Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 24
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mesfer Al-Qahtani (edit | 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.. Different DoB on FIFA site 15 Jan 1984 than the article, can we assume this is the same person? fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I first found this while searching for orphans and suspected it was not acceptable so I notified GiantSnowman as there was not anything currently suggesting better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 23:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. My advice to you @Nfitz: would be to find evidence of notability before contesting a PROD, rather than after, to save everyone's time. GiantSnowman 12:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- 'Comment - the evidence pointing to notability was always in the reference that had been in the article for 5 years, (though not clearly asserted in the text), which made it clear that the player had an appearance for a team in a fully professional league listed in WP:FPL in the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship. I HAD added enough text to the article to make that clear when I removed the Prod (see my edit here [1]); however another user then deleted that text before creating the AFD (quite validly questioning whether the information was for the correct person). I'd also made a very clear edit summary when removing the prod (Remove prod - 3rd place match report from the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship shows he made appearance in 69th minutes against Deportivo Saprissa http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/matches/round=47350500/match=47350006/index.html#nosticky) . My advice to you would be to check the references carefully before creating a prod. And also follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL rather than launching a personal attack on the person who removes the prof. Nfitz (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete - No indication that he has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Page claims that he has been member of three teams that play in the Saudi Premier League listed as fully professional in WP:FPL. These teams are Al-Shabab, Al-Ittihad, and Al-Hilal. While at Ittihad he appeared in the third place match of the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship against Deportivo Saprissa in Yokohama, Japan (match report). It's been suggested that there is no evidence that the player who played in that match, is the same one who later joined Al-Hilal - however a copy of an extensive 2008 newspaper interview appears on Al-Hilal's website. In the interview it mentions his play for both Al-Ittihad, and Al-Hilal in addition to Al-Shabab. A couple of other articles that mention his play for both teams are [2] and [3]. Less reliable sources with discussion of him can also be found, including a mention that he retired in 2009. [4]. Nfitz (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Nfitz Spiderone 09:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 11:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as per Nfitz, nice work on establishing notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Robert Campbell (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ostensibly a WP:BLP of a musician, this is actually a WP:COATRACK for his album instead of an article about him. The problem, however, is that WP:NALBUMS specifies that an album cannot have an article if the musician or band who recorded it doesn't have an article first — and moving the album's article so that it's simultaneously serving as an "article" about the musician is not a bypass around that if the content is all about the album. Furthermore, the article is resting entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with no evidence of coverage in any reliable sources to confer notability on either the musician or the album. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can find enough sources to do this properly next time (i.e. a BLP of the musician as an actual topic in his own right, and then a separate article about the album.) Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: as WP:COATRACK as per @Bearcat's rationale which I adopt. Quis separabit? 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per Bearcat's analysis. Pure WP:COATRACK, in addition, searches did not turn up anything to show that this musician passes WP:GNG. News turned up a bunch of hits, but none seem to be about this particular musician (although they turned up at least 4 other musicians of this same name). Onel5969 TT me 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No RS for subject of article. Only 3rd party source is an individual's blog. LaMona (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - discussion on splitting the history or not can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Francisco Santos (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax-based off of the years he would of been 11 when he started playing-though the link on the Italian wiki linked to a guy born in 1904-not sure what to say about this. Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Withdrawn
- okay I just went through the history-it was vandalized over the Summer it looks like-surprise nobody caught that first hand. Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn-was vandalized, didn't notice it till after I put this up. Wgolf (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Split histories. The article was originally about this Portuguese footballer and then got repurposed as a Mexican footballer. It was originally titled Francisco Santos (Portuguese footballer) but got moved to its current title and then got inadvertently repurposed to the Mexican footballer. This has caused a great deal of confusion amongst editors with a period where there is a mix of information on the page. The articles should be separated into two pages, the two persons need to be considered separately, if indeed either of them are deletable. SpinningSpark 23:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- And even worse, the full name of the Portuguese player is Francisco Dos Santos, but that page is about a Brazilian footballer. SpinningSpark 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Eurovision Song Contest records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Creator removed my PROD. Very few reliable sources. Presents little to no additional useful information beyond what is already available in each country's participation article. Includes non-notable trivia, against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, and violates WP:ICONDECORATION. Same content from the same editor was recently removed from the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest page. If there is consensus for this to be kept, I would advocate applying WP:BLOWITUP. —烏Γ (kaw), 19:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —烏Γ (kaw), 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —烏Γ (kaw), 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —烏Γ (kaw), 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Article clearly violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and the icons are purely decorative. The creator has recently changed flags to the EuroHeart icons across several other Eurovision articles, which have all been reverted on the grounds of WP:ICONDECORATION. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me what the difference is between an article such as this, and an article such as 'United Kingdom by-election records'. RedvBlue 14:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because, RedvBlue, all of the information on the nominated article has already been summarised in prose format on the main Eurovision Song Contest article. But I would say that United Kingdom by-election records would be against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK too. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have a few things to respond to.
- Firstly, I'm not sure that all the information on this article is available in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. In fact, a statistic about the exchanging of points between the likes of Cyprus and Greece might be quite useful for the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. Unfortunately, I can't find the quoted statistic in the source provided. However, there is actually no source at the moment for when those two countries are mentioned in the 'Political and geographical voting' section in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. At this point, I must say that I dislike the name of that section, owing to factors discussed on other websites (bbc.co.uk/blogs/eurovision/entries/18aa5cc2-0f94-3882-9c57-07fdec46dc5b).
- Secondly, I think that it would be better if Wikipedia policies were applied consistently. So, if this article is 'in the same boat' as the 'United Kingdom by-election records' article, then I would suppose that it would be better if they were treated with a degree of equality.
- Also, while I am here, and I realise that this is not the best place to point this out, but last year you moved a discussion about navigational boxes to 'Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision' in order to seek "a wider scope from members". I duly responded, but no action was taken. Seeing as you moved the discussion, I wondered whether this was on your radar, at all. RedvBlue 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- In response to the exchange of points between countries, RedvBlue, they are shown in the voting history sections on each respective [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest article, based on the calculations obtained via the ESC Database and comes under WP:CALC (exempt from original research). Also the nominated articles contains icons within the prose which goes very much against WP:ICONDECORATION. As for your second point, I'm in the middle of the fence, as the UK by-election article is a topic of no personal interest to myself. So if the wider community felt that it too went against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK then so be it, but that would be a different AfD for whoever feels it should be nominated. In reply to your third point, that discussion resulted in a no consensus being reached due to a lack on participation, and has subsequently been archived. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, so a number of things have come up now. For ease of reference, this time I'll number my responses.
- I mentioned the statistic from this article about Cyprus and Greece because you said that all the information from this article was already in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. I wanted to point out that not everything was covered in that article. However, I used this particular statistic because I was also able to make a further point about it and the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article…
- The main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article's 'Political and geographical voting' section mentions Cyprus and Greece. In doing so, there is no reference. What I was suggesting could be quite useful for the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article was for a referenced statistic to be used to illustrate that some countries may have voted for each other more than others. Using evidence to demonstrate a point is usually very helpful. As I mentioned before, I do realise that this article's reference for the statistic in question does not seem to provide the figure given.
- I can't really mention the 'Political and geographical voting' section in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article without noting the fact that I think that it could be named better. This is for reasons discussed in the website provided above.
- The icon decoration problem, in itself, cannot be a reason to delete the whole article. It is the substance of the article that matters, and if that is not a problem then the icons could simply be changed to regular flags.
- I understand that you may not have a personal interest in topics such as 'United Kingdom by-election records', but, in relation to this article, I'm not sure that it matters whether it is a personal interest or not. You are proposing to delete this article for a reason that could be used for proposing to delete an article such as that. It seems to me, therefore, that if you support deleting one article for a given reason, then you should support the same action on other such articles where that reason applies, regardless of whether you're interested in those articles or not.
- You may have determined that there was no consensus about the navigational boxes, but I fear that that may have been a conclusion that was reached prematurely. There was no indication that my proposals were considered, or even read. I do understand that I can't compel editors to reply to every contribution that I make, but the fact that the discussion ended with my involvement does not mean that there was no consensus, and that the issue should be dead and buried. I still find the template as it is hugely unsatisfactory. RedvBlue 00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's been split off, but there is more content about Cyprus/Greece and similar topics at Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest.
- @RedvBlue: See the above line; I forgot to sign it when I first posted that. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 03:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to retain an article. If there are other articles on the encyclopedia which need to be deleted, they will be deleted in good time. This AfD is about this article and nothing else. CT Cooper · talk 23:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's been split off, but there is more content about Cyprus/Greece and similar topics at Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest.
- In response to the exchange of points between countries, RedvBlue, they are shown in the voting history sections on each respective [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest article, based on the calculations obtained via the ESC Database and comes under WP:CALC (exempt from original research). Also the nominated articles contains icons within the prose which goes very much against WP:ICONDECORATION. As for your second point, I'm in the middle of the fence, as the UK by-election article is a topic of no personal interest to myself. So if the wider community felt that it too went against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK then so be it, but that would be a different AfD for whoever feels it should be nominated. In reply to your third point, that discussion resulted in a no consensus being reached due to a lack on participation, and has subsequently been archived. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have a few things to respond to.
