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or merge into
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters.
BOZ (
talk)
22:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge to
Lizardfolk
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
01:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge to
Lizardfolk, the creature for which this was originally described as a more potent form.
bd2412
T
02:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge to
Lizardfolk per above.
Aoba47 (
talk)
21:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge to
Lizardfolk. There are zero non-primary sources being used here, and nothing else out there that I can find that would rectify that. It is essentially a non-notable variant of an already questionably notable D&D monster.
Rorshacma (
talk)
02:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge It is not a stand alone article , merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters.
Alex-h (
talk)
08:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or merge to
Lizardfolk. In any case, no sufficient reason to delete the content entirely.
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
21:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
23:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Frequency (Khat Prodution album) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unsourced, no indication of notability, thereby failing
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM.
WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (
userpage -
talk -
contribs)
19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (
userpage -
talk -
contribs)
19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (
userpage -
talk -
contribs)
19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or Speedy Delete per
WP:A1 (no context or indication of importance) and/or
WP:A9 (artist does not have an article). The artist, Khat Production, is barely present on the Internet in any language beyond a few basic social media pages, and this album is only noted in a few typical user-generated listings. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
20:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete since there does not appear to be enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:GNG requirements. I also agree with Doomsdayer520 that this seems to meet the criteria for a speedy delete per WP:A1.
Aoba47 (
talk)
00:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete as per
WP:A9 (but not as per
WP:A1 because it is not "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject" and A1 is not concerned with "indication of importance") or delete as per
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for clarifying, I may have been thinking of an old definition of A1 that was changed sometime recently. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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)
19:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Misdemeanor (Missy Elliott album) (
|
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 hoax album. There is no compilation by this name by Missy Elliott; Google results turn up nothing besides a page on
Genius, which is a
WP:USERG website so the hoax looks to have spread to there as well. The purported cover art appears to be just a shot of Missy taken from somewhere on the Internet. The editor who created it also created at least one other hoax,
Put On Your Pants & Jacket!, which is now a redirect and I have nominated for deletion, so they look to be an editor who occasionally invents fake albums for some reason.
Ss
112
15:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
16:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
Ceethekreator (
talk)
16:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete — Per nomination.
livelikemusic
talk!
17:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - It is quite obvious that this article was a hoax or mistake for an album that does not exist, unfortunately it has proliferated out into the interwebs. Delete the article, and DO NOT redirect to the artist's page as is common, because the title does not exist and also because that would cause confusion if anyone searches for her old nickname "Missy Misdemeanor Elliott." ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
20:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per the above discussion. Since it is likely a hoax, a redirect would be misleading, and deletion would be the best option. It is certainly odd how these hoax articles come to be and stick around here. Thank you for nominating this for deletion as hoaxes should be taken seriously.
Aoba47 (
talk)
00:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete hoaxes don't belong on Wikipedia.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits)
03:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
Very strong delete as the album does not appear on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, Discogs etc. nor are there any sources for the album/reviews or a mention of it from Missy Elliott's own Twitter or even a release date.
Jentinafan (
talk) 09:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC) (Jentinafan has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - SummerPhD
v2.0
15:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC))
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
23:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Taraneh Javanbakht (
|
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 and
WP:AUTHOR. Classic example of a promotional article: scientist, philosopher, artist, writer, poet, literary critic, translator, and human rights activist! According to
this official source, all books by Javanbakht has been published by a single publisher (Arvin) and if you click on the list of books published by this the publisher (Blue tag, down of the page,
here), you see that Arvin published 10 books in a span of two years (2003-2004), all by Javanbakht. So we can consider her a "self-published" poet.
Farhikht (
talk)
12:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Iran-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Blatant promotion by herself or by someone in her circle (note correspondences with her website, e.g. In others' books). Superficially it is impressive, but the only real claim to notability appears to be her work as a scientist, and I think she fails
WP:NACADEMIC here as well. Much of the 'polymath' umbrella term applies to nothing more than elevated hobbies.
