Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 6

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 5 November 7 November >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Amatulic under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform necklace

edit
Waveform necklace (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)

Promotional article for a product does not meet the general notability guidelines or the notability guideline for products. The citations listed in the article are either blogs or self-published, and thus not reliable. The PROD was contested. xanchester (t) 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have no problem with this being userfied, but the issue here is that the necklace hasn't been the subject of any in-depth coverage. There are a few minor news stories that are about a paragraph long at best or some brief mentions, but they'd be trivial at best and wouldn't exactly show notability for this product. Of the sources on the article, here's my rundown of them:
  1. [1] An order form for the necklace. This wouldn't show notability and is actually dubious as far as even using as a primary source goes since it's just a price page.
  2. [2] The HuffPost isn't usable as a reliable source except in very rare circumstances since it's considered a blog source.
  3. [3] This is a primary source, being just pictures of the product. Primary sources can't show notability.
  4. [4] Another primary source that just shows how the necklaces are made, can't show notability.
  5. [5] Just shows pictures and even if it didn't, this isn't the type of site that would be considered a reliable source.
  6. [6] This looks to be your typical non-notable blog entry, which cannot show notability. At the very, very most it could charitably be put in the EL section but even then it would be questionable whether or not it should be even there.
I've removed several cites that were just repeats of the same links over and over again. This might actually be speedy-able as being overly promotional.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with additional comment "unsourced biography of a living person". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eibh Collins

edit
Eibh 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)

No sources demonstrating the subject's notability. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for biographies. PROD was contested. xanchester (t) 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Kevin12xd/Twinkle sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Just as in the very similar discussion about UFC 155, WP:NOT concerns need to be weighted far more highly than WP:N concerns. To expand, an article can pass WP:N and WP:V, and still be unsuitable for inclusion based on a single accurate WP:NOT concern. In this AFD, "keep" voters have not successfully overcome the concerns based on WP:NOT.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 156

edit
UFC 156 (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 sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the event does not even have a confirmed venue as of yet.
The sources are purely routine announcements of who is going to appear NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. They are also not from WP:reliable sources, the Bleacher report (see here is not, the mmaconvert source (ignoring the fact the url contains "rumors") is nothing more than a fight card and the mmajunkie.com one has a link recommending readers go to the rummer section of the website, something you would not associate with a source that has "a reputation for fact-checking". Mtking (edits) 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose Much as the other 155 numbered UFC events that are notable and have stand alone articles, this event with a Championship event headlining it handily meets notability requirements. The article is in its infancy because more information is currently unavailable, but will become so in the coming weeks. There is already good work on the article and it would be a waste of effort to delete it, then just create it in a few weeks. Mtking is a troll, will a responsible admin put an end to this guy? He has done nothing beneficial at all with respect to MMA on WP, only antagonizing and trolling the members of the MMA Project. How long can people just bother other editors before something is done?I remember halloween (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP is, may I remind you a Encyclopedia, not a place for fans to read up on speculation (that is what mmajunkie, Sherdog and mmaconvert are there for) nor is it a place to have an article for every sports event, yes summarise seasons or years on an overview article using good and reiliable secondary sources. If after the event it is clear that there is non-routine coverage of more than just the results, in other words something non-routine happened and more than the MMA blogasphere is talking about it then that's when the article should be created and not before. In the mean time absent the non-routine non reliable sources this should be deleted. Mtking (edits) 03:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another simple example of the rank dishonesty here, it was already made clear to the OP in the AfD for UFC 155 (and also in the past) that mmajunkie is simply one brand for USA Today's sports coverage (this is clearly noted at the bottom of their website). Yet not a day latter, he again tries to pass it off at a different venue as the blogosphere. It would be interesting to see if anyone takes these AfD's seriously given these plain facts. Agent00f (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not follow that just because mmajunkie is owed by USA Today that it is what WP classifies as a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, in fact given the rumour section of the mmajunkie it would not come close to the bar of "reputation for fact checking".Mtking (edits) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it was also noted previously in the UFC 155 AfD that many if not all papers have gossip or editorial section, yet MtKing is quick to conveniently forget. To be clear, MtKing is now calling USA Today unreputable; but it's not clear whether this is because it reports on MMA, or because reports on celebrity gossip. Agent00f (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and suggestion - It's too early for me to make a decent defense argument for this article, as many things can happen in four months. Per WP:EFFECT ("(...) It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.") i suggest to postpone this AfD discussion. As stated above by I remember halloween, the article will be deleted just to be recreated later. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For anyone not familiar with the _history_ of these deletions, nominator/user MtKing above has been copy/paste AfDing MMA entries to be deleted for an entire year now to approx zero effect. It's a low-cost troll and has been nothing but an atrocious waste of time on everyone's behalf (dozens and dozens of editors) and a blemish on wiki's record for this joke to be allowed to continue for so long. However, I can only imagine that history repeats itself in these cases of asymmetric pestilence against MMA on wiki until some responsible admin chooses to fix this problem. Agent00f (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a simple example of the blatantly disingenuous nature of the AfD text, it tries to imply that no good sources exist for this event. Yet a trivial search for UFC 156 on google or google news show 23 sources for *just the announcement* the first of which include USA Today, Vancouver Sun, Las Vegas Sun, etc, each with different writers/source. It's up to the reader to judge whether the AfD OP can't be bother to do the most basic of research, or could....
pure routine coverage of the announcements nothing more, which WP:NOT is clear on. Have a look here there are over 2,100 google news hits on tonight's NFL game Colts at Jaguars all from the last 24 hours (that goes up to 43,000+ if you look back over the last month) still does not make the game notable as it is all routine coverage of an sports event, nothing out of the ordinary, yes the fans that watch the game will remember it, they might go to NFL.com or some other site to read up on it but (not wishing to tempt fate here) nothing will happen that will be worthy of encyclopedic note. Mtking (edits) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If basic honesty were to be observed here, there are not 2100 hits but rather 374 sources, and the comparison should be between searchs for events that have occurred, not just announced. Also, it's notable that MtKing is well aware (given it's been clarified about a dozen times in the past) that a UFC event is not simply 1 contest, but a conglomeration of distinct contests between separate/unrelated contestants gathered on one night for convenience; this convenience is only reflected in the coverage (eg. wiki). Whether it's notable or not is clear enough from the thousands of contestant bios linked to these events as references for their life accomplishment (about dozen or so on average). This is the default level of wiki coverage across all of sports coverage on wiki whether it's racing, tennis, boxing, and the list goes on. In fact, I can't seem to find one item in what I'm replying to that's accurate or honest. Agent00f (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article meets notability. UFC 156 does in fact have a venue (Mandalay Bay) and I swapped a few references. --Hmich176 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge or Delete This is not about amount of information, nor is it about number of sources. Says WP:N: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." This is all just routine sports coverage, reliable or not. I fully recommend we delete or merge all upcoming MMA fights. Coppaar (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong" Keep - not routine coverage. Is covered by multiple significant sources. Nominated by anti-MMA editor who should be ignored. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep After an entire year of absurdly draconian edit wars I thought it had finally been settled that individual UFC events both meet notability guidelines --which yes, are enough to keep a page according to most admins if the page is also popular-- and that they were not to be deleted. As for treating it differently from other sports, it's because it is different from other sports. However, you can find pages for individual second-tier tennis tournaments, some individual Sumo bashos last I checked, and even a few individual curling events. This is not a "walled-garden" argument and these pages have been both popular and functional for several years now. The UFC editing contingent has just been more organized than most of those other sports (probably due to a larger fanbase as a reflection of its larger popularity). Can we please not devolve back into completely ridiculous edit wars again? Also there is a Featherweight World Title match and a Light-Heavyweight #1 Contender's match on this card but that shouldn't even matter. What is worth noting is that on any given UFC event there are between 9 and 13 fights with separate ramifications across 8 weight divisions (11 is the usual number). By that standard no one is asking to give pages for individual episodes of the UFC's reality show The Ultimate Fighter, which usually has one fight an episode, but individual seasons all get their own page and that has gone unchallenged. Beansy (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While it may not be big news to some of you, it is major for MMA fans which is an extremely large portion of the population and growing. IF you think in this way, then delete all of the future Super Bowls, College Bowl games, NBA Finals, etc. This is a major sport and many people use wikipedia to learn more about the UFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbin630 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But WP is not a news source, it is not the place MMA fans should come for news and results, our long standing policy is clear on that. Mtking (edits) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. It's a notable event. --Hmich176 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of cause it is relevant, WP is not a sports speculation or results service. Mtking (edits) 05:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias do provide results of important events. --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that speculation is not permitted on Wikipeidia. With that being said, if speculation is written in an article, remove it. The event has been announced, so it's not a speculatory article. I'm not sure how your argument of Wikipedia not being a results service is relevant. There are many articles which provide results of games. UFC information is just as valid as MLB or NFL scoring information. --Hmich176 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Gonzales keep per WP:DENY as it is obvious the nominator is just a deletionist fan boy trying to create a compendium of Afds. Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles; it is not a collection of deletion discussions. The article clearly passes WP:N and WP:RS (policies) due to extensive coverage in neutral sources with a reputation for fact checking. Saying otherwise is akin to saying butts don't defecate! --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet[reply]