- Because, RedvBlue, all of the information on the nominated article has already been summarised in prose format on the main Eurovision Song Contest article. But I would say that United Kingdom by-election records would be against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK too. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - At present, this is not an encyclopedic article; more a random list of statistics gathered by one editor. These statistics appear to be trivial (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) and use a ranking system which is not reflected in the sources (those that work, anyway), so this article therefore violates WP:NOR. The scope of this article is unclear, with a lack of a lead section or any real prose not helping matters. However, as it stands, the evidence suggests, that this article was created in good faith to act as a content fork of List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. If there is disagreement over the content of an article, then the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy must be followed. Circumventing dispute resolution by creating fork articles is not appropriate, and perhaps RyanHarmy (talk · contribs) should be counselled on this matter after this AfD is closed. CT Cooper · talk 00:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep per #1 (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Christopher Burnham (edit | 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 - Lack of reliable sources Pizzole (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I'm not seeing anything to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- SNOW KEEP - another retaliatory nomination by an editor upset with comments made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database. SwisterTwister. Have made the suggestion on another of these nominations that they withdraw all of the retaliatory nominations. Onel5969 TT me 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your "keep" is evident. This is one of your pages. (Pizzole (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- What are you talking about? I have nothing to do with this article, only commenting on your bad faith nominations. Onel5969 TT me 19:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your "keep" is evident. This is one of your pages. (Pizzole (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- Keep This is ridiculous! He easily passes WP:POLITICIAN "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". He served three terms in the Connecticut House of Representatives, where he served as assistant minority leader and was Treasurer of Connecticut. Voceditenore (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as per Voceditenore above. Better sourcing would be good, but this is obviously verifiable. I see bad faith in the clear lack of any WP:BEFORE work here. DES (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per snowball clause , subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 20:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per the SNG for Politicians as a 3-time member of the Connecticut House of Representatives. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Pizzole (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep per #2 Mdann52 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thaddeus Seymour (edit | 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 Pizzole (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Meets Notability College President, Dean at an Ivy League university - Dartmouth. Note that there is an eensy possibility that the nominator is deliberately nominating many articles started by those who found his favoured article should be deleted. Collect (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
*Redirect and merge to American Bar Association.(Pizzole (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) striking bad-faith post here - see all the other AfDs Collect (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- SNOW KEEP - retaliatory nomination in bad faith. Might I suggest to the nominator that he withdraw all of the bad faith nominations they have recently made? That would go a long way to re-establishing your good faith on Wikipedia? Onel5969 TT me 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm in good faith for sure. You and Collect, no. You are clearly friends because the one help the other with the AfD nominations. (Pizzole (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- I have no article overlap with OneL of any significance whatsoever. OTOH, I recall an SPI investigation where you were the one remaining account. And are you asserting tat you did not just accidentally nominate a slew of articles without notifying the article creators at all -- and you accidentally chose ones who you disagree with at an AfD? Collect (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop with your persecution. (Pizzole (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- I have no article overlap with OneL of any significance whatsoever. OTOH, I recall an SPI investigation where you were the one remaining account. And are you asserting tat you did not just accidentally nominate a slew of articles without notifying the article creators at all -- and you accidentally chose ones who you disagree with at an AfD? Collect (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Good Grief! President of a notable college and GNG coverage as well [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's time to merge the article to the College page. (Pizzole (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- No. He passes the notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's time to merge the article to the College page. (Pizzole (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- Keep seems obvious, meets GNG. I wonder if any WP:BEFORE was truly done on this nomination. DES (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per snowball clause , subject meets WP:PROF x4 if I can count. Frivolous nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 20:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Inherently notable as a college president, in my view. Meets GNG on top of that. Carrite (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Pizzole (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep per #1 (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- David P. Levin (edit | 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. No reliable sources. Pizzole (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - And would request a speedy close. Rather transparent retaliatory nomination for my vote on his article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database, and most likely my pointing out his pretty obvious use of the stick. Which I am sure he will once again engage in. Onel5969 TT me 17:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
*Redirect and merge to MTV Sorry, we can't find no more about Mr. Levin. Google show only 200 results and a lot of these are from social. I see no news and no newspaper talking about it.(Pizzole (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC))Nominator does not get to !vote a second time. Feel free to comment. Onel5969 TT me 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep [6], [7] establishes him as a co-author of a published book, [8] establishes "Hollywood.com" as RS for the claims made at [9] etc. There are some worthless sources in use (like the NYT one used), but the claim made by the OP is incorrect, and the person clearly meets WP notability requirements. Collect (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sources aren't reliable and from poor websites. There are Blogs, link to Amazon and resources no more available. (Pizzole (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- Really? And you nominate multiple articles for deletion without making any notifications to people? You find the "first African-American letter carrier" is "not notable"? You find a person who was a Dean of Dartmouth and a college [resident "not notable"? An assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations is "not notable"? The publisher of the major reference work on artists is "not notable"? And all of the articles you rapidly find are just accidentally written by those who say the brand-new Italian horrordatabase site should be deleted? Accidentally? You, sir, are a vandal in the old Roman sense of the word. Collect (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sources aren't reliable and from poor websites. There are Blogs, link to Amazon and resources no more available. (Pizzole (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
Please excuse me, Onel5969, you can delete my last vote (Redirect and merge). It was a mistake. (Pizzole (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- Comment - Can't delete it Pizzole, but did strike it through, which is the proper procedure. And please, take my suggestion to heart about withdrawing your recent spate of nominations targeting editors who didn't agree with your position on the Horror article. That would really help begin re-establishing your good faith. Onel5969 TT me 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm in good faith, Onel5969. It's not a debat about me but about the article.(Pizzole (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as this is sourced and seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep clearly passes the GNG just from sources in the article, and more could be found. Very well known directory and producer. No plausible reason for deletion or redirection. DES (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: sufficient reliable sources exist to verify that subject meets WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Pizzole (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ossett Town Ladies FC (edit | 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 this club passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NFOOTY does not apply, as that refers to individuals. We can, however, refer to WP:FOOTYN, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG, which this club currently fails. — Jkudlick tcs 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - article creator has requested article be moved to draft or to userspace pending location of a reliable source that the club does meet WP:FOOTYN. I am not opposed to granting that request. — Jkudlick tcs 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete until there is better improvement. Pinging GiantSnowman. SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Merge - into Ossett Town F.C. 5.65.78.215 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per FOOTYN, assuming this is not the same club as Ossett Albion (and I have no reason to think they are). They have not played in a national competition for women in the UK. No indication of any wider GNG. Would oppose merge with Ossett Town F.C. as there is indication only of links rather than formal association. No enWIki article for the league they play in either so ne real plausible redirect. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please could the article be moved into draft? The Club has participated in a national cup competition so does meet WP:FOOTYN but I would like to take some time to gather this information and really expand the history section. I can't envisage having time to do that over the next three weeks however. Many thanks! --Minnowfire (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Minnowfire: can you provide a link to show which national competition they have played in? I looked at the women's FA Cup season articles and couldn't see their name. to my mind, that would be enough for a keep per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Fenix down: That's the thing, I can't find any links or sources at the moment plus I'm not entirely sure how reliable that information is hence why I'd rather move the article into draft for now until I can be completely sure and provide all of the relevant sources. I appreciate that a lot of people have been involved in the discussion process so far and I don't want to waste anymore of anyone's time. --Minnowfire (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Like the comment above, I have no problem with this being moved to draft when this is closed to allow time to find sourcing to establish notability. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 snowball keep. (If anyone can write a script to remove the AfD templates and put {{Old AfD multi}} onto their talk pages, that'll be appreciated.) Deryck C. 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations
editPer WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTRAVEL – These seem far more about being a flight booker or guidebook than useful encyclopedic articles. Additionally, there appears to be quite a bit of unsourced or WP:CRYSTAL material in some of these. Other ones are several years out of date, which is counter-intuitive for pages like this. Overall, these are almost all unsuitable for the site. Mdann52 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Full list of articles in nomination (raw dump from CatScan):
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Keep all. Have existed for years based on wide participant consensus. One (still ongoing) discussion doesn't change that. Presumptive and premature, while the broader question of the nature of Wikipedia's coverage of aiviation is still being discussed. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- based on wide participant consensus Fancy linking me to the discussion showing widespread consensus for these page? Mdann52 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all these all provide useful information in greater detail than would normally be appropriate in the airlines' main articles, but still is encyclopedic and informative and in scope of inclusion. Aude (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all Useful information to have and are generally too long to be in the airline's main article. VG31-irl 19:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Destinations are a notable aspect of an airline, but should not bloat an article unnecessarily (see WP:IINFO, point 3) and consequently these articles are appropriate Wikipedia:Summary style sub-articles of the main article for the associated airlines. Destinations served is of comparable notability to the following stand-alone list articles "List of active [country] military aircraft", "List of [aircraft] operators", and "List of [award/prize/honor] recipients". The airline destination lists complement the airlines & destinations lists in airport articles. If there are issues with some airline destination articles, such as too short of a list that could be merged into the airline article, they should be dealt with individually.
- These articles do not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:IINFO, provided that the list is introduced with information for context. These articles are not indiscriminate as they cover all destinations, past and present, and have a narrow scope that is notable. The nom mentions that some "are several years out of date, which is counter-intuitive for pages like this." It would only be counter-intuitive if the articles only listed current destinations, but the articles list both past and current destinations; being out of date is not an argument for deletion (see WP:OUTDATED) and whether a destination is a current or former destination is a minor difference. The only way an out-of-date article would be counter-intuitive would be if these articles were travel guides, but they're not! Due to extensive codeshare agreements in the airline industry, most airlines sell tickets to many more destinations than they serve with their aircraft (airline destination lists do not include codeshare destinations, they only include destinations the airline serves with their aircraft). For travel purposes, more information is needed than just destinations, mainly the origin & destination, frequency of flights (1/week vs. 4/day), and other factors such as freedoms of the air & cabotage. For example, because of US cabotage laws/regulations, a Canadian airline can't sell a ticket from New York to Chicago with a layover in Toronto ([10]); travelers would have to buy separate tickets for each leg or book with a US carrier (eg. book a United flight and fly NY-Toronto on Air Canada as a codeshare flight then Toronto-Chicago on United). The bottom line is that while the list may be helpful in some circumstances, they are a poor source of information for travelers in most circumstances. The nom says "there appears to be quite a bit of unsourced or WP:CRYSTAL material in some of these." Among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is WP:MUST. Since destinations are readily verifiable, deletion on unsourced grounds is not appropriate and the articles should be tagged with the appropriate cleanup templates. Finally, I don't understand how WP:CRYSTAL applies to these articles? Since WP:CRYSTAL concerns future events, it would seem that this is a reference to future destinations. However, there is a lot of logistics behind airline schedules and new routes/destinations are, in almost all cases, announced with a specific start date and less than a year before their launch. These schedules are unlikely to change. Including future destinations is akin to including the dates of future events, eg. 2020 Summer Olympics (24 July-9 August) or Super Bowl 50 (7 February 2016). AHeneen (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @AHeneen: With IINFO, I was more referring to the overall point of As explained...above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. AS for the CYRSTAL point, a lot of these have unsourced claims to future flights, some of which I could not easily source (other were easily sourced, but bear in mind it is the responsibility of the user adding the information to source it). I would also argue there isn't enough context here - as you've said, the routes that airlines can serve vary, so maybe that should be included to make sure there is enough context? I'm not making the final decision here, just throwing my opinions out. Mdann52 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all. Your nominated reason is irrational. Why not nominate in other languages?--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all. Would you agree if tomorrow I nominate the entire project for deletion just because I don't like it?--Jetstreamer Talk 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep All All are well within project guidelines and are supported by various projects. Irrational nomination! — LeoFrank Talk 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I always felt they were unnecessary at first, initially they used to be mentioned as prose in main article in most cases some times just by region not country or city i.e ABC airline flies to so many points in North America, Caribbean Middle East and so on, but now they are an integral part of the project and need to remain, the only negative is that many go neglected for years because they are not popular airlines, and theres the issue of unreferenced content.Mustangmanxxx (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The editor is so new what made him start this deletion thing? his talk page has almost nothing plus some critiques of his actions related to other things Mustangmanxxx (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can we split this up please? There's Trade-Air destinations which makes no sense without Trade-Air; Dubrovnik Airline which isn't necessarily referenced to reliable sources. The nomination was worthwhile insofar as me noticing this, but if it gets closed as snow-keep we'll gloss over these individual issues. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, this should be split up into bite sized bundles in the off chance there is something worth keeping. If it is 'all or nothing' I say Delete them all per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST since the individual components of these lists are not, in and of themselves, notable per WP:GNG or any other specific criteria I can think of nor is there anything notable about any particular airline's routs as a group unless there is discussion in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I guess I can throw out WP:NOTINHERITED as well since just because an airline is notable does not mean the fact it flies from East-nowhere to Brigadoon is.