Curiocurio (
talk)
17:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Ring of Pakistan (
|
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 promotion - PW promotions need a lot to meet GNG, this one has been running for a year, with no major news. Best Wishes,
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes,
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes,
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
13:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. It is a wrestling event. The refs offer coverage of the event but they are really just promotional articles. The event is newly created as a kind of 'tester' to see if there is any appetite for wrestling in the country. If the event has longevity we can revisit this.
Szzuk (
talk)
15:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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
She-Hulk. This is a bit of a mess. Closing this as NC would be defensible, but I think would be the wrong result.
I'm not impressed with most of the keep arguments, which are mostly, "This will be notable in the future". Well, OK, then in the future we can have an article about it.
I was thinking draftify was a good middle ground, then I got to the part about how there's already a draft, and yes, as pointed out, one of them is a total copy-paste from the other, but it's not immediately obvious in which direction the copying went, so there's an ugly potential licensing/attribution violation. Blech.
So, what I'm going to do is delete this, and then create a new redirect. People can continue to work on the draft, and submit that for review when appropriate. --
RoySmith
(talk)
23:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
She-Hulk (TV series) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
There is a draft article for this, like all the other Marvel-Disney+ shows.
Mazewaxie (
talk •
contribs)
11:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - This is a notable upcoming television program, widely reported in the media.
GarrettOrangeCow (
talk)
12:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
GarrettOrangeCow (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD.
reply
DeleteDraftify as per my comment below fails
WP:GNG this is way too soon. The article was created by a possible
WP:UPE. --
Dom from Paris (
talk)
13:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Normally I would say this is a keep It was announced as part of Disney+ who has a fairly good record of following through on productions like this. It is probably too soon but there will be significant public interest and media coverage for this show now that it has been announced as part of the MCU. The troubling part for me is most of the article outside of the intro focuses on the creator and his previous She Hulk production. Also, the grammar used in the Production paragraph part of the page is pretty bad and there are a lot of statements which aren't factual like "many fans have expressed interest" "would like to see" "many, many more". These statements aren't usually associated with Wikipedia. There is also the issue of the references, they are pretty attrocious. Might be a case of WP:TNT or find someone who likes the MCU and have they make the desparately needed updates.
ScienceAdvisor (
talk)
16:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Just a heads up. I removed the promotional language for the page about the creator of the fan made She-Hulk movie. There is no references to him in the Disney+ articles and all I could find was a She Hulk fan made movie produced by this guy. Regardless of what happens with the page that language should be removed.
ScienceAdvisor (
talk)
16:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I have cleaned up the article, removed the nonsense and promotional material on the producer of the fan made movie.. I've added some references to help bring it in alignment with a TV Show stub article. I think with this work, the amount of publicity, and the public interest this article should be or at least could be kept. I am sure it will be updated more thoroughly by fans of the MCU and She-Hulk! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ScienceAdvisor (
talk •
contribs)
21:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't contain a
reason to delete. If anything, the existence of a draft version too confirms the interest in this topic, for which there appears to be plenty of news coverage.
Andrew D. (
talk)
22:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Although I'd normally consider this to be "too soon", there seems to be substantial coverage.
Cosmic Sans (
talk)
16:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The 3 sources say almost nothing about the series itself. Is it in production? When will it be coming out? Who are the voice actors? How many episodes? The articles go into some depth about the characters but say next to nothing about the series itself. As it states in one of the articles "The announcements didn’t include any details about casting or planned release dates, but the series are in development. Feige also reiterated that all of these series will be integrated with the Marvel Cinematic Universe films." These are just repeating what an executive said to them during a panel. This is pure
Churnalism. There is no in-depth coverage of the subject in any of the sources. --
Dom from Paris (
talk)
17:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Draftify Coverage needs to move beyond the announcement, otherwise it's too soon. No depth of coverage or guarantee of production yet.