  • Keep There are numerous sources for this article and it's not even an event taking place this year. It'll be headlined with a title fight (source), the co main event is set to be a fight between the top two contenders in another division that will likely determine the next title challenger, and these are just the first fights announced. The fact that wikipedia isn't a results site is fine, nobody expects it to be. But it's been shown, multiple times, that these events are notable. A championship fight, a fight with contenders that will shape the division for the coming year, huge impacts that will be cited back to for months and even years to come. If you've ever noticed, every fighter bio on the site links to the event pages so that's one major clue that they're not just routine coverage and boom, irrelevant. Does it really matter that the Patriots beat the Jets in 2007? Not really, no. The season's over and they're moving on. But because of the difference between MMA and other sports, any particular fight becomes a major part of somebody's career. Victories that sparked large momentum, losses that led to a downfall, etc. This is all worthy of note in an encyclopedia because it's relevant when getting context. That's my two cents on the matter. THEDeadlySins (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment this issue needs to be resolved in a different way than individual page AfDs. The user Mtking has now taken part in the 100+ mma AfDs. two interesting examples would be UFC 152 now a B class article, and UFC 148 which has been nominated as a good article. the focus should be on building high quality articles, not bulk deleting mma articles. i would really like to see some sort of Dispute resolution on this issue as it does not seem to be working itself out. Kevlar (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SPORTSEVENT as the article contains virtually no well-sourced prose and is largely just a list of future, anticipated, fights. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Brandon Sanderson. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson's Second Law

edit
Sanderson's Second Law (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 of notability per WP:V#Notability; no third-party sources cited. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's First Law, but more so.  Sandstein  21:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Brandon Sanderson. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson's First Law

edit
Sanderson's First Law (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 of notability per WP:V#Notability; all cited sources are of the self-published variety. Could be mentioned briefly in the article about the author instead. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's Second Law.  Sandstein  21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Brandon Sanderson; law is not inherently notable but may be usable as a search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above (might want to edit down/combine with his Second Law). A web search shows the phrase is widely used in fantasy fandom (blogs, forums, sites like TVTropes). It may be possible to find passing mentions in WP:RS sources (e.g. published book reviews in specialist journals) if you look hard enough, but it doesn't come close to notability requirements for a stand-alone article (notability would require detailed discussion not just mention and definition). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted G1 by Amatulic (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kizh Gabrielenos

edit
Kizh Gabrielenos (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)

It’s not clear what page is: original research? and/or copyright violation? and/or republication of primary sources? In any case it doesn’t appear to belong in Wikipedia. It seems to be connected with the same author’s rejecting the redirection of Kizh Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians to Tongva people. —teb728 t c 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) —teb728 t c 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unanimity that the subject fails to meet the notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Domínguez

edit
Jeff Domínguez (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 minor league free agent... article has a few sources but this guy is already 26 and seems like a run of the mill career minor leaguer Spanneraol (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Th. Gries

edit
Stefan Th. Gries (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)

There are concerns about the notability of the subject, the source of the content (appears to be copy/pasted from several sources online), and the style of the article (needs lots of cleanup). The copy/pasting may not be a breach of copyright if the subject is writing the article himself, but then the issue of autobiography and notability is raised. FratHoneyBee (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second paragraphs were once all of the Amazon pages for Stefan Gries, but they were removed recently. They still appear when phrases are searched with Google. The first paragraph appears here: http://books.google.com/books?id=c6Ii092IX9oC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249 The second paragraph appears here: http://english.ua.edu/life/symposium Most of the third paragraph appears here: http://www.ugent.be/doctoralschools/en/doctoraltraining/courses/archive/2012-2013/2012-2013-digital-humanities.htm