This will be an interesting exercise in the idea that AfDs are closed on policy arguments alone. I see a lot of keeps, enough that unless a lot of other people comment that 'no consensus/keep' would be an easy close, but not one good policy based argument to keep has been made. JbhTalk 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, this should be split up into bite sized bundles in the off chance there is something worth keeping. If it is 'all or nothing' I say Delete them all per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST since the individual components of these lists are not, in and of themselves, notable per WP:GNG or any other specific criteria I can think of nor is there anything notable about any particular airline's routs as a group unless there is discussion in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I guess I can throw out WP:NOTINHERITED as well since just because an airline is notable does not mean the fact it flies from East-nowhere to Brigadoon is.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep All No compelling reason to delete all these articles and very useful for cross-referencing. Pmbma (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep these are all sub-article of the related airline that have grown to be to large for the parent, so they are not unlike similar child-articles and provide supportive information on the size and scope of the airlines operations. MilborneOne (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep All Are you kidding? This is meant to reflect the history of airlines, removing this would cause chaos. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. These are very useful listings.--RioHondo (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cholmondeley Cello (edit | 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, Notability? A1 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, a little work prior to nomination goes a long way, I will add some sources. They are not difficult to find. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as this seems historically noticeable. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. A quick search shows plenty of sources. Most are just about the record sale price, but some give detailed descriptions and/or history. The subject is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- PJ Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero notability here: leader of a super-fringe party with no individual coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as unless this can be better improved, I'm not seeing much at this time. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - yes, nothing here. Doesn't come close to the relevant guidelines. Frickeg (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, no independent coverage, fails the GNG. Don't think a redirect is necessary either. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- A leader of a minor fringe party can get into Wikipedia as a topic in their own right if enough reliable source coverage is present to get them over WP:GNG — but indeed, it's not a role that gets a person an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and this is parked on a single source. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with IgnorantArmies above, except to say that a redirect would not hurt too much as it is possible a reader may search for him. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Highest claim is as losing candidate to a state legislature, with 0.01% support. Doesn't seem to have enough independent third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG, but I didn't dive in too deeply. Maybe redirect to Arts Party, but that itself seems to be of uncertain notability under WP:GNG also. --Closeapple (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion was provided by nominator and subject clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- James Dawson (footballer, born 1890) (edit | 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 find it very unlikely that anyone known independent of longevity will live to be 125; thus I find this article (saying a footballer born in 1890 is still alive at the age of 125) difficult to believe. Georgia guy (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I can tell, the article makes no claim that he is still alive. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- If there's a proof that he's dead, you'll have to include his death date in the article. Georgia guy (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- But that's not a reason for deletion. He clearly meets the notability requirements for a footballer (playing at least 1 match for a professional club). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you bothered to look at the external link, you'll see he died in 1933.... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 09:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. One of the most ridiculous AFD I've ever seen. GiantSnowman 09:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: Agreed. Does it qualify for any form of speedy keep, given that no reason has been provided for deletion? Spiderone 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- ColorMango (edit | 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 as per WP:ORG Zpeopleheart (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Zpeopleheart (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Conny Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN; all but three of the listed sources are to election results. Of the others, one is to the Australian Women's Register, which has entries for every woman who has ever contested a NSW state election; the other two are articles in the local paper in which she is quoted. Further searches on my part have pulled up small amounts of coverage, the usual kind of thing for a local candidate, but nothing that brings her close to WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. She was a deputy mayor of a suburban local council: that's not even a claim of notability, let alone notability, and the sources definitely don't make out any individual notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree, even though I'm the author, I guess I had to test the notability of the subject. CLearly doesnt meet the criteria in this case. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – hesitantly, as Siegfried's done quite a good job with the limited sourcing available, but unsuccessful candidate and suburban councillor just doesn't cut it for notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per the nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 by RHaworth - G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- ALPHABETICAL LIST of REAL 3D & FAKE 3D MOVIES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research? Further, uncertain criteria for classing a piece as fake 3D. Oscarthecat (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Speedied. Looks more like nonsense. Clubjustin (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, WTF is fake 3D? Does it even exist?Clubjustin (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Chagossians. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 11:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Women in the British Indian Ocean Territory (edit | 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 information specific to women: may as well have an article on any other subsection of that previous population. Anyone for People over 5' 9" in the British Indian Ocean Territory? Just because the category of articles is justified, it does not mean that every article in the category is. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleteor turn into an article about the people of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Eman235/talk 13:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete These people are covered in Chagossians. Note that they are no longer in the British Indian Ocean Territory, mostly. Borock (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Chagossians, without prejudice to recreation as a better sourced page, akin to example at United States women. — Cirt (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- You know what? I agree. Redirect. Eman235/talk 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- List of 22nd-century lunar eclipses (edit | 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 problem with lists of eclipses in the past (as they may be relevant for historical facts, and received sufficient attention on their own), or for the near future (being of general interest to many people). But lists of lunar eclipses for the next 9 centuries? While the entries are presumably correct, almost certain to happen, and will be notable at that time, they are now and for the next decades / centuries nothing but WP:NOT lists of statistics about for now utterly non-notable events.
Also nominated are:
- List of 23rd-century lunar eclipses
- List of 24th-century lunar eclipses
- List of 25th-century lunar eclipses
- List of 26th-century lunar eclipses
- List of 27th-century lunar eclipses
- List of 28th-century lunar eclipses
- List of 29th-century lunar eclipses
- List of 30th-century lunar eclipses Fram (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all - I don't know how to argue about notability. Eclipses repeat in cycles that repeat over hundreds of years, and these cycles have been analyzed and given nice summaries we can look at. There are also long term statistical patterns like tetrads and central eclipses that have statistical significance and can link back to such tables like this. I'd agree having ONE ARTICLE per event about things hundreds of years in the future would be very excessive, but a summary table is notable and at worse harmless to readers who are not forced to look at it against their will. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- no one is forced to look at any article, that's a non-argument. And the rest just describes why we can make these articles (because they are predictable), not why they are notable. The cycles are pretty clear from the articles we already have, and the statistics (after all, the articles under discussion are nothing but statistics) do nothing to learn anyone anyting new. It's a database of future eclipses, not an article about anything. Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- One of the long periods is inex which interacts with the saros cycle, like shown in this graphic for eclipses from 1000-2500 and eclipses from 1900-2100 in yellow. Here you can start to see some long term patterns that vary over time, why the number of total vs partial eclipses vary by century for instance. So the century listings end up as diagonal in this chart. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- (Comment) Ah, but you see, what you have just written above is (a) interesting and (b) encyclopedic. Although very short, it tells us something. Whereas the tables in the articles under discussion are simply not encyclopedic articles, by any stretch of the imagination; they are raw data, which in a Proper Printed encyclopedia would belong in an Appendix. I think the current strategy of trying to pretend that all information can be sliced into WP article size is a bad one: it would be much better to find ways of offering tabular appendices. Amongst other disadvantages: this table is only available in WP:en (and WP:zh), and requires manual work to port to other languages; it is susceptible to vandalism, while allowing free text-editing is of essentially no value; the full list of eclipses is chopped into century-size pieces, to no logical advantage; it is not very amenable to machine-reading. In other words, I am not against offering this information (of course, "Science. Can't beat it."), but I do not think this style of "article" is appropriate. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- no one is forced to look at any article, that's a non-argument. And the rest just describes why we can make these articles (because they are predictable), not why they are notable. The cycles are pretty clear from the articles we already have, and the statistics (after all, the articles under discussion are nothing but statistics) do nothing to learn anyone anyting new. It's a database of future eclipses, not an article about anything. Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all: Astronomy is all about predicting future. Nominator is saying "No problem with lists of eclipses in the past". But no one interested in eclipses of past, all people or researchers look for eclipses or astronomical events of future. These lists are encyclopedic as far as "Astronomy" is concerned. There are already lists giving astronomical predictions of 27th century, 28th century, 29th century and so on. Number of Lunar eclipses is large so they deserve separate list. --Human3015TALK 13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- p.s. past eclipses could be considered more important since they can relate to past historical events, and including influencing those events, like a rather small sampling current at Historically significant lunar eclipses. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Any evidence that e.g. 28th-century eclipses are currently of any interest to anyone, beyond compiling the list? Will anyone, even an astronomer, come looking on Wikipedia for a list of 28th-century lunar eclipses? And if so, why? What purpose does it serve? Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Tom, I'm not saying that past eclipses are not important but future eclipses also have same or even more importance. Fram, you are saying "28th-century eclipses are currently of any interest to anyone?". That can be your view, article Stevens–Johnson syndrome may not useful for 99% of the human beings but it is useful for medical students. Considering the huge scope of Astronomy these lists are highly useful for students of Astrophysics/Astronomy or even Astrologists. Moreover, these topics are also of interest of general public. --Human3015TALK 15:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Any evidence that e.g. 28th-century eclipses are currently of any interest to anyone, beyond compiling the list? Will anyone, even an astronomer, come looking on Wikipedia for a list of 28th-century lunar eclipses? And if so, why? What purpose does it serve? Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: all these eclipses are also listed in articles like Lunar Saros 145 and the other 63 lists in Category:Lunar saros series. So it's not as if the information is gone from Wikipedia if these articles are deleted. Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Saros cycle listings are useful because they are of finite duration, <500 years. Chronological listings are useful for finding specific events in specific time intervals without having to search through n-lists of saros cycles. Having both lists with dates and saros numbers means you can move between lists. You could argue that for example event times belong in the chronological lists and can be given as cross-referencing in the saros lists, although that would require a large number of internal anchor links to be friendly. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Science. Can't beat it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Otherwise there is (literally!) no end to it. List of lunar eclipses in the 31st to 40th centuries List of lunar eclipses in the 41st to 50th centuries... Basically such things are not notable. What would be more sensible would be a reference to the algorithm for generating these, and /or a site that will generate a list for a desired time interval. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Relax, apparently 3000AD was good enough for NASA, so we can rest on that limit as well. And long term orbital mechanics is an n-body problem and isn't going to be solved by simple algorithms. And chaos actually takes over at some point where we actually don't have accurate enough measurements to extrapolate past a certain point. So there are undefined error bars in these calculations, and NASA might come up with an updated dataset. The main variable actually arises from classifications, whether an event is total or partial in limiting cases, or partial vs penumbral. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Imaginatorium: Up to 3000AD is ok. Age of Earth or Moon is between 4 to 5 billion years, still few billion years of life is remained for Earth, so writing eclipses for next 1000 years is very minor thing. 1000 years is very minor time in Astronomical studies. On lighter note, my name is Human3015 because I'm Human from 3015AD, from future. See, anyone from this era thinks up to next 1000 years. We can keep Astronomical predictions till next 1000 years, it is very obvious thing with Astronomical perspective. --Human3015TALK 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Relax, apparently 3000AD was good enough for NASA, so we can rest on that limit as well. And long term orbital mechanics is an n-body problem and isn't going to be solved by simple algorithms. And chaos actually takes over at some point where we actually don't have accurate enough measurements to extrapolate past a certain point. So there are undefined error bars in these calculations, and NASA might come up with an updated dataset. The main variable actually arises from classifications, whether an event is total or partial in limiting cases, or partial vs penumbral. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This request, fundamentally, seeks to replace a non-arbitrary cutoff for lunar eclipse coverage (3000 CE, where the current NASA tables end, likely for reasons of precision and complications of long-term orbital mechanics) with an essentially arbitrary cutoff (the current century, apparently on the grounds that it is the limit of "general interest"). I understand the "Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics" argument here; I just don't think that well-studied astronomical phenomena of this nature are what that is intended to exclude. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- keep all - whether or not WP is an ephemeris is not in published policies. Seems like very useful knowledge. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- HOTSHOT (band) (edit | 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 initially thought of tagging the article with CSD but then I thought there maybe Korean sources available. I can't read Korean language. So far, in English, I didn't found any good source. No significant coverage other than passing mentions. Fails WP:NBAND. Jim Carter 11:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Oddly enough the Arabic Wikipedia has an article: ar:هوتشوت. Eman235/talk 13:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for now as I'm also not familiar with this but it seems too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 GoldenEye. Don't usually close on one !vote but both nom & SC prefer Merge so Merge it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 11:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alec Trevelyan (edit | 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 cited to provide notability. Should be merged into the Goldeneye article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 01:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Merge a one-off villain without much in the way of notability for a stand-alone article. – SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ancestors of the Counts of Siruela (edit | 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 feel like there might be a topic here, but I don't understand what this article is about. It appears to be something about Spanish counts, but I'm not quite sure. I feel like it would need to be heavily rewritten to be encyclopedic. WP:TNT. Natg 19 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - possibly userify This is an article that might usefully appear on a genealogical website, but it does not belong in WP; certainly not in its present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: some of the individuals listed have articles in enwiki, more in eswiki. This article lacks coherence and is a type of content fork. Vrac (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Best Movies Ever Entertainment News (edit | 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. No coverage in independent secondary sources. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alts:
- site:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- shortnsme:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- shortname:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- founder:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- initials(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I'm not seeing any better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Philmont Scout Ranch. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Alden Brock (edit | 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:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Updated rationale in light of an early "Keep" comment: WP:ONEEVENT and, arguably but not definitively, WP:NOTMEMORIAL (it is not written as a memorial, but it is in the context of noting a person's death). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikipedia is overly critical. You guys are assuming things that I'm not even doing. Such as, why is it that it seems like I am using the Alden Brock page as a "memorial page"? It's not like I put "RIP Alden Brock, -gravestone here-" or any of that nonsense. Jokes aside, I remained neutral, I didn't use opinion words, and you guys think this is a memorial page. This actually angers me. You guys are dismissing my hard work like crazy, acting like it's all a piece of junk that is to be thrown away. Linking to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is immature. Assuming I am attacking people is even more immature. Do you guys understand what I'm saying? If you're going to label pages for deletion, at least give better, non-assumed reasons for it. I bet the person who marked Alden Brock never even took the time to read the entire page, am I not correct? Could you at least try that hard, to save yourself the ignorance? Philmonte101 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your points are well taken. Perhaps I was a bit strong in citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL. However, I stand by WP:ONEEVENT. I have updated the rationale accordingly. I have also replied to a similar comment on your talk page. Note to other editors reading this: The editor's frustration is understandable given some interaction between him and myself (and a third editor) on topics not directly related to this deletion discussion. Please see through the frustration and look at the merits of his claims. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete.The only significance of Brock is within the context of a single event. The event is not notable: it is not mentioned at the Philmont Scout Ranch article. Further, all of the sources about Brock are within the context of either the flood or his death. As a recently-dead person, he is still within the scope of the biographies of living persons policy, including WP:BLP1E. There are three conditions listed within BLP1E where notable for a single event a person should not have an article, and Brock meets all three. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)- It could be mentioned on Philmont's article, there are enough references to support it. For instance, on the Danish Wikipedia article, Alden Brock's death and the flood is mentioned briefly. Philmonte101 (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- How often do deaths happen at Philmont? If it's a relatively infrequent thing, it probably does warrant a small mention in the Philmont article. (Probably just a sentence, no more than a paragraph.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To prevent giving undue weight, it might be better to have a single paragraph or section that discussed all Scout/Scouter/Chaperone deaths at Philmont in the article about Philmont that have reliable sources to back them up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Update: I have added possible sources for such an expansion at User talk:Philmonte101#Philmont camper deaths. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- A list is probably a good approach, with entry like "Alden Brock (2015): swept away by a flash flood. Three other scouts swept away by the same flood were rescued, but Brock drowned." Obviously, source at the end of the entry. As long as deaths are relatively infrequent, the list makes sense. If it averages out to a death a year or more, the list would get so long that it would overwhelm the rest of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- It could be mentioned on Philmont's article, there are enough references to support it. For instance, on the Danish Wikipedia article, Alden Brock's death and the flood is mentioned briefly. Philmonte101 (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again, keep: I don't see why we shouldn't have this Philmont article if we have unsourced articles about Philmont like Rich Cabins. If you don't like this article, nominate that one for deletion too. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above is a duplicate !vote. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Other stuff exists: "If X can't have an article, then Y shouldn't either" is an argument that is strongly to be avoided in deletion discussions. This discussion is about a person who was a camper at a camp; deletion discussion of a location at the camp is an entirely separate subject. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and merge: preserve history, merging content to Philmont Scout Ranch, and leaving this page as a redirect. There is no doubt in my mind that Brock does not warrant a stand-alone article. I do think we can justify a mention of him in the Philmont Scout Ranch article, as part of a list of scouts who have died at the camp (unless it becomes extensive in length, per my prior comment). I do think the article would be useful as a redirect pointing to that section of the article. The question then becomes, should the history of the article be kept? Short as the article is, it's better from an attribution standpoint to have it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that's why I want this article kept as it is. I agree, it should at least be somewhere on Wikipedia if not in its own article if we absolutely must. But keep in mind that though it's a bad idea to make this argument, there are much less notable articles on people that are somehow still kept here. Philmonte101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Re: other stuff exists: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you see articles that don't clearly demonstrate notability and you've tried the things listed in WP:BEFORE and are still convinced the topic is not notable, I would encourage you to bag-em-and-tag-em. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete He drowned in a flash flood at Philmont. I see nothing that makes him notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Argument #1: I don't think any of you guys are paying attention to the fact that I included all details about Alden, and the fact that many people would want to search for him. As proof of this, see Alden (name); someone had already added his name to this disambiguation page with a link before I even got to it. See? People want to see an article about him, if you guys are so overly focused on what people want, well, people do want this article. It is you guys who are being deconstructive by trying to delete this perfectly okay article. Argument #2: I gave plenty of citations. 9 citations is more than enough even to take off the "additional citations for verification" tag. We all know this incident happened. Argument #3: I think he deserves a Wikipedia article anyway. As you can see, this may have only happened at Philmont, but it has uniquely been announced on news channels nationwide. It was a very important event that changed the lives of many staff members and many Scouts that come to Philmont, as well as the lives that knew him. Argument #4: (which kind of goes along with #3) I think you guys don't even have any idea how many people actually come to Philmont, and work at Philmont. It's a hell of a lot of people, I don't think you guys are really getting this. Because this incident left a mark on so many lives and was announced nationwide, he is a notable person at Philmont. This argument in a nutshell: We should have an article for this boy whose death affected the lives of thousands of people in and outside of Philmont. You have to keep in mind that his life affected thousands of people, which is a huge significance, and any person who becomes even semi-famous, has more than 3 external references from different publishers, and effected the lives of 1,000+ people in different areas of the world, should have an article, without even questions asked. If I were the person running this site, that's what I'd do. Furthermore: I would be incredibly disappointed if this article were to just be "mentioned briefly on Philmont Scout Ranch's article. Any further responses, might I suggest, be in response to all of these four arguments, in chronological order, like "1. reason you disagree with argument 1, 2. reason you disagree with argument 2, 3. reason you disagree with argument 3, 4. reason you disagree with argument 4." rather than just suggesting a merge or saying basically "not notable"? I'm not trying to be mean here but it's getting a bit annoying to read the same deconstructive point over and over again after I worked really hard on this article and wanted him to stay. Please don't even waste your time to mention WP:NOTMEMORIAL because that will make me even more upset. Just because my intentions were to make an article about a boy who I think's life should have an article, I also think that he has enough sources to have an article. At this point I highly doubt this article will stay, unfortunately, because I'm highly outvoted, but I really hope you guys at least listen to me and take my points through your head rather than ignore them. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rewrite as 2015 Philmont Scout Ranch flash flood or redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch (with the history preserved under the redirect) per WP:ONEEVENT:
The subject, Alden Brock, is significant for his role in a single event, drowning during a flash flood at Philmont Scout Ranch. He has received significant coverage for his death only. He has not received significant coverage outside his death. Therefore, WP:ONEVENT applies and there should not be an article about him.When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. ...
Another possibility is to write an article about the event, which would be titled 2015 Philmont Scout Ranch flash flood. Alden Brock's death could be covered in the context of that article. Here are several articles that discuss particular flash floods: Kopuawhara flash flood of 1938, 1971 Canberra flood, Jacobs Creek Flood, and 2015 Utah floods. There is a list of flash floods.
Any article about the Philmont flash flood must meet Wikipedia:Notability (events) or it could be nominated for deletion and deleted. There is coverage of the flood from national sources like USA Today and NBC News, as well as regional and local sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/28/boy-scout-dies-flooding/29420383/, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scout-dies-flash-flood-new-mexicos-philmont-scout-ranch-n383261, http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/details-of-deadly-flash-flood-that-killed-boy-scout-raise/article_ba4cd170-af60-5eb7-a7af-22f77c9a41b8.html, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/boy-scout-dies-in-flash-flood-while-camping-in-new-mexico/2235373, http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article25770799.html, http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article25933819.html, and http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_720d9ef2-1dc7-11e5-b31c-178d9f1f83dd.html. These sources ensure that the flash flood event fulfills WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. The two other main considerations are WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It is unclear if the flash flood fulfills them.
For now, since there is no article about the flood, I recommend redirecting to Philmont Scout Ranch (with the history preserved under the redirect) so that the content can be reframed to discuss the event if desired.