Reywas92
Talk
19:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I just want to be clear that I didn't create the page and I did "some" work to clean it up and make it a compliant article. I added a couple of references to bring it in line with a stub article assuming others will contribute. I didn't go through the press and try and aggregate all the information into the article. I am an MCU fan but She-Hulk is a fringe character I am not too familiar with. I do encourage people to contribute. Also, this is a live-action series so there would be no voice actors.
ScienceAdvisor (
talk)
23:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Ah you see whether it is animated or live action is not clear from the sources for those that aren't fans or know anything about the D23 thing. But this can be worked on as a draft until there is some in-depth coverage. If they haven't even cast the actors yet this is most definitely way
WP:TOOSOON. But changing to draftify.
Dom from Paris (
talk)
12:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to draft The only reason we are having this discussion is because someone wanted first dibs on the article. Checking the history, it was created as a redirect. Other users undid the redirect to expand the article, but without much information on the show. The bullies on the
WikiProject Comics want their creation credits, thus the nomination. Why delete an article just so they can get their creation credit? Redirect and move draft to article in time.
119.93.40.241 (
talk)
03:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, restore redirect Absolutely way to soon for this article to exist. This fails
WP:GNG,
WP:TOOSOON,
WP:NTV and the spirit of
WP:NFF. We don't even have an intended release window, except that it will be after the Hawkeye series which is coming in 2021. So we are at least 2 years away before there will be any real news on this. Content for the article can be found at
Draft:She-Hulk (TV series) (which this article is a blatant
WP:COPYPASTE) until it is ready to be moved to the mainspace, which is once there has been confirmation filming has begun. This shouldn't even be up for discussion, much less have anyone suggesting the article stay. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The best solution would be to move this article to the draft space for now and move it back to the article space after the right time has come. It makes little sense rn to have an article on the subject.
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
20:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- No, moving the page to draft space would be silly because it would lead to the creation of forks. If it's clear that there are plans for this series but information is limited then there's a better
alternative to deletion – merging the content into
She-Hulk#Television where a variety of TV appearances of this character are listed. That way, you keep all the activity together, rather than creating forks, and our readers get the information directly rather than having to root around in other name-spaces.
Andrew D. (
talk)
23:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
21:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
The Old Curiosity Shop (1984 film) (
|
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 found nothing that shows this film is notable. Fails
WP:NF.
SL93 (
talk)
02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
SL93 (
talk)
02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
J
947 (
c), at
02:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.
J
947 (
c), at
02:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
J
947 (
c), at
02:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The film was a feature film. It had a notable cast it was sold around the world.
Dutchy85 (
talk)
02:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- — Note to closing admin:
Dutchy85 (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD.
- Comment @
Dutchy85: I moved your comment down to where it might be more appropriate, chronologically speaking.
Moaz786 (
talk to me or
see what I've been doing)
02:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the additional refs that have been added.
Lugnuts
Fire Walk with Me
06:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- @
Lugnuts: How so? The first online reference only states "By April 1984 the Sll-million series will be complete, with 'A Tale of Two Cities' and 'The Old Curiosity Shop' in the can." and the second online reference only states "They are 'Pickwick Papers', 'Oliver Twist', 'A Christmas Carol', 'Great Expectations', 'David Copperficld', 'Tale of Two Cities', 'Old Curiosity Shop' and 'Nicholas Nickelby'."
SL93 (
talk)
07:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - non-notable - appears to have been released direct to VHS/DVD - the two references to The Canberra Times mention the series, but this film is not the subject of the articles, so mention is trivial (
WP:TRIVIALMENTION) - does not meet
WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" nor any of the other criteria of
WP:NFILM - therefore, delete -
Epinoia (
talk)
19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
RL0919 (
talk)
08:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Ledri Vula (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
who fails
WP:MUSICBIO. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of
WP:GNG. fails
WP:GNG. I didn't find any notable album also Any
WP:RS. this article previous deleted via
WP:G11 --
Nahal
(T)
08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions. --
Nahal
(T)
08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --
Nahal
(T)
08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions. --
Nahal
(T)
08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. --
Nahal
(T)
08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as non-notable. To be considered notable, subjects must have accrued
significant coverage in reliable, intellectually independent sources. In this case, the subject does not meet
WP:NMUSICIAN or
WP:GNG due to a general lack of coverage; most of the sources cited are one word-to-one sentence mentions of the subject attending musical events. The one source that could be considered quality (the interview with 20min) does not work towards establishing notability, as it is an interview and therefor not intellectually independent of the subject as noted in
WP:PRIMARY.--
SamHolt6 (
talk)
13:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Given the creator's lengthy list of deleted articles and the fact that this is a
WP:BLP with minimal content or contributions by others, I'm going to accept this as a G5, with no prejudice to recreation by any non-sanctioned editor.