There is a notability argument on the article's talk page that goes along the lines of the journal he is editor of was founded by himself, and thus not the same as being appointed the editor-in-chief of an established top journal in the field (rather than a journal in a sub-field). FratHoneyBee (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According the 'professor test', "[a]cademics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.":
"1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
As of 11/1/2012, Gries has an h-index of 25, >2200 citations on Google Scholar, and he has given >10 invited plenaries in the last 6 years (source: <http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/overview-research.html#PastPresentations>). Gries currently serves on 10 editorial boards of journals and book series.
"2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."
Gries has been awarded the Honorary Liebig Professorship of the Justus-Liebig University Giessen, only the second such professorship to be awarded (source: <http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/other/private.html#Experience> and <http://www.giessener-anzeiger.de/lokales/hochschule/11163781.htm>).
"4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."
Gries has authored the only textbook on corpus linguistics with R (reviewed positively in the field's premier journal International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, on the field's largst newsgroup (LinguistList), and on Amazon) and one of only three textbooks on statistics (reviewed positively in the field's premier journal Language, on the field's largst newsgroup (LinguistList), and on Amazon)for linguists with R (
"8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area."
Gries has been co-editor-in-chief, then editor-in-chief, of the international peer-reviewed journal Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (source: <http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cllt>). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.246.106 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The article has been around since it seems 2007, the fact that academic departments or events needing to characterize the scholar in question use the Wikipedia article should not be held _against_ the article, but _in favor of_ it. Thus, given teh age of the article, it is not article that is pasted together, it's pages at ugent etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.246.106 (talk • contribs) 18:35 1 November 2012
  • Keep but reduce to stub - As far as I can tell all of this article has been copy/pasted, they match almost exactly the text in the links provided above by the nominator. The first and third paragraphs could be seen as copyright violations and should be removed, the second link doesn't seem to be copyrighted and could stay, but may need to be cleaned up a bit. I think there is enough evidence that the subject meets notability (as pointed out above by 184.189.246.106 ), so once the copyrighted text is removed there is no reason to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the nominator, it is clear that my vote is delete, but I wish to address several of the points that 184.189.246.106 made.
1. This doesn't seem to be automatically satisfied just with citations.
2. It is not clear that this award is on the same level with awards listed in the criterion (e.g. Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History).
4. Just because the only textbook written in a field was authored by Gries does not imply it has a broad impact. Further evidence of this is needed.
8. The webpage for CLLT states that it is 'newly founded'. The issue is that this is a new journal started by Gries and being the Editor in Chief of it does not carry the same weight as being the Editor in Chief of an already established journal.

Moreover, there is substantial evidence that the page was created by Stefan Gries (see User talk:Stgries). This is a contradiction of what Wikipedia Is Not (Self-Promotion and Autobiography). In the end, I think this article should be deleted and, if someone else starts it from scratch later, let it stay. But this page seems to be used by Stefan Gries as a means of self-promotion. FratHoneyBee (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10 as much of it was a personal attack on a named person. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--xanchester (t) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in america

edit
Problems in america (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 with no citations. Wikipedia is not a host for essays. Article title indicates a POV and is not impartially descriptive. Contains a section that qualifies as a WP:ATTACK. Prod was contested. xanchester (t) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Roberts

edit
AfDs for this article:
Brandon Roberts (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 minor league baseball player who is a free agent. Previously nominated for deletion as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players - Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has anyone else looked at the edit history of this article? The first AfD cited above right was regarding a minor Australian author; the current article concerns an American minor league baseball player. Somehow the edit history for these two different subjects has been combined (see [diff]). Can someone explain to me what the heck is going on? 18:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like an unintentional history merge. Both the writer's and the baseball player's articles were deleted at different times. When the player's article was undeleted, the edits for both articles were restored. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlin Vassilev

edit
Orlin Vassilev (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)

Blatant autobiography which adds insult to injury by attempting to explain why references are not available. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article points out itself, this is unreferencable. Morwen (Talk) 19:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FRom user Orlinski": OK, edit it, just dont removbe it! The world needs t6o know about certsin people! So i am not in the NY times - is this a reason to delete my article??? Again, every word in it is true, checkable, and i have not made judgements inside there. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.93.18 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails our fundamental policy of verifiability. If this artist is selling his paintings and making a living, good for him. But without any reliable sources being presented or found, we cannot consider including such an article. The two references provided in the article puzzle me. The first is a book that was published in 1971 which predates the birth of the subject. The second article I must rely on a machine translation, but from what I can tell, the article is not about this subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just published the firsrt two articles mentioning my name. A search in google books or other verigiable sources shows my name a lot. 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.93.18 (talk)

  • Comment - I have no idea what two articles you are talking about but material that you publish about yourself is not usable for establishing notability. As for searching google books, the results are about other people named "Orlin Vassilev". -- Whpq (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Mallen

edit
Blake Mallen (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 executive. Appears to have no notability independent of the company ViSalus. A redirect to ViSalus has been objected too. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Subject isn't just an executive at Visalus. Subject is also founder of Visalus--a notable company--hence his notability. Carlang (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited by the executives of a notable company. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The rule certainly applies to executives working at the company. But isn't notability inferred when a person creates a notable company? i.e Zuckerberg is a founder of Faceboook--a notable company--and that makes him notable (alongside the other four facebook founders). Blake Mallen founded Visalus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlang (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gac

edit
Ian Gac (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 minor league baseball player who is a free agent Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on that argument, every single player in the Royals organization should be listed on that page (and every other player in every other organization on every other page for that matter). Some level of notability is necessary to prevent these pages from becoming cruft farms. I believe these pages should be reserved for players on the cusp of GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single player in the Royals' organization SHOULD be listed on that page, if there's someone interested in adding the information. Wikipedia is not paper. There's no reason to restrict membership to a totally arbitrary and unenforceable standard like "players on the cusp of GNG". Particularly given that we're talking about a player who won his league's MVP award in the not-too-distant past... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the inclusion criteria for the list in question don't say anything about it being exclusively for players on the cusp of individual notability. They just say, as follows, "Below is a partial list of minor league baseball players in the Kansas City Royals system." Well, Gac is a "minor league baseball player in the Kansas City Royals system". He falls under the stated criteria. If you don't want players like Gac on the list, you should try and get consensus to change those, first. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that adding every player in the organization would be cumbersome, making the pages useless, as it would be hard to find the more notable individuals in the sea of hundreds of, frankly, nobodies. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Reynolds (agriculturist)

edit
John Reynolds (agriculturist) (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 refs since tagged with {{notability}} in december 2007. If notable, refs should be added, or article recreated when someone finds a source. Bjelleklang - talk 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rizzotti

edit
AfDs for this article:
Matt Rizzotti (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 minor league player who is now a free agent. Page was previously deleted and then recreated. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I expected that I would endorse deletion after glancing at the article, but I found a good deal of coverage. Also note that the deletion you're talking about was from 2007, which was prior to these articles.[8][9][10][11][12][13] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He played in the Phillies organization...end of discussion. No, in all seriousness, I do believe that he's notable due to what Muboshgu presented. I've heard his name before, but that also has no bearing on his notability. So really the only relevant part of this tangent would be the second sentence. I think he's notable. Go Phightins! 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Katt