Cunard (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator reply As nominator, I find both of these options (keep-history-and-redirect and write-article-about-flood-but-only-if-WP:Notability-is-met) are as good as if not better than outright deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch, as per the excellent analysis of Cunard. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Giving SPA votes less weight Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mind Riders Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient reliable sources as evidence of notability. A brief look for English language sources didnt uncover better quality sources than those used on the article. Perhaps there are better sources in local languages. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 11:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 11:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 11:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 11:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and draft and userfy if needed as I see no obvious signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Keep) References are reliable and uniquely identified a source of information such as Indian news named "Kohraam News". Content has been written as per NPO representing fairly, proportionately. Kate A. Steel (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Looks like notable. Draft written according to neutral point of view and one of the source materials is verifiable from online news in India "Kohraam". Salamuddin A. Shaikh (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)— Salamuddin A. Shaikh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Getting back to !votes actually based on policy, rather than opinion, Delete. Not a single (nada, zilch) hit on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam or JSTOR. Absolutely fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Added some game which are developed by Mind Riders Tech. Keep: Now, It looks notable. Kate A. Steel (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You already gave your opinion as "keep" above - please note that while it's fine to add more than one comment to this discussion, each user should only add one "vote" (such as keep or delete). --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH ; of the five references currently in the article, four are primary sources including press releases and the CEO's own website, and the fifth one looks like a rewrite of a press release so that's essentially primary as well. --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Unopposed. Transwiki can be done from the original. Sandstein 11:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Republic Act no. 5446 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Copy-paste from the original document on Philippine government website. Not necessary to have its own article per other Philippine acts such as Republic Act No. 3359 (Philippines), Republic Act No. 9721 (Philippines), Republic Act No. 3423 (Philippines) and Republic Act No. 3358 (Philippines), in which all the links have been redirected. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 11:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikisource - That's why that site exists, right? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete poorly written and organized--JumpLike23 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Kitty Stratocaster (edit | 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 novelty issue model of a popular guitar design. Completely unreferenced; provided external links to the manufacturer website are 404, and searches at the webstie offer no viable links. Contains unreferenced list of professional users as endorsements. Lightly advertising; but moreso WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 12:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Searches only turn up trivial mentions in News, Newspapers and Books, absolutely zip in the others. Onel5969 TT me 16:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. According very little weight to spa votes and when the self promotion is rampant the bar probably sits a bit higher Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Lucas Perny (edit | 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 self-promoting, its subject is also its author, subject of the article is also non-notable Dwesa (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Dwesa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 00:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 00:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
this is private attack to this person --158.195.206.161 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)— 158.195.206.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- How and why is that? SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because Perny is controversial person fro his left wing views... --158.195.206.161 (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete in any case as I'm not seeing much convincing to suggest keeping. Pinging Cyphoidbomb and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- why delete? There are too much references from Slovak newspapers, reviews etc. --158.195.206.161 (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I managed to find only one non-trivial article in slovak regional newspaper (one of the links to another regional newspaper referenced in an article doesn't seem to work) and 2 reviews at slovak online music portal, all other mentions on the internet are either written by Lucas Perny himself or merely mentions at various social media. As it is, I don't think the article meets criteria of WP:NMUSIC or criteria for notability in other areas (e.g. in academics). Users 158.195.206.161 and Karelgott60 might have a possible WP:COI and be a case of WP:SOCK - notice the same grammar mistakes and argumentation Dwesa (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Aktuality.sk, Zem a vek, Music-zone, Hudba.sk, Nové Slovo, Studia Politica Slovaca, Hlavné Správy and SME is not regional newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelgott60 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Karelgott60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Article on webpage aktuality.sk is concerned with a conference, person of Lucas Perny is only mentioned. Online version of Zem a Vek has one article authored by Lukáš Perný and thus isn't independent of the subject, same goes for articles authored by the subject in Nove Slovo, Studia Politica Slovaca and Hlavne spravy. Two mentioned studies have zero citations according to Google Scholar and are usually in local scientific journals, organizing a conference isn't notable as many students do the same, having a photography with someone also isn't notable, notability of academic work of Lucas Perny is thus higly questionable. SME article is only in regional mutation of a newspaper. About other webpages, please consult criteria in WP:NMUSIC Dwesa (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reference for information about organizating of conference is in Slovak language here: "Konferenciu zorganizovali spoločnými silami doc. Lysý a Bc. Perný v spolupráci s Inštitútom ASA..." Other reference of popularity is mass shared video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpbpIoRozzs --Karelgott60 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Aktuality.sk, Zem a vek, Music-zone, Hudba.sk, Nové Slovo, Studia Politica Slovaca, Hlavné Správy and SME is not regional newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelgott60 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Karelgott60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- this is personal motivated attacks... Lucas Perny was organistaor of conference! Zem a vek read thousand of people (Lucas Perny is autohor of paper version Zem a vek, it is not online!), there are too scientific works publicated in Nové Slovo...there are full discography with reviews http://railman.szm.com/Discography.htm, scientific works http://railman.szm.com/Poetry.htm --Karelgott60 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- References for articles in paper version of Zem a vek - september - Lukáš Perný: Aj grécky príklad ukázal, že revolúcia je nevyhnutná (http://www.zemavek.sk/journals/view/september-2015), october Lukáš Perný: Obrazy apokalypsy v umení a filozofii (http://www.zemavek.sk/journals/view/oktber-2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelgott60 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- against delete, there are too much references --Karelgott60 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I added a photos with Perny at major events --Karelgott60 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The attempts to remove this wiki page are motivated by personal attacks against L. Perny. You can find enough links for his activities through a simple google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventOfPanurge (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — AdventOfPanurge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete per nom - This is clearly self promotion and that alone is grounds for deletion in my book!, Anyway the sources are pretty shite - One links to YT, One links to Google, 3 cites are IMHO promotion and 1 cite's a blog .... So the sources are poor and I can't find anything at all on Google News, No evidence of notability, Fails NMUSIC & GNG (Thanks SwisterTwister for the ping :) ) –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks: https://www.facebook.com/ueunucha/photos/pb.1616102891958794.-2207520000.1445103106./1695420530693696/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/ueunucha/photos/pb.1616102891958794.-2207520000.1445103106./1695346057367810/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/ueunucha/photos/pb.1616102891958794.-2207520000.1445103106./1695254310710318/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/ueunucha/photos/pb.1616102891958794.-2207520000.1445103106./1694998714069211/?type=3&theater http://fici.sme.sk/c/20052599/index.php/c/20058077/utrpenie-mladeho-hejtera.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventOfPanurge (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Against deletingeditBibliographyedit
Aktualne.sk: Občianske združenie Bratislava inak! predstavilo víziu mesta 21. storočia (online, 5/2015)
DiscographyeditPerny & Kollar and other projects with Miloslav Kollar
with Adam faun Magula
Egon Dust
with Patrik Sentivani
with Peter Turay
with Matej Mikloš
with Dilusion
with Waterfall
with Krumplipapricash
solo
with Milan Perny
List of concerts:edithttp://railman.szm.com/koncerty.htm Bratislava (Námestie pre ľudí, Hlava XXII., Malý Rím, U Dežmara, KC Dunaj), Trnava (RockCaffé The Jam, Malá Synagóga, Rádio Bunker, Art Club), Košicích (Tabačka Kulturfabrik), Topolčany (Nástupište 1-12), Modra (Vinobranie 2012), Žilina (Retro Club), Trenčín (Klub Lúč, Boogie Bar), Brezno (Bombura), Malacky, Prievidza, Nitra (na pôde Univerzity Konštantína Filozofa, klub Checkpoint), Praha a na festivaloch Beseda u Bigbítu, Tour De Town, Bikers Fest, Trip to Zen - Psy Trance Párty, Reskaá Fest, Colourfest, UV_Fest, etnaAKMnight, Festival Siete a Summerbeach Rudava. List of references:edit
Organising of actionsedit
Lecturesedit
Actor/movieeditHLINČÍKOVÁ, K. (scenár a réžia); WEISSLECHNER, S. (kamera). HLAVÁČ, M. (mix zvuku), KAROVIĆ R. (strih). PERNY, K., LUK, L. (hrajú). Lukáš Luk: Záhada Považského bula. SME: Petit Press. 2014. Dostupné online: http://www.sme.sk/vp/30633/ Avantgarde visual art inteverventionseditMoney is not capital with Martin Kochan, Divadelná Nitra, 2014 Political acitivismedit
--Karelgott60 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ClosingeditWhen will be discussion closed? Here are too much references.--Karelgott60 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
positive
and some negative references, but references -
Music radio shows, videoclips and othersedit
|
- I've collapsed the above - I'm more than happy for anyone to comment but there comment's longer than the article itself!, I would ask Karelgott60 that they keep there comments short & too the point. –Davey2010Talk 00:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Other references was added to atricle--178.41.148.81 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nom, Swister and Davey. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Are there sources? Yes - plenty of references (or claims thereof) that would fall under the definition as a "source". Are they reliable? Secondary? Independent? Verifiable? No. Do they significantly cover this person to the point that no original research is needed in order to cover the article in its entirety? I also believe that the answer to this is No. Therefore, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, making WP:NMUSIC irrelevant since notability claims require verifiable evidence - the existence of reliable sources don't seem to support that. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- AFDs are closed after seven days. Although the list of references you posted above is delightfully obnoxious, your strongest argument would be to show that he has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means significant coverage about him, not from him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
ADF was added in 16th october - NOW IS 23th October!!! and ADF IS STILL HERE Vodnafajka (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — Vodnafajka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Extended content
|
---|
References:
|
- Vodnafajka Please relax. There's no deadline. While references are nice, it's presently difficult to determine which, if any of these, represent significant coverage about the subject There are no web links here, for instance, and none of the single-purpose pro Perny folks have made any effort to explain the references, only to dump them here and yell "HURRY!" Not helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WikiProject Slovakia and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete agree with above consensus that this article is sourced to self-promotional and non-reliable sources. Dwesa's arguments are spot on, Perny's work or person is not the subject of any major independent publication. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - self promoting, non-notable piece of puffery. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and improve, definitely (I already started improving it). Cyphoidbomb asked me to take a look at the refs provided and drop a line here. My knowledge of Slovak is mostly passive, but I understand it pretty well, especially in writing. Anyway, the first two refs (Černáková and Bekmatov) are definitely legitimate and there's plenty of information there. The first was published in one of the largest broadsheet newspapers in the country, the latter in a web portal managed by Slovakia's official news agency (TASR), so I would definitely treat them as legitimate sources. Both texts describe the artist in extenso, not just in passing. The style of the article as it is though should definitely be improved. More about the guy, for currently most of the article is on the releases he authored.
- I will take a look at the remaining refs and see what are they, just give me some time. //Halibutt 21:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Supremely grateful for your input and your work at the article, Halibutt. I know it's a hassle, but it's appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, also let me ping @KuboF:. //Halibutt 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I read some of the material used as references in the article (and corrected the article on the go). My overall impression is that the guy is definitely notable per WP:BASIC: there is a piece on him personally in one of the most popular dailies of Slovakia (ref no. 1), a portal published by Slovakia's Academy of Science interviewed him (ref no. 2). Per WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO those are all notable, verifiable, independent of each other and the subject, reliable sources to me. Apparently he is noticeable and somehow popular in Slovakia, though of course it's not the Michael Jackson type of popularity. Still, apparently his records are noticeable by both the media, the genre aficionados (refs. 4 and 6) and musical portals (refs 10-12) eventhough most (all?) his records were either self-published or released under free licenses.