RL0919 (
talk)
08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Swapan Debnath (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Hmmm. I was the one who added the CSD G5 tag yesterday, after I found this article in the back of the NPP queue, where it sat since May 14. My impression, from looking at the page history, was that none of the edits subsequent to the page's creation qualify as "substantial edits". Several of them added various maintenance tags, a couple re-filled bare URLs using
reFill, another added some categories, and another added a wikilink. I still feel that these are not substantial edits, either individually or cumulatively, and that the page still qualifies under
WP:G5. However, if that is determined not to be the case, then the page should be kept since the subject is notable under
WP:POLITICIAN as a minister of a province.
Nsk92 (
talk)
09:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as creation by blocked user, without prejudice against recreation by an editor in good standing. There are sometimes real reasons (copyright issues, extreme BLP violations, denial of attribution to banned editors, etc.) why even notable topics can have their articles deleted and then restarted from scratch under the
WP:TNT principle, and this article is not so well-written that deleting it would be losing good work — deleting it doesn't mean he can never have an article, it just means the banned user isn't allowed to retain credit as its author. And no, none of the followup editors have added any substantive content that would change the issue — every edit after the article's creation was strictly maintenance or formatting cleanup, and the article's actual content is substantively unchanged from the original creation.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as
WP:NOTNEWS. No prejudice against future recreation if new sources in subsequent months/years show
WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
RL0919 (
talk)
08:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Eno the Emu (
|
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 pillar policy
WP:NOT. This isn't a collection of random trivia. A domesticated animal escaped captivity. So what? Google trends is in no way an indication of notability.
John from Idegon (
talk)
20:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Animal-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
21:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment, when i saw this i initially thought of course this shouldn't have an article as
WP:NOTNEWS but on looking at the sources its been reported on since early/mid July, its still being covered at mid/late August by local, national, and international sources (even Aussies are picking it up -
"Emu on the lam has US authorities in a fluster"), so the question now is whether this passess
WP:SUSTAINED ie. "If reliable sources cover a person (or emu?) only in the context of a single event, and if that person (or emu?) otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Note: i am staying neutral on this as the thought of one of these "big balls of feathers" alluding authorities for months is so funny as to be article-worthy,
definitely not a wikireason for keeping.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
07:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Notable, mentioned in the news and a
great story. Thanks for the article -
Ret.Prof (
talk)
15:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Subject fails
WP:1E,
WP:LASTING,
WP:NOTNEWS and the
WP:10YT. See also
WP:RECENTISM. There is no reason for this article as of right now. However, five years from now if it's still getting
WP:SIGCOV I will support recreation. See also
WP:NORUSH. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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)
08:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
The Order of The Bulls Blood (
|
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 seems to be a possible hoax article (
one source cites Wikipedia.com
). If not that then it simply fails
WP:GROUP.
If this article is kept, then it needs a massive source cleanup. Several include listicles on supposed secret societies and others are just local stories about some pranks made in the name of this group. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete If it's such a secret, why does it have a Wikipedia article? In my opinion, listicles aren't a good determiner of notability unless they're things about one person/object (ie "the ten musicians that influenced
James Hetfield" is fine, but "10 musicians influenced by
James Hetfield" is not.) Same principle here.