edit
George Katt (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 minor actor Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He made the page to gain notoriety"? Presumably a malapropism, unless you think he deliberately tries to get a bad reputation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is problematic because the subject of the article is in an editing conflict over content and is currently blocked. The subject has significant coverage in one reliable source: Interview in Greek Reporter. Looking at other coverage, it tends to be mentions in passing in film or theatre reviews, blog interviews, or comments in other non-reliable sources. He has an interview on Time Warner's "On the Beat", which appears to be a cable show. I'm not sure how important that show is, but we don't have an article on it, and there's little information available on the internet. I did note that at the start of the "On the Beat" interview he is described as "not a household name" - however, the interview appears to have been done in 2009. His films do not appear to be notable - the most recent is "In Montauk", made by an unknown independent film company, and directed by the little known Jonathan Spottiswoode. The film has not gathered reviews by any reliable or noteworthy sources. I think the subject is just bubbling under as regards notability, but he is not yet at the stage where a significant number of readers would be looking for an encyclopedia entry on him. The traffic to the article has been very minimal until the recent edit conflict. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that this is a definite keep, but neither is there a sufficient lack of evidence to say this is a definite delete. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SilkTork, you are normally a very reliable and careful editor, but I think you have slipped up on this occasion. You describe the piece in Greek Reporter as "significant coverage in one reliable source". However, Greek Reporter's self-professed purpose is to serve as a medium for people of Greek background to publish self-promotional material. Just to quote one sentence from the "about" page on its website: "However, we will try to promote your name and reports as much as we can", and there is a lot more conveying the same message. By no stretch of the imagination is it either a reliable source or an independent source. That is the one source that you seem to regard as clearly good, but I'm afraid you are mistaken. The rest of your post seems to say, in effect, that there are various mentions in sources, but that you are unsure how much they are worth. My own searches, once I had filtered out hits for other people called "George Katt", turned up, apart from the "On the Beat" interview that you mentioned, the inevitable georgekatt.com, IMDb, FaceBook, YouTube, vimeo, and Twitter, and some clearly promotional sites, such as independentfilmnow.com, which says of itself "IndependentFilmNow is a new website dedicated to providing independent filmmakers a unique, comprehensive space to promote their work". So we seem to be left with the one interview in "On the Beat", the value of which you are doubtful about. My searches about "On the Beat" have failed to turn up anything to suggest that it's a particularly significant source, but even if we give it the benefit of the doubt, that one source comes nowhere near the substantial coverage in multiple sources that we need. My conclusion is that there really is no evidence anywhere of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re the Greek Reporter and reliability -when I look at this page on the bottom right hand column, the submission portal is identified by the banner "YOU WRITE! WE DON'T EDIT" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that, but it gives even more support to what I wrote. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAP AG

edit
SAP AG (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 page, along with the numerous SAP-related pages to which it links, is just an advert for a company that doesn't seem especially notable. (Pages for similar companies have been deleted with broad support for doing so.) This article has been tagged as an advert for a year and a half with no improvement or claim to notability as far as I can tell. B.Rossow · talk 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are you serious‽ Asilv (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep 2e. While there's probably a valid argument that this article, and the related ones, are in need of cleanup, that's not what AFD is for. However, there really cannot be any serious argument that this company lacks a claim to notability. It is, among other things, the 3rd largest software company on the Forbes Global 2000. Globally scoped, widely-traded, multi-billion-dollar companies are virtually assured to have sufficient references available on account of their financial activities alone, much less their actual products. And, indeed, while I'd like to see more of the company-derived referenced replaced with third party material, there's plenty of sources already present, ranging from CNET to Der Spiegel to the New York Times. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep SAP isn't notable? Wikimedia probably runs some kind of SAP software, along with many major companies! Major stock, major German company, pretty much just as big as Oracle. WP:BEFORE definitely not done, this nom should get the WP:TROUT it deserves, along with the usual rebuke that "AfD is not cleanup". Nate • (chatter) 18:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - What! Nom may be right that some of the SAP pages could be merged, and perhaps that all need editing. WP:SOFIXIT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of SAP products

edit
List of SAP products (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 page, all of the pages it links to, and its parent page (SAP AG) are all thinly veiled (if that) adverts for a company that doesn't seem especially notable. (Pages for similar companies have been deleted with broad support for doing so.) The parent article has been tagged as an advert for a year and a half with no improvement or claim to notability as far as I can tell. B.Rossow · talk 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usher (application)

edit
Usher (application) (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)

One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor, sourced to regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emma (application)

edit
Emma (application) (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 software; no substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MicroStrategy Gateway

edit
MicroStrategy Gateway (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)

One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor, sourced to regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MicroStrategy Reporting Suite

edit
MicroStrategy Reporting Suite (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)

One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor. Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth

edit
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth (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:NBOOK. Rafy talk 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now.--Rafy talk 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but.... The page needs to make it clear it is not a mainstream idea. Look at Allegro's other book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and it rightly says it was described as "notorious and as one of the strangest books ever published on the subject of religion and pharmacology". That is "Allegro land". So this one was not as crazy as that, but still is far, far from mainstream, and should reflect that if it is to survive. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've mentioned "numerous rebuttals" and "some consider bizarre", which I consider a fair reflection of mainstream opinion. You may add to it if you like, but that's about all I see fit to write. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllotaxy towers

edit
Phyllotaxy towers (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)

The page seems to be about a prospective style of building designed by the writer. No evidence that any building have been constructed using this technique and no sources about this type of construction. There are two groups who have similar designs [14] [15] but dont use the term Phyllotaxy towers and these are concept pieces. The central concept has no references and fails WP:N. Salix (talk): 15:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This term doesn't seem to exist outside of uses by its creator. Similar concept projects use different terminology and are not directly related. Taking them as a whole risks novel synthesis, but still fails to demonstrate notability. Note that although the article is facially well-referenced, none of the references address the subject. Most of the citations are used to reference points unrelated to the topic (primarily, the lack of yards in traditional high-rise construction, and similar topics); those which appear to reference things directly related to "phyllotaxy towers" (such as the two references in the Outcomes section) do not mention the topic and do not support the claims they are being used to cite. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read References Has anyone above read entire of the article's references including five 300-pages books and 10 scientific papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I have not literally read every page of every reference, I have examined those which are available online. There is a great deal written in these works about sustainability, about interfacing with the environment, about considering climate and biology in new building design. There is not, so far as I have been able to determine, anything about "phyllotaxy towers". Nor have I been able to locate any substantive coverage in other reliable sources that are independent of its creator. I understand that the topics these references do discuss provide the background for this article's topic, but without similar references that directly address the topic, Wikipedia considers this original research and will not be able to retain it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indented line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia is a second-hand source of knowledge?

  • ALL OF THE ANALOG AND DIGITAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCES RELATED TO THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) The main problem is: Wikipedia MUST first asks ALL of the experts in the field of architecture and botany. Also editors of wikipedia MUST read all of the digital and ANALOG sources (one by one, page by page, line by line and word by word) about the subjects, because something may be found about "Phyllotactic Architecture" and it may take years and years. Without proceeding these stages Wikipedia hasn't the right to delete an article because it is an illegal action.[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a second-hand source of knowledge. It is a third-hand source of knowledge; a tertiary source. Wikipedia's policies prevent its editors from, for example, polling experts in the fields of architecture or botany. The results of such an effort would be considered original research and could not be included. Likewise, Wikipedia editors cannot reach a conclusion from disparate bits of information, even when the sources of that information otherwise would meet our standards for references. Here, that is called novel synthesis, and is considered another form of original research. I understand that you are saying the sources cited in this article contain the information that you have syncretized into "phyllotactic architecture" or the design of "phyllotaxy towers" (or any similar phrase). But those sources do not make those connections themselves; they do not use those terms. For inclusion of a concept, reliable third-party sources must address it directly and must provide it significant coverage. And at least at the present time, I do not see evidence of any such sources that have done so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


--2.187.98.165 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)You do not see evidence of any such sources because you can not see all the sources about the subject. Just everybody can do such a huge work (It can be a research itself). Therefore, there is always possibility to exist such a phrase in for example an analog book in indian pesrsian or Japanese language. who knows? It will take some years for you to prove it.[reply]

You have it backward. The burden of proof is on you to find such a source if you want to keep the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There's an expression says: Just everyone knows every-things.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Degree

edit

Who has any official academic Architecture PhD. Degree here? I think it's better to ask an expert in the field.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can not judge an article just through searching a "phrase" on Google. there are lots of analog books and other sources we don't know about them. just scientists in the field can judge truly.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak point of Wikipedia

It's very weak point of Wikipedia that only 2 or 3 people participate in most discussions!!!