- He also has at least two scientific papers published by reliable, scholarly publishers, though I would treat him primarly as a musician and not a scientist. Publishing your thesis is certainly a reward by your alma mater, but this alone doesn't make you notable. Take note that I didn't read all of the refs and didn't have the time to delve into checking his "journalist" credentials. Perhaps there's more decent sources writing on him out there, I'm not sure. But I believe there's no ground for deleting the article, other than the facts that most refs are not in English and that the original version was apparently written by someone who loved the subject a little too much :) It's salvageable though. //Halibutt 23:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- That piece in one of the most popular dailies is only in regional mutatation as I mentioned earlier. Article in ref no. 2 is written by Lucas Perny's collegue Bekmatov from other journal - Zem a Vek, so it can hardly be considered independent of the subject. Strangely enough, that article in SME is also written by a person associated with a journal Zem a Vek where Perny writes (http://www.zemavek.sk/articles/view/rostas-ludia-su-vzdy-udrziavani-nejakou-formou-strachu), could it be considered independent of the subject? Also Školský servis TASR in ref no. 2 is written merely by students and pedagogues, not sure where "a portal published by Slovakia's Academy of Science interviewed him" came from, but that might be due to recent changes in an article any my confusion might stem out of it. Dwesa (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I reviewed all the sources in my post. Check below 147.175.177.152 (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC) — 147.175.177.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- @Dwesa:, I'm not arguing that there is absolutely no connection between the person who interviewed him and the subject, I have no idea about that. I'm merely pointing to the fact that the interview was published on a portal published by the TASR, which is definitely independent of the subject (hence fulfils the requirements of WP:INDY). There's no disclaimer there that "anyone can publish whatever they want here", so I would assume there is some review in place. Sure, it's not a scientific journal, but I would consider such source definitely more trustworthy than your random www page. Same for SME: the link we have points to a regional edition, but I have no idea what's their policy on publishing such news online. For instance in Poland if a newspaper article is published in the national edition, some newspapers later file such articles under their regional portals, other file them as main edition, yet others file them twice (Gazeta Wyborcza, for instance), it's pretty much random. What we do know though is that the piece is entirely about the subject and that it was published by one of the largest newspapers in the country. Readership of this or that article is of no relevance to the topic at hand here I believe. //Halibutt 13:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, also let me ping @KuboF:. //Halibutt 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Supremely grateful for your input and your work at the article, Halibutt. I know it's a hassle, but it's appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, as to Skolsky Servis being a project of TASR, it's specifically mentioned there that Školskýservis.sk is the effect of cooperation of TASR with the Slovakian Ministry of Education. Hence the big "TASR" logo in the top-left of every page I guess :) Also, I removed reference to Zem a vek altogether, as you yourself noted above, Perny had only one article published there, that hardly makes him a regular (but that also hardly makes him "dependent" on the guy who interviewed him for a completely different medium). //Halibutt 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see relevance in mentioning that TASR is a co-operative project of those institutions. As the Karelgott60 wrote eariler, Perny wrote more than one article, in that list of references are 5 articles authored by him and he provided several links that prove his articles are in a content of journal. So out of 2 non-trivial sources, 1 is a regional newspaper and second one is written by students and 2 out of 2 seem to be affiliated with his current job... and that is a basis for notability of the subject. Dwesa (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- delete self-promotion, notability issues. I checked the sources and I must say, I am not impressed. Social media links, reviews of album in online magazines, his bachelor thesis (?), his articles in small magazines. I wish him luck, but I really think that right now he is not notable enough. Musicians and journalists can easily gather lots of online references beacuse of the very public nature of their work. On Wikipedia we should be wary about what is really notable in the age of Internet. 147.175.177.152 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I decided to check the sources closer: [3] is not even a source, just a fact. [7][9][15][23] are authored by subject. [18][19] are social media pages for downloading his album. [5][8] are pages listing his articles. [12][20] links do not work. [14] is video on YouTube of him talking on alternative politics channel with 500 subscribers. I have find no indication of notability for this channel. [13] is article about conference where he is listed as one of the organizers. I don't really think that any of these sources is relevant. The rest of sources are reviews of his albums on different portals. I am not so sure if this is enough to became notable musician, most of the reviews are rather short (1 paragraph), indicating that the album wasn't deem really notable. Bunch of the reviews have the same author M. Danko. In addition, these portals are themselves probably not really notable. Only exception is [1] review in sme.sk, but the review is published only in regional mutation with really small number of readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.177.152 (talk • contribs)
- Just a small note that the numbers above refer to refs the way they were before my recent changes in the article. Plus there's no rule excluding using publications by the subject as references in the article. Per WP:ABOUTSELF as long as they are used for instance as a proof that the subject did publish something, it's all ok. And in this case all the biographical details come from elsewhere. //Halibutt 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am not saying using the subject as reference is bad, I am just saying it doesn't really make the sources back up notability of subject. I have listed sources I don't find relevant or helpful to this article or the cause of notability. Dwesa have pointed out that some articles from the reviews are written by colleagues of subject. Even M.Danko (author of [10][11][16]) is listed as editor in his blog: [11] So this is yet another source that is closely linked to subject. If we take the sources one by one, there is nothing wrong with them, but as a collection they are pretty flawed. Can you point out which sources do you consider to prove his notability? 147.175.177.152 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I already did above. Also, being an editor doesn't really make you dependent of the subject, I edited plenty of texts without actually being linked to the subject in any way. Hell, I even edited an article on 19th century Madagascar without being interested in the history of Africa, let alone ever setting foot there.
- All in all, sure, the article needs plenty of love from someone who doesn't love Perny so much as the author of the original article. But he is notable IMHO (and apparently some Slovak media think the same). We won't make a scientist out of him, he's not one of the most popular journalists in Slovakia, but as a musician he is noticeable by the Slovak media - and that's what really counts. But we would really need some Slovak Wikipedian in good standing to join us and throw in his 5 hal. //Halibutt 06:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- M.Danko is apparently editor of his personal blog, I think it may point out that they are somehow connected. I have also found discussion where Perny claims they are friends, but I guess the discussion isn't really suitable source.
- As Dwesa pointed out one of the sources is student's magazine, even if it is somehow supported by TASR. And I don't really buy claim of notability based on review of album in regional mutation of newspaper written by his work colleague. Anyhow as a Wikipedian I am not as experienced as you, so I might be wrong. 147.175.177.152 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am not saying using the subject as reference is bad, I am just saying it doesn't really make the sources back up notability of subject. I have listed sources I don't find relevant or helpful to this article or the cause of notability. Dwesa have pointed out that some articles from the reviews are written by colleagues of subject. Even M.Danko (author of [10][11][16]) is listed as editor in his blog: [11] So this is yet another source that is closely linked to subject. If we take the sources one by one, there is nothing wrong with them, but as a collection they are pretty flawed. Can you point out which sources do you consider to prove his notability? 147.175.177.152 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just a small note that the numbers above refer to refs the way they were before my recent changes in the article. Plus there's no rule excluding using publications by the subject as references in the article. Per WP:ABOUTSELF as long as they are used for instance as a proof that the subject did publish something, it's all ok. And in this case all the biographical details come from elsewhere. //Halibutt 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I decided to check the sources closer: [3] is not even a source, just a fact. [7][9][15][23] are authored by subject. [18][19] are social media pages for downloading his album. [5][8] are pages listing his articles. [12][20] links do not work. [14] is video on YouTube of him talking on alternative politics channel with 500 subscribers. I have find no indication of notability for this channel. [13] is article about conference where he is listed as one of the organizers. I don't really think that any of these sources is relevant. The rest of sources are reviews of his albums on different portals. I am not so sure if this is enough to became notable musician, most of the reviews are rather short (1 paragraph), indicating that the album wasn't deem really notable. Bunch of the reviews have the same author M. Danko. In addition, these portals are themselves probably not really notable. Only exception is [1] review in sme.sk, but the review is published only in regional mutation with really small number of readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.177.152 (talk • contribs)
- It's not a students magazine. Their own "about us" says it's a news service organised by TASR and Ministry of Education, with news by TASR and others targeted at schools of all levels. It's nowhere near a "student's magazine" as in: a samizdat prepared by students for their colleagues. There's plenty of similar services of this type elsewhere in the world, in Poland we have the excellent Science in Poland portal, also organised by our ministry of education and the Polish Press Agency. It's not a "students mag" either. Also, calling someone who published exactly one article in a magazine a "work colleague" of the editor is an overstatement, isn't it. //Halibutt 16:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are right about the work colleague thing, the article on zemavek.sk, where Perny is working, was originally published on nitra.sme.sk (where the author of the source is working), but was later taken down.
- The SkolskyServis is also saying in its "about us" page this: "Servis tvoria správy z TASR, ale hlavne multimediálne informácie prispievateľov z radov žiakov, študentov, pedagógov. Podeľte sa o dianie na vašej škole s verejnosťou prostredníctvom rešpektovanej novinárskej značky TASR.", translated: Our service constitutes from news from TASR, but **mainly** multimedia content from our contributors - pupils, students, pedagogues. Share with us what is going on in your school viac respected journalist brand TASR. Sure it is not student's samizdat, byt it is basically created for students to help them try what it is to be a journalists. 147.175.177.152 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- weak keep The article started as an self-promotion with only couple of sources but another reliable sources was added. Most (all?) of his albums was self-published but they received coverage in the topic's, region's and some greater medias (most notably in SME, Školský servis and webzine hudba.zoznam.sk). He is not a Superstar (here in Slovakia with his music genre, kind of scientific work and political opinions he can't be...) but the references convicted me to weak support. --KuboF (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
He is also pacifist activist of peace movement (against NATO aggression) and he was too on convoy blockade in september 2015. http://www.halonoviny.cz/articles/view/40861430 http://www.srspol.sk/clanek-hviezdoslavovo-namestie-24-9-kolaboranti-a-okupanti-nebudu-nasimi-priatelmi-11489.html http://www.srspol.sk/clanek-hviezdoslavovo-namestie-24-9-kolaboranti-a-okupanti-nebudu-nasimi-priatelmi-11489.html --84.47.31.117 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think AfD's normally stand for a month? But I think the post immediately above by IP 84 (He is also pacifist activist of peace movement (against NATO aggression) and he was too on convoy blockade in september 2015) explains exactly why this should be closed as a delete as a POV self promo. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Typically only 7, Medeis unless relisting is warranted, which, for lack of wider community input, it was. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, CB. I am still in favor of deletion per nom. Having worked for publications at US universities and even NYC bars with much higher circulation, I know how easy self-promotion is, and I see no evidence of anything but that here. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Typically only 7, Medeis unless relisting is warranted, which, for lack of wider community input, it was. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- compromise - compress an article... short article is something good for compromise --95.102.221.56 (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am from Slovakia, and i know this name. He is very specific and controversial person between young people, but he is really popular (too in negative spectrum). I agree with words of KuboF "He is not a Superstar (here in Slovakia with his music genre, kind of scientific work and political opinions he can't be...)" 95.102.221.56 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC) — 95.102.221.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- If the subject is not notable, then a small article isn't warranted any more than a large one would be. If the subject is notable, then a normal size article is warranted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- He IS notable, but he can´t be "superstar" with combination of his music and political views. But he is very popular controversial person between young people... --95.102.221.56 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- This Romantic Tragedy (edit | 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 clearly needs a new AfD as they have now ended and the best my searches found was this and this. Pinging CTF83!, Catfish Jim and the soapdish, Goroth, VQuakr, Diannaa and Rehevkor. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - self-published sources, non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, self-published and primary sources and article appears to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. This page was earlier deleted on 27 Oct 2010. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Album Reborn charted at #26 in the Billboard Heatseekers Charts, view here. --Goroth (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete From the last AfD it seems to be determined that charting on Billboard Heatseekers does not mean probable notability, plus it was only for one week. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - and even if the one album appeared on a national music chart, that only means the group may be notable. Nothing on the search engines to show that they meet WP:GNG, and imho they don't pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 13:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Brian D. Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alleged A7 article, but there are references and a very low but present assertion of notability. I therefore judge an afd to be more preferable for this article than an afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. Sources are either self published or un-reliable. Blog and IMDB also cited. One source does not even mention his name. Just a regular person carrying on with his regular job. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I see nothing obvious to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) –Davey2010Talk 12:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- John Fluevog (edit | 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 this, this, this and this but I'm still not entirely sure of convincingly better notability and improvement. Pinging Agent 86, Dravecky, Debresser, Bearcat, John Stephen Dwyer and author Zackhyde. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - shoes, shoes, and more shoes, reads like an ad for his cobbler business. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This AfD doesn't really provide much reason to delete the article; moreover, the links posted by the nominator indicate notability, such as being a featured part of stories in the Toronto Star and New York Magazine. A Google Books search also shows significant mentions in books on design and retailing. John Fluevog also has an entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia. The article should be flagged for improvement, not deletion. Agent 86 (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fluevog is one of the most famous shoe designers in the world, and lots of reliable source coverage of him does exist. The article definitely needs referencing improvement, but the notability and sourceability are there. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Typical of SwisterTwister's lazy rapid-fire AFD noms where their "argument" is basically to just dump a link to Google search results so it looks like they actually did a search for sources beforehand (which this particular nomination kinda disproves, as if they had actually done a proper look at the results they would've seen that this was NOT getting deleted). Sometimes their noms are valid, but then things like this come up and make the nominator look really bad. Sorry, I've raised this concern in other AFDs much more politely, but given that SwisterTwister rarely seems to come back to AFDs after nomming, I may as well say exactly what I think. Mabalu (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, this could be a way of using AFD to get problem articles cleaned up, but I was under the impression that AFD as cleanup is not seen as acceptable - again, surprisingly non-great AFD behaviour from a long-established and generally reputable editor. Mabalu (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Very famous, major designer and shoe industry figure. As someone with 30+ years as a shoe store employee and owner I can state with authority that this is someone with substantial, multiple pieces of published coverage of presumed reliability in Footwear News and other trade publications. Moreover, this is a person who has crossed over as a public figure to some extent. If he got squished by a taxi tomorrow there would be an obit in the New York Times... Carrite (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here are a few pieces from FN (a sibling publication of Women's Wear Daily): "5 Questions for John Fluevog" (July 2013); "Celebrating with John Fluevog and Dr. Martens" (June 2010); "Fluevog to Be Honored By Canada's Two-Ten" (Jan. 2012) — Two-Ten being a major shoe industry philanthropy. Bear in mind that FN has not put digitized early issues online yet, there are probably half a dozen more such stories they've done, without touching Footwear Plus or any other trade publication. This is an easy GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I stacked a few sources on the bottom of the article in case anyone wants to improve it in the future. Obviously plenty of stuff for a GNG pass, including NY Times and Vancouver Sun. Carrite (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here are a few pieces from FN (a sibling publication of Women's Wear Daily): "5 Questions for John Fluevog" (July 2013); "Celebrating with John Fluevog and Dr. Martens" (June 2010); "Fluevog to Be Honored By Canada's Two-Ten" (Jan. 2012) — Two-Ten being a major shoe industry philanthropy. Bear in mind that FN has not put digitized early issues online yet, there are probably half a dozen more such stories they've done, without touching Footwear Plus or any other trade publication. This is an easy GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Zachary Isaiah Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather obvious case of no better notability and improvement with this showing he is not an avidly persistent and serious actor with barely much here and no improvement from the past years...easily speedy and PROD material (this has stayed basically the same with almost no change since August 2006). Pinging Onel5969, Alessgrimal, Tassedethe, QuasyBoy and Rms125a@hotmail.com. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
deleteweak keep-needs to be tagged, but to be honest, looks like a lot of old content.Was tagged, no improvement, delete. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- DangerDogWest Hmm, I'm not seeing how that saves article now after being tagged for so long as it is, keep to mind Wikipedia is not IMDb where pages are for all people including crew and behind the scenes people. As well, the current artilce sounds the old Wikipedia I knew and saw and this is not it anymore, this person was best known as a child actor it seems and there's nothing at all to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- DangerDogWest Hmm, I'm not seeing how that saves article now after being tagged for so long as it is, keep to mind Wikipedia is not IMDb where pages are for all people including crew and behind the scenes people. As well, the current artilce sounds the old Wikipedia I knew and saw and this is not it anymore, this person was best known as a child actor it seems and there's nothing at all to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. First of all, this article should have been CSD as a copyright violation of this site. Not sure we can do a CSD while an AfD is already in progress, but I can request a Speedy Delete. Onel5969 TT me 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Onel5969 Yes we can actually but it seems that website may simply be a mirror thus not exactly copied from there (that website also says "date 2015" and this article has existed since 2006). To be honest, I'm not even familiar with that particular website but it seems alike to all the other mirrors. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister - Perhaps my bad. I didn't check for the mirror cv. Onel5969 TT me 19:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Onel5969 Yes we can actually but it seems that website may simply be a mirror thus not exactly copied from there (that website also says "date 2015" and this article has existed since 2006). To be honest, I'm not even familiar with that particular website but it seems alike to all the other mirrors. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: as per @onel5969 Quis separabit? 18:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rms125a@hotmail.com Are you saying you also think it's copied from that website even though it seems more like a mirror? This article has existed since 2006 while that website says 2015. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- All I am saying is that the article's similarity to this site appears to justify @onel5969's comments. Quis separabit? 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rms125a@hotmail.com Are you saying you also think it's copied from that website even though it seems more like a mirror? This article has existed since 2006 while that website says 2015. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per SwisterTwister. Just because you are/were an actor does not necessarily entitle you to a Wikipedia page. Alessgrimal (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Burr Caswell (edit | 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:NOTAMEMORIAL. Nearly all of the references are from the family history, all of which are dead links. There's an article in a local newspaper, the Ludington Daily News,[12] and a few lines in the introduction of Ludington Car Ferries.[13] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- weak keep - Article needs some work. marginal notability. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I would've said keep because this seems historical but there's nothing else aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Snow Keep Clearly notable. Lots of sources, and more out there. Apparently you missed them. Is a substantial historical figure in Michigan history. That it "seems historical" per User:SwisterTwister only reveals a recentism bias. This article has been viewed regularly and consistently by our readers. I've added many additional sources. The home/courthouse he built is a registered state historic site. FYI, I've more than
tripledmore thanquadrupledsix-fold the references since you nominated it for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) - Keep - meets WP:GNG. He constructed the first frame building in Mason County, Michigan. In Mason County he was the first: Coroner, Probate Judge and Surveyor. The Mason County Courthouse county seat was placed at Caswell's house originally, which is now at White Pine Village outdoor museum.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the article was a DYK back in 2008.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP Aside from the fact that Caswell was a Republican I see no reason to delete this article. He was a significant person in local history. We need more articles such as this one, not less. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - interesting article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. If this article survives, the first, second and third references should be deleted for failing WP:RS. The first two come from a site which has the disclaimer "This site and affiliated Projects make no claims or estimates of the validity of the information submitted." The second also seems to be " courtesy of the Caskey Family Webiste [sic]", presumably the caskeyfamily.com site sourced by the third. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - The second source says at the bottom, Content Copyright 1998-2014 David K Petersen. Well it turns out that you couldn't have a more reliable source than him. Put his name in Google and you get over 4,000 hits. Put his name in Google Books and you get over 800 hits -and- it shows the many books he has written, many especially about Mason County. He is considered the source to go to for information about Mason County. He knows more historical information about Mason County than all other people alive today combined. He writes a weekly history column for the Ludington Daily News. Type in Google his name with "Ludgington Daily News" to see what you get. It so happens that there is a reading room at the Ludington Public Library (Mason County) called "The Petersen Room". Librarians go to him for history information about Northern Michigan. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - This is the latest book that Petersen just came out with. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Ludington Daily News 'bio' article on Dave Petersen. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Here is a history on Burr Caswell on Petersen's Homepage. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Here is another article on Burr Caswell that Petersen wrote. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Here is another article on Burr Caswell and his home that Petersen wrote. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - I disagree. The existence of a legal disclaimer does not make the source not a WP:RS. And all of these sources parallel the reports from the more than two dozen other WP:RSs in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reply. You consider a site for which the URL isn't even provided a neutral, reliable source? (It's apparently this family genealogy site.) It doesn't matter if it confirms other sources. You can't somehow inherit RS-ity. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reply. All three of these sites have URLs. You can click on the cited link. So you are misinformed.
- The existence of Pro forma legal disclaimers in geneological websites is a testament to the ubiquity of lawyers and their advice. It is irrelevant and has nothing to do with reliability. It has nothing to do with the proposal to delete the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- And to put a final cut into this, there was no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:RS. Just having a URL is not sufficient, otherwise all the conspiracy nuts would be having a field day. Posting something great uncle Otto told you during a Christmas dinner doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is fallacious red herring argument and an ad hominen attack. There is nothing to suggest that your hypothetical scenario has anything to do with this article or these sources. Slippery slopes can be avoided by looking at what the sources say. Ignoring the other reliable sources, including the
six seveneight books, makes no sense. Indeed, the woof and weave of these sources into the fabric this article makes their credibility more likely, not less. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)- In the first place, I was talking solely about the first three references. You chose to expand it beyond that. Who's dangling red herrings now? It appears the article will be kept, but that has nothing to do with this particular issue. When I nominated the article, the urls for the first two references were dead links, and the third source was (and remains) a family genealogy site, which is neither independent nor demonstrably neutral. Plus you can't just wave away the explicit disclaimer for the first two, now that they have working urls. Whether or not Peterson is an expert, he himself has not shown sufficient confidence in the reliability of the information. If he hasn't, why should we? So none of the three pass RS. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is fallacious red herring argument and an ad hominen attack. There is nothing to suggest that your hypothetical scenario has anything to do with this article or these sources. Slippery slopes can be avoided by looking at what the sources say. Ignoring the other reliable sources, including the
- You need to read WP:RS. Just having a URL is not sufficient, otherwise all the conspiracy nuts would be having a field day. Posting something great uncle Otto told you during a Christmas dinner doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- And to put a final cut into this, there was no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Very well known Michigan historian and author (predecessor of Petersen) James L. Cabot wrote for the Ludington Daily News as a Columnist and came up with the same information on Burr Caswell (see references). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Bio on James Lawrence Cabot, aka James L. Cabot (historian). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Clarityfiend: Petersen will be at the Ludington Public Library Friday (10/30/2015) at 1 P.M. for a 'signing' of his new book. He would love to talk to you about Burr Caswell and where he got his information - if you have a few hours to spare. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: - That you choose not to recognize Petersen's expertise reveals your larger recalcitrant problem and biased perspective. In any event it is now time us all to stop slaying the slain. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- There you go again, distorting the truth. I have no knowledge of Petersen's expertise, so how can I recognize it? His disclaimer states he has not checked the facts. If you have a problem with that, talk to him, not me.
- Funny you should accuse me of an "ad hominen attack". I attacked no one; if you are the otherwise hypothetical great uncle Otto or his great nephew, then you are being overly sensitive (and party to a undisclosed conflict of interest). However, you show no scruple about accusing me of having a "larger recalcitrant problem and biased perspective." Now there's an ad hominen attack. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP: Duck. Your impervious approach to facts and sources speaks for itself. That you maligned scholar David Petersen (at least you now are spelling his name right) without knowledge, and despite the fact that Doug Coldwell had posted biographical information establishing his credentials (and you now opine that you know nothing of him) is all peculiar.
- Most of what I added to this article was here:
(Find sources: "Burr Caswell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- If you had done your homework and complied with WP:Before, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
- And you have the chutzpah to suggest I am related to Burr? With no evidence, just your bare and baseless allegation? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Throughout my long live, people have distorted my last name. One on the many distortions has been "Caswell" - does that make me close enough to be related to him then?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- What are you blathering about? The great uncle bit was in reference to the reliability of family genealogy sites. You're the one who's somehow making a personal connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry, for the misunderstanding. No insult intended.