Squeeps10
Talk to me
My edits
03:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for failing
WP:VERIFY. Although there is a lot of coverage over the years it existence has not been verified. Unlike Yale's
Skull and Bones club this one has no line of authority or recognition on campus. It has no physical presence such as a clubhouse. Nor does anybody appear to admit to having been a member. (Not surprising since its main activity is vandalism of property.) A long-running hoax but still a hoax.
Blue
Riband►
16:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Specific sources were surfaced to establish notability for this particular camp.
RL0919 (
talk)
09:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Camp Tel Noar (
|
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
WP:BEFORE search has only led to inadequate sources that are mentions or biographies of attendants. Fails
WP:BASIC. The previous rationales for the other deletions were over 13 years ago and was no consensus.
AmericanAir88(
talk)
22:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:
- --
Doncram (
talk)
21:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
23:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Israel-related deletion discussions.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I'm inclined to say keep on this because I don't see why a good article is impossible. At the moment it ranges from so-so to embarrassing ("The area around the Flagpole is used for lineup and raising the flags." no kidding!).
Zero
talk
10:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete A search of books and newspaper archives reveals only passing mentions and event listings. The best I could find was
[14] and
[15], which isn't enough to satisfy
WP:ORG.----
Pontificalibus
08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per decisions in previous 2 AFDs. First AFD links to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations, a discussion about how some were on a tear to delete all articles about Jewish summer camps. I don't think there were any accusations of ant-semitism, but I don't get the interest, either. IMHO, these Jewish summer camps like other summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I respect your opinion, and I think you present an interesting argument; however, I hope you realize that your !vote isn't a reflection of current policy. I have responses to a few of your points. 1) This article's previous AfDs from 2006 should not be given much weight in this discussion because the application of notability guidelines has changed so much since then. 2) Populated places have a subject-specific notability guideline (
WP:GEOLAND) while summer camps do not. In the absence of an SNG, you need to evaluate whether a subject has received sufficient coverage in sources, which your !vote does not do. An argument by analogy just doesn't make sense in this case. 3) Your argument that articles on some subjects should be kept because of their personal significance seems to be in opposition of
WP:ORGSIG, which says that organizations (yes, schools and summer camps included) do not have any inherent notability. It does not matter (for Wikipedia purposes) whether Camp Tel Noar has touched the lives of many people; it still needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Again, I respect your argument, but just want to point out that it does not at all reflect established consensus. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
00:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
Keep. STONG KEEP: Per
Doncram. Jewish summer camps are notable -
Ret.Prof (
talk)
15:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: I am not impressed by the WP:PAG basis for the pro-retention comments. (Is there one?) If this is an IAR based argument that should be stated clearly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
DeleteNeutral (see below). Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG. My Google news search and regular Google search only turned up extremely tangential mentions like
this and
this. Also, to whomever is closing this discussion: please give due weight to the keep !votes above, as they do not present any policy-based reasons for keeping the article. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
23:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Is it really necessary for you to tell admins how to do their jobs?? They will be able to evaluate
Doncram's position on their own and "give due weight to the KEEP". I found him persuasive. I also found the reasons presented in the previous 2 AFDs helpful. -
Ret.Prof (
talk)
14:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Can't see how this is notable enough for an article and the sources do not appear to be forthcoming.