A new source

You can find more about "phyllotactic architecture" here--2.187.126.37 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still doesn't support the claims in the article. The article talks about applying phyllotactic patterns to high-rise construction. The reference provided (a published doctoral dissertation that is a reliable, if primary, source) only makes brief mention of application to physical building construction, where it cautions against direct application to supportive structure, and is concerned primarily with domes regardless. Furthermore, even if the community were to concede that this reference did contribute toward notability for the article's topic, Wikipedia's inclusion standards require multiple, independent, third-party sources. As an aside: it would probably not hurt if someone was willing to refactor this AFD discussion for readability; as I'm clearly involved in the discussion, that someone won't be me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2 Case Studies

Comment, Analysis, Refactoring of Discussion

edit
  • Well, since there's an open invitation on an undoubtedly interesting topic, let's be bold and venture a try. I've not often seen an AfD where both points of view were so clearly at cross purposes.
The Phyllo-architect(s) believe that a concept - let's call it "Phyllotaxis in architecture", say, is interesting, well-defined, and plainly discussed in numerous reliable sources such as (... Le Corbusier ... P for Thames Gateway ... in Eden Project Arno Pronk Jerry Tate: Eden ...P in Shadow Pavilion ...P for Domes and indeed the seeming CoI source Phyllotaxy Towers by Saleh Masoumi. What, the architects ask, isn't that easily enough RS for you guys?
In the opposite corner are the experienced Wiki-pundits. They believe that an article that reads like an essay by someone clearly unacquainted with the finer points of citations and unafraid to be an expert in a lofty profession is positively unencyclopedic. Why, the article reads as if it was written by an architect! And a careful Google search for "Phyllotaxy Towers" returns no result but a CoI! Let's take it to AfD at once.
There is, I think, easily room in Wikipedia for a new, properly sourced article on "Phyllotaxis in architecture". Whether that article would be named "Phyllotaxy Towers" is, I suspect, quite doubtful - Domes and the Eden Project don't fit in that box at all easily. The white tower image from the article at AfD would do nicely as an illustration - if we can clean off the watermarks (more cross purposes). The article would bluelink neatly to Biomimicry, Patterns in nature (blushes), and to Kröller-Müller Museum and Jay Kappraff, for example.
Finally, is there useful text in Phyllotaxy towers, and does it have worthwhile sources for the new article? I think yes. Does it need rewriting and citing with the sources listed above? Yes. Should we edit the existing or start over? We need to decide. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't normally like to play the role of the "Wiki-pundit" and criteria stickler; I think of myself as fairly inclusionist. In this case, though, the problem really is the content in the article. I think some intersection of biology-inspired structural design and architecture could form the basis for a properly sourced article, although I'm not at all certain what that article should be titled (personally, I suspect the solution is to widen the scope further for an article at biomimetic architecture, which has some currency in the field). In any case, it's not this. The problem here is that this is a single author's work, with a bunch of references that don't really support its claims. You'll note that most of the new references you provided are to dome-like structures, blobitecture, or ornamental construction. Reliable sources do not really discuss the idea of a residential high-rise on this model. They do not discuss the idea that apartments with more sky access might be psychologically considered houses. They do not discuss using a floorplan inspired by phyllotaxy as a means to put yards in apartments. They do not make the claim (or discuss the claim) that such a residential structure would have sufficient additional solar energy availability to negate or exceed the additional energy costs of climate control inherent in the larger surface area. Those are the salient points of the article, illustrated with computer-model mockup images that aren't declared as such. There may be (indeed, almost certianly is) article potential inherent in the broader topics, but what we've got at AFD is still all OR. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I've been making notes for such an article, and there is a place in it for a paragraph on towers, pointing out that they offer a neat way of giving each flat/apt. a bit of sky and privacy, ref Masoumi. The rest of the article, using the refs we've listed above, is on domes et al. Whether it's P. architecture or B. architecture is likely not v. important as we can redirect. The current WP:OR content is only causing confusion. Do we edit or WP:TNT? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have to TNT. Reliable sources in the field are just silent on the claims in this article, and the central issues to the mainstream field are very different than these. I'm not even sure we can import a paragraph on this tower material because the Masoumi ref doesn't appear to be a reliable source (Archivenue is a Wordpress site). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above - article is OR with sources that largely do not support the text as written. We believe that a different article on a broader topic such as Biomimetic architecture could with benefit use the sources discovered here, and could cover phyllotactic architecture in its various forms, including towers. Perhaps when various such towers have been built there will be sufficient sources on the narrower topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of not been proven theories on Wikipedia. why don't you delete all of them?--2.187.97.249 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to replace images with UN-watermarked ones...Regards.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHYLLOTACTIC ARCHITECTURE or PHYLLOTAXIS IN ARCHITECTURE

Phyllotaxy Towers (Phyllotactic Towers) are a kind of "Phyllotactic Architecture" or a sort of practical applying of "Phyllotaxis in Architecture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new Architectural System not an specific building

Important point is "Phyllotaxy Towers" ARE a system of architecture not just a specific building. on the other hand there would be different types of phyllotaxy towers with using different phyllotactic patterns for different geographic areas.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCED Institute of IT and Management

edit
SCED Institute of IT and Management (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)

Unknown organisation, does not meet notability criteria of wiki Shrikanthv (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any sources with Google. Might there be any offline sources that it is covered in? The article says "media reports on controversies with respect to its advertising and ranking", which rather strongly implies that. There is possibly a website for them at [sced-india.com], but that's got no content. I have no idea why it links to timi.edu, too: nothing apparent on that site about it. Copy/paste anomaly? Morwen - Talk 18:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed. - speedily deleted as A7 WilyD 08:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astron Charitable Trust

edit
Astron Charitable Trust (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)

Delete not finding any sources to show how this passes WP:GNG considered speedy nut thought that might be appropriate if there is references that can be found in the indian language Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maron

edit
Jordan Maron (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)