- But your persistence in this nomination in the face of the present article and citations makes no sense. This is about what the article could have (See WP:Before) and did become, not about your wishes. The graceful and sensible course would be to withdraw the nomination, make it a Speedy Keep, and not ride this dead horse into the ground. But you nominated it, and I guess you just want to wait a few days before the inevitable Speedy or Snow Keep. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- What are you blathering about? The great uncle bit was in reference to the reliability of family genealogy sites. You're the one who's somehow making a personal connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Throughout my long live, people have distorted my last name. One on the many distortions has been "Caswell" - does that make me close enough to be related to him then?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - probably everything has changed since the listing, but right now I can't see what is missing for notability. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as quite sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pension Wise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
press release on a non notable organization. If it is notable, it should be possible to say something that does not merely repeat the official jargon of "pension freedoms introduced by the Conservative government) DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- weak keep - notable in the UK, an editor greatly improved the article with some refs. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I am surprised this has attracted delete votes. Perhaps I live in a bubble in the advice sector but I've watched the mertis of Pension Wise discussed at Parliamentary Select Committees, there is a national TV advertising campaign which few in the UK could have missed...perhaps it is a case of 'I've not heard of it so it can't notable?' DanielJCooper (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment (edit conflict): I have extended the article including a range of references. I am deferring a keep/delete opinion, wary that helplines come with a fanfare (extensive TV advertising in this case) but can quietly disappear after an initial flurry of attention. That said, the regulatory position on potential longer-term liability may give this persistence, but the FCA website is offline at the moment so I can't check exactly what they said. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep-Contrary to the premise of this deletion, Pension Wise is neither an organisation nor non-notable. It is in fact a Government scheme, and one that simple Google of news sources reveals is very notable in the context of UK policy. -Kez (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Has been discussed in the serious press and the BBC: clearly notable even though not a Korean boy-band or a retired footballer.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: The references now in the article are indicative of notablity, but for me the clinching factor is that the Financial Conduct Authority has issued PS15/17, a regulatory policy statement specifically about Pension Wise. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I know next to nothing about UK politics or governance, but even to me it's obvious from the current references that Pension Wise is notable. Also, TheLongTone's keep rationale has won this discussion. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mathias Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level, has only played in a cup game against a non pro team. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- delete per above. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The one game he has played was against a team from a non-FPl. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Richland Northeast High School Basketball (edit | 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 high school basketball team. Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have 12 credible sources and they all are notable. The alumni and people who have played at RNE are insane. This is a totally credible page and all of it is made up of references. There's no way you can delete it because it is notable, it's been on ESPN before, it hosts the Chick Fil A classic every year and is a good program. It does not break any copyright laws and all of it is factual based on credible sources. I have done my homework and am not breaking any Wikipedia laws. I worked all day on this to make sure it can be a Wikipedia page with all the right info and notable credibility. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnykkudelka (talk • contribs) 03:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I PRODed it before the nominator removed that and added several more references to MaxPreps. I haven't found anything that satisfies WP:GNG or a subject-specific notability guideline like WP:ORG. I think that WP:ORGDEPTH is important to consider with respect to MaxPreps. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment That should say "before the article's creator removed..."; the nominator didn't remove anything. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - yeah, not notable. And we don't need to set the standard that every high school's basketball program (and football program, etc) should have a Wikipedia article. MaxPreps publishes basic stats and info on just about every HS in the country. Rikster2 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Rikster2. We do not want to set any precedents with this one, plus it fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 by Bbb23, G3: Blatant hoax (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Raymond Lenox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax-I can't find anyone with this name that is a writer. Wgolf (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- delete - hoax or not its non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Dženis Ćosić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a football who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as fails NFOOTBALL & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 12:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#ep64. KTC (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keystone Motel (edit | 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-I put this Wikipedia is not TV guide-episode of show with no info This should probably just be redirected to the tv show if not deleted. Wgolf (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete by all means as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Very limited amount of information, and better to combine multiple episodes into one article.Martinogk (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#ep64 – There's at least one review (A.V. Club) out there but no independent secondary coverage regarding production. 23W 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rebecca Blaikie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Party president is not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's true that "party president" is not a role that gets a person an automatic inclusion freebie, just because the word president is involved, in the absence of any substantive reliable source coverage. It is, however, a role which does get a person into Wikipedia if enough reliable source coverage of them is available to satisfy WP:GNG. And for Blaikie, sufficient coverage is already there. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep NDP is a major political party in Canada, the president plays an important role in the party, and the position is listed as the second top person in the box on the New Democratic Party wikipedia article. Her four predecessors in the position all have wikipedia pages, and while they also have other merits, it does show that it is notable people that usually hold the office. The article is very well written. In August and September, the article had an average of about 25-30 views per day, which is not bad, and it shows that people are using it. Martinogk (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Martinogk, completely. Ditto his statements. Those who want deletion have said nothing more than "non-notable" and pretty much left it there, not much of an argument on their side. Freddiem (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Bearcat. Graham (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Like a major party state chairperson in the United States, this top position almost always is considered notable. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not to be contrarian, but which criterion in WP:POLOUTCOMES would she meet? I don't see it. I also want to caution against an argument that seems to be creeping into a number of Canadian political bios of late, which is that page views mean much. They don't, for the purposes of the Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- If she's sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, then she doesn't have to meet any criterion in WP:POLOUTCOMES — political parties are a form of WP:ORG, so she would get included or excluded on the same standards as any other president of any other organization regardless of whether she passed or failed NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that in Canada a Party President isn't the same as the Chairman of a US Party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- So, yes, I don't find the passing coverage in Gnews to be terribly persuasive, and I don't think WP:POLOUTCOMES provides any precedent for someone in this particular position. However, there's some interesting results for her in a Google Book search and I think that, all taken together, she does meet notability requirements so Keep. 13:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- 2015 Gothenburg pub shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- speedy keep such events are rare and of high significance in Sweden, notable event.. Gizmocorot (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Provide evidence it is "rare and of high significance in Sweden" rather than just a personal opinion. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- delete - non-notable. This is not the swedish WP. If it's notable in sweden it belongs in that wiki. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is a misunderstanding of the concept of notability. Different Wikipedia versions have different notability standards, but that is a very different thing indeed from saying that something that is in fact notable in one country does not belong in other language Wikipedias. Otherwise a large number of articles about notable events would have to be removed. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- If someone posted an article in written in Swedish, it would not belong. The commonplace event of shootings in the US has gotten so common unless its a Sandy Hook Elementary, or something of that magnitude, its not notable in the US for an article. This may be notable in sweden, but a shooting in a restaraunt with a lone gunman and two people shot wouldn't even make the national evening news in the US, so here its not that notable, in sweden it might be but not here. Non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree this is routine news in other places. But ... see, this is not even a news website, this is an encyclopedia, it does not, anyway, belong here. According to the same article, it is not "terror related", so... here comes my question again, notability? --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, notability does not work like that. Wikipedia versions are not related to countries - the English-language WP is not for and about English-speaking countries, the Swedish-language WP is not for and about Sweden and Finland. Notability refers to whether something has been noted, it's not the same as "of world-wide relevance". The shooting would not have been notable in the US if it had happened there, but that has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the event, as "notability" is defined in Wikipedia. The actual event was in fact notable in the US since it was reported there, e.g. [14] (since this is not the US Wikipedia it is actually not that relevant whether something is reported there, but of course it strengthens the case for notability that it was reported on in multiple national media around the world.) --bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Systemic bias (pro US) are common, and totally negative; however, this has nothing to do with that, this event fails WP:EVENT (more precisely WP:GEOSCOPE), as I said below. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, notability does not work like that. Wikipedia versions are not related to countries - the English-language WP is not for and about English-speaking countries, the Swedish-language WP is not for and about Sweden and Finland. Notability refers to whether something has been noted, it's not the same as "of world-wide relevance". The shooting would not have been notable in the US if it had happened there, but that has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the event, as "notability" is defined in Wikipedia. The actual event was in fact notable in the US since it was reported there, e.g. [14] (since this is not the US Wikipedia it is actually not that relevant whether something is reported there, but of course it strengthens the case for notability that it was reported on in multiple national media around the world.) --bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree this is routine news in other places. But ... see, this is not even a news website, this is an encyclopedia, it does not, anyway, belong here. According to the same article, it is not "terror related", so... here comes my question again, notability? --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- If someone posted an article in written in Swedish, it would not belong. The commonplace event of shootings in the US has gotten so common unless its a Sandy Hook Elementary, or something of that magnitude, its not notable in the US for an article. This may be notable in sweden, but a shooting in a restaraunt with a lone gunman and two people shot wouldn't even make the national evening news in the US, so here its not that notable, in sweden it might be but not here. Non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is a misunderstanding of the concept of notability. Different Wikipedia versions have different notability standards, but that is a very different thing indeed from saying that something that is in fact notable in one country does not belong in other language Wikipedias. Otherwise a large number of articles about notable events would have to be removed. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- speedy keep - the article already includes coverage by BBC and the Guardian (and the BBC reference says very clearly that this kind of shooting is very unusual in Sweden) and a quick search for more sources finds a lot of coverage from US, Australian and other international sources. Notability is clearly shown. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep No convincing reason presented for deletion, especially with that question mark. Nate • (chatter) 20:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Mrschimpf: Fails WP:EVENT (more precisely WP:GEOSCOPE). Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with @Gizmocorot that such an event is highly unusual and a notable event in Sweden. For notability, it is irrelevant whether the event was terror related or not. While the article could be improved, it is written as an encyclopedic entry of a historic event, rather than as a news item.Martinogk (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- keep - notable and rare event in Sweden. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: BBC News and The Mirror are cited in the lead, so the GNG is met before even getting to the body of the article... where The Guardian's coverage is also cited. Was this nomination based on a misunderstanding of how notability works? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, still, this fails WP:GEOSCOPE. Nothing has been shown here that this event is notable after it happened. I mean, the cited news media coverage is only from the day of the attack, that does not prove any lasting significance. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:GEOSCOPE says "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." This event wasn't reported only by local media. I see nothing else in that section to suggest that a topic which otherwise meets the general notability guideline (as this topic does) is necessarily non-notable because it was a one-time event. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, still, this fails WP:GEOSCOPE. Nothing has been shown here that this event is notable after it happened. I mean, the cited news media coverage is only from the day of the attack, that does not prove any lasting significance. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. KTC (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Driver DR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable software. Refs are from download sites Staszek Lem (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Normally I wouldn't mind Cnet if it was a review, but that aside there is nothing out there that is indepth. This one was recently released and while some newer released software gets quite a bit of press, this one has not. Fails WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
delete-40 million windows users needing old drivers updated might want to find info on this tool. This means 40 million windows users donating the price of a cup of coffee to keep the lights on. It's only marginally notable, but could be improved. The problem with new software is it can gain critical mass quickly. I'd tag the article, leave it around for 30-60 days, then resubmit for Afd if it does not look to have a critical mass of interest.If and when this software gains more interest, we can recreate it if this is the case. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the problem is, people who may "want to find info on this tool" will need to look at Wikipedia as it is the only site that has any substantial information on it. That being said, Wikipedia is not a place to host information. It is a collection of knowledge. Wikipedia does not keep articles around and hope they gain notability. Quite the opposite. Article should be deleted and then if it begins to gain "critical mass of interest" as you suggest, then the article could possibly be recreated. However, I am more than willing to change my vote if you can show me significant coverage in reliable sources, the cornerstone of notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.