Number
5
7
12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There are more sources, and more information that could be added to the article. For example, a 1971 article that says that for 25 years, there had been a Laymen's Institute held at Camp Tel Noar, sponsored by the Brotherhoods of Conservative Synagogues in New England, open to Orthodox, Reform and Conservative men, with the camp made available by the Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation (it was reported in other years too)
[16] (Pontificalibus also found that); there was a Golden Age Club at the camp (1972)
[17]; there was a Brotherhood Youth Institute in 1962, sponsored by the National Conference of Christians and Jews
[18] - also in 1969
[19]; a 1949 article says it was affiliated with the New England Zionist Youth Movement, was non-religious with a Jewish background, for 18-30 year olds, and the two mandated activities were attendance at discussions and group singing (this article has some nice b&w photos of scenes from the camp, including one showing Eli and Bessie Cohen, which could be added to the article)
[20]; in 1947, people from the Lodge were involved in protests against the British seizure of the refugee ship Exodus, with a sign naming Tel Noar Lodge
[21]; there are bits of information about staff who worked at the camp for many years; the Jewish Journal in 2011 has an article about a new swimming pool dedicated to a long-time former director of the camp - that's in the article, so here's a source for it
[22]; information about a Camp Tel Yehudah held at Tel Noar Lodge in the late 40s, early 50s
[23]. So coverage from 1947-2011, from Boston, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont (not just local), and which provides more information. I think it meets
WP:GNG.If it is not considered to have enough coverage to warrant a separate article, I wonder, as
WP:ATD, if there would be enough coverage to have a combined article about the Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation, or the three camps run by the Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation? There seems to be more coverage than would warrant not having any article at all about the camp(s)/foundation.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
19:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note I previously found but disregarded most of the sources that RebeccaGreen details above as being either passing mentions, or concerning organisations unrelated to the camp who happened to hold an event at the camp's location out-of-season. Can we perhaps highlight
WP:THREE that represent the most detailed coverage? Perhaps
[24] might be one? ----
Pontificalibus
13:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
23:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Frank Miniter (
|
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:AUTHOR, though he seems to have written quite a bit. However, the article is a stub only sourced to his
personal bio. Deletion recommended. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Having written a purportedly but not sourcedly best-selling book might get him over AUTHOR if the article were
properly referenced, but it is not an "inherent" notability freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any sources — bestsellerdom is a thing that writers often falsely claim to have achieved in their publicity materials when they actually achieved no such thing at all, so the notability test is not what the article does or doesn't say, but how well it does or doesn't reference the things it says to reliable sources that properly verify those things as true. And being a guest on talk radio is not a notability claim either — he has to be the subject being spoken about, not the person doing the speaking on some other subject, for a reference to support his notability, so the improperly cited Q&A interview in which he's talking about hunting does not help.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Fails
WP:BIO. He has written widely including on
Fox News but I can't find any substantive coverage of Miniter as a person which is what is required for notability.
2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (
talk)
23:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Looking at the arguments and sources brought forward, some of the "keep" arguments are about the general significance of the type of camp, which unfortunately does not establish notability for this particular one. One keep supporter did offer a more specific assessment, but surfaced only non-independent sources and speculation about the potential for more. So on balance although the "delete" side has only one more supporter, the relevant arguments are more strongly weighted towards deletion.
RL0919 (
talk)
09:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Camp Interlaken (
|
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 camp does not have any adequate sourcing for its former operation. The only mentions are of directories and biographies of people who attended. Fails
WP:BASIC.
AmericanAir88(
talk)
22:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
23:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Vermont-related deletion discussions.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:
- --
Doncram (
talk)
21:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I haven't found any sources that would meet
WP:GNG.
Jmertel23 (
talk)
17:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This is part of a new campaign to delete a bunch of summer camp articles. I have seen previous campaigns, mostly ending in Keep decisions, including one about a bunch of Jewish summer camps (this is not one, but see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations); i have seen other campaigns too. I don't get the interest in deleting these. This one is a camp that operated 40 years under the Camp Interlaken name, and operated later as YMCA/YWCA
Camp Coniston (currently a redlink). It would be appropriate to expand the article and cover the later usage too, perhaps moving it to the Camp Coniston name. It is okay to tag for more sources and development, but I believe that there will exist coverage about this project, which surely was covered in newspapers when it was operational because of its obvious public benefit/public interest nature, and also the newer usages will have been covered. And once notable, always notable, too. IMHO, summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Even if judged by
WP:GEOFEAT it fails due to no significant coverage or indication of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance----
Pontificalibus
06:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Per
Doncram. Jewish summer camps are notable -
Ret.Prof (
talk)
15:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. When many people look back at their lives, I think it is fair to say that summer camp experiences (including religious retreats at summer camps), are among the best times of their lives. It is similar in significance to memories to what schools they attended, but to a lesser degree. What they lack in duration, they make up in enjoyment. I think schools, parks, camps, major beaches, amusement parks, major houses of worship belong in Wikipedia. Granted some of these items may not get a significant amount of press given the sensationalism and ambulance chasing of much of the press, but they are still significant places. And Christianity/Judaism/Islam are the big 3 when it comes to world events so a YMCA/Christian camp is notable.