While there are some sources about this guy who creates song parody videos on youtube (as well as videos of himself playing video games), the coverage is not what I would describe as significant. Most of the coverage is news-like (see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E) along the lines of, "hey, go check out this weird video on youtube". He doesn't appear to pass any criteria at WP:CREATIVE. This is the fifth time this article has been created, the other four times it was speedy deleted A7. ‑Scottywong| express _ 05:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT applies to "actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities". Which one of those is Maron? ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENT can be vaguely construed. Its pretty unfair to throw Ray William Johnson into the same set of notability criteria as Ben Bernankee anyway. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Henderson (Singer)

edit
Ella Henderson (Singer) (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:CRYSTAL only notability is as a contestant on a talent show. WP:TOOSOON maybe if and when she wins and gets a record deal. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a redirect from Ella Henderson, and there doesn't seem to be any need for one at Ella Henderson (Singer). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Redirect the article titled Ella Henderson that redirects to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) to redirect back to Ella Henderson (Singer). She is one of the most noted performers on The X Factor UK aside from Rebecca Ferguson, One Direction, Leona Lewis and Little Mix. She is worthy of an article seeing that she is a favourite and is tipped off as the winner of the ninth season of the x factor. Ella Henderson (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Currently a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9)#Ella Henderson is sufficient. Should she win and do something notable is a whole other issue. WP:CRYSTAL is quite clear on 'She is worthy of an article seeing that she is a favourite and is tipped off as the winner of the ninth season of the x factor' not being a valid argument. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a contestant in a TV talent show is insufficient assertion of notability. her name redirects to the show article, which is enough unless she wins and gets a recording contact, which might then be seen as notable. References are not from uninvolved third-party sources.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Redirect the article titled Ella Henderson that redirects to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) to redirect back to Ella Henderson (Singer). Why can't it just be redirected? Why is it so hard to have a page for her? What have you all got against her? The only one being nice here is JamesBWatson who said to redirect. We are fans of Ella by the millions and we want to see a page here dedicated to Ella.Ella Henderson (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We already have Ella Henderson, and that is sufficient. As Cabe6403 said, unless she gets a recording contract, per WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball and this person is not notable at this time. Vacation9 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Redirect the article titled Ella Henderson that redirects to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) to redirect back to Ella Henderson (Singer). Why can't it just be redirected? Why is it so hard to have a page for her? What have you all got against her? The only one being nice here is JamesBWatson who said to redirect. We are fans of Ella by the millions and we want to see a page here dedicated to Ella. This person is notable. Tell that to the millions of people voting for he on The X Factor UK now. And tell that to the judges. The thousands of fan pages dedicated to Ella is outstanding. We as Ella's fans want this to happen. WE TRULY DO THROUGH AND THROUGH. Ella Henderson (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EllaHendersonSG (who signs as "Ella Henderson") has three times posted "redirect" comments. I have unboldened and struck through two of the "redirect"s. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being on a talent show is far from enough. Anyone can appear on xFactor, that doesn't make them notable. She has no record deal, she has no charted albums or singles, therefore she is not notable. Fan pages do not make a person notable. Also, the way you started your comment out is somewhat confusing anyway. I vote Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably therefore, any artist who has been reviewed extensively in intellectually independent published media (such as newspapers, internet etc.) is notable enough to justify a wikipedia list page of their own? Certainly, there are plenty of wikis out there of persons significantly less 'notable' by these standards than Ella Henderson?
Commentators on the side of deletion might need to consider whether or not they have the same definition of notability as Wikipedia which says that an entertainer qualifies if the person concerned "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"[2] which clearly this girl does (see the earlier anti-deletion posts in this discussion).
The article should not be deleted due to the author's biased approach and lack of referencing although editing must occur.

Missbad92 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. MBisanz talk 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giora Ram

edit
Giora Ram (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 evidence for notability, either by the GNG or WP:PROF. His company is not notable, his books are self-published, his papers are almost uncited--the two highest GScholar counts are 13 & 7. Highly promotional, so much so that it might even be a G11 candidate. I see my colleague Guillaume2303 has tried valiantly to fix it up, but after 2 months of work, ended up by tagging it for dubious notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the above based on Wikipedia's own rules and definitions about "notability"

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Criteria

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

Instead of one condition required, here are five:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Please see "Selected publications and research works" In addition see Microsoft Academic Search: http://65.54.113.26/Author/18014943 Cited by 14 authors

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. In 1975 Ram won the ILA/IPA price for the best scientific publication honoring the late David Levine, "Image processing by computers". 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

This list of scientific memberships appeared in the original submission on 19 June 2010, which was deleted on 29 March 2012 by Guillaume2303:

Scientific Memberships • Information Processing Association of Israel – IPA, since 1975 • Association for Computing Machinery – ACM, Voting member since 1981 • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – IEEE, Member since 1981 • The Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers – SPIE, member since 1982 • The American Association of Physicists in Medicine – AAPM, member since 1982

4. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Development of a new brain monitor, which was recognized and approved by the American Food and Drug Administration – the FDA.

5. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Ram published five books 2 in English and 3 in Hebrew in diverse areas. His first book about ADHD was published by "Gvanim" and it is recommended by the Ministry of Education in Israel. The other books were published with a collaboration of Beit Alim for the distribution in shops, such as Steimatzky and Tzomet. The books in English appear also in AMAZON and B&N.

GNG - "Giora Ram" –wikipedia in Google gives about 17,500 results most are relevant. More than 2 years this article appeared in Wikipedia, it was edited by many Wikipedians, who did a good job in revising it. Accordingly, it is obvious that this article falls within the scope of Wikipedia and should not be deleted.

Yesikan (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)(Note: User:Yesikan has made few or no edits outside of this and closely related topics. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment I'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding WP:PROF and WP:GNG. 1/ The link you give lists 5 articles citing Ram's works (with indeed a total of 14 different authors, not that this matters). This is way below what normally is considered notable here. At a minimum, several hundred citations would be needed. No disrespect intended, but I know undergrad students that have as many (or more) citations. 2/ That is not a highly prestigious award. 3/ Being a member of a society is not a distinction, usually all it takes is to pay the membership fee. What WP:PROF talks about is elected memberships that are a rare distinction. Ram has none, as far as I can see. 4/ Laudable as the development of a brain monitor may be, it only contributes to notability under this guideline if there are independent reliable sources that show that this has made an important impact. 5/ Publishing is what academics do. Writing 5 books is indeed an enormous amount of work, but, again, it only contributes to notability if others have remarked upon it. Being listed in Amazon is nothing out of the ordinary (they try to list every book published), the publishers were not highly reputable ones, and apparently nobody published a book review of any of them (again, reviews in blogs or on sites like Amazon don't count here). Finally, the number of GHits is irrelevant. But if a few of them indeed provide in-depth coverage of Ram, those could be used to establish notability. I haven't been able to find such, but perhaps you can. Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


*Comment –
Thank you for your prompt and detailed response. I hope you understand that as the contributor of this article I have to defend it…

Obviously, it is clear from your response that you realize the existence of contribution and notability elements, but not to the extent that you would expect from a top level of world famous scientist.
I claim that we can still find at least one element out of the five mentioned, or the combination of his total contributions, which will comply with Wikipedia rules. Before submitting this article, I have researched many similar articles in Wikipedia. I must say that there are many articles/individuals in this category whose contributions and notability are far less than Ram's.

Accordingly, deletion is a too radical step. I would recommend making the necessary revisions by other Wikipedians as they would find it needed and respect those (you included) who invested time in revising this article for the last two years.

Yesikan (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Bomberman video games. MBisanz talk 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberman Collection Vol.2

edit
Bomberman Collection Vol.2 (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 assertion of Notability, contains no independent links or sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless more Japanese sources are found. Buggie111 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The big thing about this is that the article isn't really a game, but a specific packaging of several of the games into one set. Sometimes, very rarely a compilation set of some kind or another (music, literary, games, etc) will achieve notability standards and merit an article of their own. This particular set does not seem to meet those guidelines and I notice that even the fan wikis specifically for Bomberman seem to lack any real coverage or material for this download only pack. If some Japanese sources can be found then I'm willing to change my vote, but I'm kind of doubting that any would exist that would be specifically about this particular pack rather than any of the individual games or series as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party sources or coverage to indicate notability. The article is a borderline "Speedy Delete" as it stands. --DAJF (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried CSD first, and it got denied because there was content... ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is done with this article should also apply to Bomberman Collection Vol.1 which has the exact same amount of content. Another suggestion could be to Redirect both articles to List of Bomberman video games.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Bomberman Collection Vol.1 shows RS coverage in PC Gamer (Issue 112, Vol.10 No.7, July 2003), ) as well (in the PC Gamer Reference Library). A single source doesn't argue for keep, but it's at least an argument for merge/redirect. I'd suggest merge/redirect for both of them to List of Bomberman video games. -Thibbs (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also coverage in Computer Games Magazine #152 (here). There may be enough to warrant a stand-alone article here, although the current state of the article is a joke. I'm still !voting merge/redirect but no prejudice against a later split. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Compilations of notable video games are not notable unless they themselves have received significant coverage. A mention in the List of Bomberman video games should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to List of Bomberman video games. Delete both and remove links from Template:Bomberman series. I could not find WP:RS for the game compilations. I don't think the name makes a great redirect. Unless someone disagrees then I believe they should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't done a thorough search for coverage of Vol. 2, but there is certainly RS coverage of Vol. 1. See my post above. That said, I'm agreeable to a merge rather than a keep for now since there's so little content. -Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mentioned it was really only a single source, but if you feel there could be a case made for keeping the other one, and this nominator has only nominated the one, then I would hold off on deleting the other until a proper discussion of it can be had. Regarding a merger, none of the information in the Vol.2 article is sourced. I added the game to the List of Bomberman video games. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I found another after that. The two sources I found for Bomberman Collection Vol.1 were PC Gamer #112 and Computer Games Magazine #152. There may be more - I haven't looked except just briefly. If there's nothing to merge except the title of the article because none of the content is sourced (and it's clear that there's very little content anyway) then a redirect may as well be set up until someone has the gumption to expand the article with RSes (if indeed any exist). -Thibbs (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Wouldn't this be useful as a disambiguation page? - 149.241.168.65 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bomberman Collection" might be a good disambiguation page if there were articles for "Bomberman Collection Vol.1", "Bomberman Collection Vol.2", and maybe "Hudson Best Collection Vol. 1 - Bomberman Collection". But just the term "Bomberman Collection Vol.2" (which is the topic of this AfD) is so specific that as far as I know it can only mean one thing. So I don't think a disambiguation page would help. A redirect, on the other hand, would be useful I think. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Body by Vi Challenge

edit
Body by Vi Challenge (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)

A transparent attempt to get two articles when there's barely enough for one. Unaccountably accepted from AfC, despite being a wholly promotional article with no notability separate from that of the company. It's already mentioned in the ViSalus article, I think sufficiently, but an alternative might possibly be a merge, since so many of the references for the two are identical. Of the references listed in the article: (:1) The Forbes article is about the founder of the company and merely mentions the Challenge (2) The Men';s Fitness article is primarily about Humphries, and incidentally mentions the challenge among other information concerning his chosen diet & his own promotional stunts (3) from the Washington Times is first of all primarily about the company and second is not a news item but a blog: "this is the Communities at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times." (4) CNN Money is about the founder (5) is PR, (6}, (7) & (8) are the company's own website. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I apologize if the page appeared promotional. The reason I submitted it through the AFC was because I was trying to protect against exactly that. During the creation stage, I sought advise from several wiki editors via the IRC channel and they assured me the Sandbox article was okay. I really do apologize. In line with DGG's suggestion, I've transferred some of the content of the Challenge program to the VISalus page. Given DGG's concern, this addition is mostly made up of the program's early history with nothing about it nutrition. I hope this was okay. I added that section because I thought it was considered normal as evident on other brand loss pages such as Slim fast and Special K. Still, I defer to your obvious experience and familiarity with Wiki rules. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes and how I can better serve.

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NotePub

edit
NotePub (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)

After a cursory search, NotePub seems to have had a couple of reviews in 2009, but nothing bigger than GigaOM. I couldn't find any other mainstream source.

I feel the article lacks in notability (and has few chances to gain traction in the future: development seems to have stopped). It's been tagged as such since last November and has not been improved since. -- Luk talk 09:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevocable fee protection agreement

edit
Irrevocable fee protection agreement (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 attempt made to show that this term is used by anybody. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scholarly source (International Finance Law Review) demonstrates this is a term of art in finance. A Google Scholar search also pulls up usages of the term in patent documents in the United States; all this proves it's something that is both utilized and commented upon by independent secondary sources. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Jennifer VanBaren's contribution to eHow: "An irrevocable fee protection agreement...is an agreement used with buyers and sellers regarding broker's commissions. It is a legal agreement that acknowledges that broker fees will apply as part of a transaction between a buyer or seller." Doesn't count towards notability, obviously, but it does explain the concept and illustrate that it is a term actually used in the real world, contrary to the intimation of the nominator. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Hall (Miami University)

edit
Brandon Hall (Miami University) (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)

The article gives no indication of why the subject is notable, and none of the sources are independent of the subject. A Google search has found no independent sources other than advertisements. (At most small portions of the information from the article could be included in Miami University and Edgar Ewing Brandon, if desired.) --Stfg (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Zombie. MBisanz talk 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Felix-Mentor

edit
Felicia Felix-Mentor (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:BLP1E All the "zombie" was known for was... Well, being a zombie! This fails notability guidelines and we should not have a biographical article on the zombie. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests it should be merged into Zombie rather than kept. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. The section Zombie#Haiti already mentions her name, this article could be redirected and merged. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zouzous

edit
Zouzous (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 one... thing is at all notable. I cannot even really figure out what it is. A "French dressing antenna"??? What the heck is that? The whole thing has something to do with foreign cartoons broadcast in France, but beyond that, I'm having trouble sorting the whole thing out.

References are all Primary, and in French. A Google search also turns up French pages.