Knox490 (
talk)
03:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --
Doncram (
talk)
10:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Correct, AFD is not for cleanup. It is for determining whether or not there are sources available that show a subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This particular subject does not appear to have sources that do that. I would, of course, not be against recreation if such sources can be identified in the future, but for now they simply do not appear to exist.
Jmertel23 (
talk)
12:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree about available of sources existing. The original camp closed in 1963 so sources specifically about it will be more likely offline, available from local/regional newspapers and libraries, etc. But this article is reasonably about the original plus follow-ons/purchasers/mergers, such as Camp Coniston, the New Hampshire YMCA Camping Reservation, and/or Camp Soangetaha about which I believe you have not searched. For example,
this history page about Camp Coniston, referring to its history running back to 1911. There was a
Centennial celebration in 2011, which likely was covered in some newspapers. There is considerable detail for developing the article available in Camp Coniston publications (right, they are not independent of the subject, but definitely can be used). The
Spring 2011 edition of the Coniston Chronicle covers a lot of detail in timelines about camp creations and sales and openings of dining halls, purchases of additional land, building of a new chapel, renovation of Old Dining Hall into a center for the arts, etc., and additional more generally newsworthy details:
- The camp received an award in 1981 by which it was "recognized as an International YMCA for its program quality and inclusion"; separate coverage about that may be available somewhere.
- At the 2010 or 2011(?) National Convention of the American Camping Association in San Diego, "YMCA Camp Coniston was named a Pioneer of Camping.... The Pioneer of Camping award recognizes organizations who have served with distinction in the camping movement for 30 or more years."
- In 1996, Coniston opened a program or sub-camp or affiliated camp or something like that, named "Camp Winning Spirit" in "collaboration with Childhood Cancer Lifeline of NH and
Ronald McDonald House, ...or families and kids dealing with childhood cancer." I expect that was covered elsewhere.
- In 1999, Coniston hosted "Kearsarge Area Children of Hope, bringing together Protestant and Catholic Youth from Belfast Northern Ireland for a week of “peace and reconciliation” programs."
- There are 1930s postcards of the camp, there was boxing, a circus with elephants came to the camp, and that is from tidbits in the publication.
- A detailed history begins page 16 and runs through page 21. There's a semi-complicated story about author Winston Churchill, a cousin to the prime minister, writing the 1906 novel
Coniston which was important in the Progressive movement, and relates to the town and camp and renamings following the novel's usage of names, etc. I am not sure about relating those stories relating to Churchill in the article, but there's other stuff, and I won't summarize more from the history here.
- It is reasonable to believe that independent sources exist to verify more facts (I think the "Chronicle" is reliable as far as it goes, is not asserting any facts that look controversial anyhow), and there are already sources available to develop a more substantial article, covering the combo of camps here, and therefore the right thing to do is KEEP. We don't/shouldn't delete only to recreate later; that violates spirit if not letter of our promise to editors that their contributions will be acknowledged (and for other reasons too see truly excellent essay
wp:TNTTNT). --
Doncram (
talk)
02:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I have just searched online newspaper archives for Camp Coniston and found only passing mentions. For example this is typical of the type of coverage there is - Nashua Telegraph 29 Jan 1972, in an article State YMCA Resident Camps, Camp Coniston merits a single sentence: "At Camp Coniston, a new tractor was purchased; a new flag pole and new stable fence and some new showers and toilets were part of the capital improvements". This type of run-of-the-mill coverage where the subject is mentioned in passing is not the level of in-detail coverage required by
WP:GNG. If such local newspapers don't have detailed coverage, there is no reason to believe detailed coverage exists in other newspapers only found in hardcopy in library archives.----
Pontificalibus
08:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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
Lumina Media. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
01:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Kennel Club Books (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unsourced, no obvious sources to add. Google provides a few directories and sales pages, but nothing about the company.
Guy (
Help!)
00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Related AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumina Media (the parent company). Pinging particpants not already on here:
Cullen328,
Carrite.
Normal Op (
talk)
15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge/redirect to
Lumina Media. I did not find significant coverage of the subject.
Milliott, Jim (2004-05-14).
"BowTie Inc. Adds To Pet Book Offerings".
Publisher's Weekly. Archived from
the original on 2019-08-25. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
The article notes:
Los Angeles—based BowTie Inc. is moving aggressively to up its presence in book publishing. The company is already a major publisher of pet and animal magazines through its Fancy Publications division and publishes pet and other books under its BowTie Press imprint. Last week, BowTie completed the acquisition of Kennel Club Books, a publisher that specializes in dog breed books, and BowTie chairman Norman Ridker told PW another acquisition of a pet book publisher is expected this week.
BowTie Inc. is the predecessor to
Lumina Media. I added this information to the article.
Cunard (
talk)
09:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete Merge/redirect
Atsme
Talk
📧 17:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC) - fails WP:GNG, no independent RS to establish N. Press releases released by the company do not pass GNG, and neither does passing mention in unreliable sources. The simple fact that the company existed does not guarantee inclusion in WP.
Atsme
Talk
📧
12:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Adding my thoughts for merging/redirecting - the merge should include a section about Kennel Club Books, taking into consideration the discussion at WP:RS/N with regards to context for each of their published books since not all of the information in the books they published can be corroborated/verified by (a) long-established, notable breed registries, (b) well-maintained historic documentation and pedigrees by long-established notable breed clubs, and/or (c) scientifically documented evidence, such as DNA mapping. Further consideration should include the qualifications of the authors, some of whom do not qualify beyond "pet enthusiast". Citations are missing in the books I've reviewed; therefore, it is important to make note when that occurs so our readers are not misled. People tend to believe that if a book or publisher is included in WP, it is a sign of legitimacy across the board.
Atsme
Talk
📧
17:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: (1) It would be inappropriate to add some sort of "disclaimer" to an article about a publisher in order to denigrate one or more of their books or authors based on your own research. You would have to have another RS citation about the author/book/publisher in order to add such a disclaimer. (2) Evaluation of the entirety of each and every book that is otherwise deemed a reliable source is not required. Wikipedia editors have guidelines to determine whether or not something is a RS or not, and generally if it is "published" and has been through a process of "editorial review" then we can deem it sufficient for WP RS purposes. (3) Canine DNA testing was not around during the time of the writing of the book about which you are concerned (Bully Breeds by David Harris). (4) A breed registry (such as AKC/UKC/KC) is only ONE source of information about a breed; it is not the primary/senior/expert source from which all other writings are to be judged, and without whose coroboration all other sources are to be excluded from Wikipedia as unreliable/false/questionable.
Normal Op (
talk)
19:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge/redirect to
Lumina Media. Prolific enough for a mention on
parent company's article. According to
Open Library, Kennel Club Books has 312 works published between 1984 and 2012.
[25] According to the 2004 archived version of the Kennel Club Books website, "Kennel Club Books was formed for the purpose of specializing in the publication of pet books", planned to publish an entire series of 377 titles on breeds,
[26] and was releasing six new books a month.
[27] Books by this publisher are mentioned in 39 Wikipedia articles.
[28]
Normal Op (
talk)
15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note: A discussion about the publisher Kennel Club Books just took place on the Reliable Source noticeboard. Current link:
[29] Archived link (in case it has moved off the board):
[30]. Pinging participants not already here:
Someguy1221.
Normal Op (
talk)
15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge and redirect to
Lumina Media — assuming that isn't deleted, which it shouldn't be.
Carrite (
talk)
15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Notice was made to
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs
Atsme
Talk
📧
14:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Merge with
Lumina Media due to lack of significant coverage/significance.
Knox490 (
talk)
03:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.