Maintenance tags are repeatedly removed without being addressed. So given the lack of any real indication of notability, the lack of context of what it *is*, and the lack of good secondary sourcing to show notability, it's time for AFD. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"dressing antenna" is a literal translation of the French term "habillage antenne", which has established usage in French, presumably referring to a branded block of shows. If that's right, and it's a regular programme block on a major French television station, then it'll surely have lots of independent coverage, in French newspapers and trade journalism. That none of it is in English is besides the point. Morwen - Talk 18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been blanked by its creator and moved to L'article "Zouzous" en "English" n'existe plus! (the article "zouzous" does not exist in English anymore), which I suppose solves our problem. Morwen - Talk 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that new article titles a request for deletion? I don't know French, but that looks plausible. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin interpreted that author's actions to not show him/her wanting it deleted, which is fine. But that brings it all back to this AFD. I wonder if we have a language barrier issue going on here. The article is in English, nominally, but is incomprehensible in places. I have to wonder if it's an automated translation or a basic translation of something from someone with minimal English skills. The author has not edited any talk pages, so I also wonder if the various notices and edit notes are going right past them, if their English is limited. Maybe we should contact WP:France to try to get a French speaking regular to try to talk to the author. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed a request for assistance at WP:FRANCE. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a language issue resulting from poor translation. France 5 is one of the channel's of the public service franceTV and Les Zouzous is its morning strand for young children, equivalent to Ceebeebies on the BBC (though this is a wholly separate channel). The 5 website has a large area at the top which rotates with programme details and Les Zouzous appears there every few seconds. If you check the programme schedule (click GUIDE TV), Les Zouzous is not listed as such but the programmes in it are. France5.fr (bottom of page) gives a link to a dedicated Les Zouzous website, as this article indicates. Viewers of France5 will regularly see trailers and other info on Les Zouzous.
It seems to me that this a suitable topic for inclusion, but as it stands it requires someone to go over the translation (it for he, for example) which I would be happy to do if the article is kept. Emeraude (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As people here have mentioned, this article is about a TV channel, but is unclear. The article looks like raw machine translation, and as such can probably be rescued by some good copyediting or perhaps merging it into the article about france5. Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about a channel, but about a programming block on the channel. France 5 is the channel, Zouzous is... something else. At least as far as I can tell. That might make it the equivalent of Adult Swim or others at Category:Television programming blocks. That still does not guarantee notability, but it's looking more likely. If someone could just come up with a couple of independant Reliable Sources, this could be settled once and for all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Adult Swim personally, but having read the article I'd suppose that it's very similar to Les Zouzous, though the latter is probably bigger, at least within France. A google.fr search for "Les Zouzous" gives 821,000 results (though not alll will be relevant, and not, I know, conclusive evidence of notability). Programme-tv.com is one of many French listings mags with listings. Momesnet gives coverage. From news reports, Le Parisien reports that « Brico Club » will be transmited within "Les Zouzous" and Les Echos mentions Les Zouzous as a partner service in a report on the launch of Sony's Google TV. Emeraude (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to poor translation. This deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation once someone is willing to write an English-language article about this topic. In addition, many of the Google hits for "Zouzous" may be irrelevant to this article; both this article and its French original include a tagline differentiating this program block from Les Zouzous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's lots of hits for the term Zouzous, but they are in French and it's not clear if they relate to the French dressing antenna. English sources mention "Les Petits Zouzous are enrolling babies and toddlers for their ten-week, spring-term sessions."[18], "In addition, Poppy Cat started her French adventures in June, broadcast in the key Zouzous slot on France5."[19], "La Zouzous WebTV "[20]. In the end, with few English languge sources, this topic requires someone willing to write a sufficiently coherent English-language article about this topic before it can remain in article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of French readers in English Wikipedia - the fact that an editor cannot read French is not grounds for deleting an article. Previous comment distinguished Google hits for Les Zouzous and Zouzous; indeed, they are not necessarily synonymous. However, I oppose deletion on grounds of poor translation - since when have grounds for deleting a Wikipedia article included the quality of the writing. Half of WIkipedia articles are very badly written, but this is grounds for requesting an improvement, not deletion. I have already ofered to do a rewrite if the article is kept. Emeraude (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have just done a rewrite of the article, in English English. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (Non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 02:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Deronda (film)

edit
Daniel Deronda (film) (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 assertion of notability, only source is a database entry for the film. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If all else fails, I've merged some of the data from the movie and the serial into the main article for the book (should've been a subsection for them anyway) and the article can redirect to Daniel_Deronda#1921_film. I'll see what I can find, though. Schmidt is usually a whiz at finding sources for these older movies, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Sahota

edit
Garry Sahota (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 model with a few minor roles in music videos and supporting roles in a few films. No evidence of non-trivial 3rd party coverage (references mostly only mention him in passing or credits, or are video clips). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's a genuine personality who is notable as a UK based model cum Indian actor who is in his initial stage of his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.211.153.3 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — 106.211.153.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have read this page and the refrences very carefully and it doesnt looks self published or unknow person. If its mention that he's the member of CINTTA then after visiting to the website of CINTAA i can say no non-notable person can join CINTAA coz its the Cine and TV artists Assosiation and the CINTAA is one of the most known Assosiation in Bollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.2.28.232 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — 101.2.28.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could not easily find any sources, so I'm fairly sure he fails to be notable. Two of the people saying "keep" are IP-address people who haven't made many edits, one of whom defeats his own keep point (being a actor in the early stages of his/her career is not a valid reason for an article), and the other one makes a confusing point - people do not inherit notability from the company they are either working for or affiliated with. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No decent sources. No news hits for either Garry Sahota or Gurwinder Sahota. Maybe one day, but right now, no real evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. One of the delete recommendations occured before additional sources were provided and the editor never returned to confirm their delete afterwards. The nominator appears to have accepted the notability of the subject (although not the content of the article) by creating a fork article. This leaves only one other recommendation for delete. The creation of a fork article is entirely against guidelines and cannot be allowed to stand. I note that ANI has already censured Olowe2011 for doing this. As part of this close I intend to undo the fork by merging Music Boulevard into MusicBlvd. This will be a simple paste of the material with no attempt at copyediting. I leave it to editors of the article to do whatever is needed with the material. I am only here addressing the issue of an unwanted fork and this action is not to be taken as endoresment of material in either article; that is a matter for content editing. Nor is the action to be taken as endorsement of the current article title: editors are free to move it to a different title. Evidence has been presented at this AfC that the current website musicblvd.com is not the same as the subject of this article. Consequently, the external link will be removed from the article as part of this AfD pending further evidence. SpinningSpark 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBlvd

edit
MusicBlvd (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)
Added Music Boulevard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is clearly falsely advertising this organisation / company and could be seen to be purly advertising. This company is not notable and the sources / references used in this article provide little information to prove this article notable. As said the sources quoted are either dead-linked or self published. Olowe2011 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - How is a fast company link self published? The other editor already cleared this page. TrystanBurke —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment&Strong Delete - The article claimed and I quote MusicBlvd is partnered with Billboard.com, Musixmatch, and YouTube which you have quoted no sources for whatsoever. Just because you have accounts on Twitter, Youtube and billboard.com does not mean you are partnered. The accounts on Twitter (Has 2 followers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012 GMT) and Youtube (Has 2 Subscribers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012) which both indicate lack of notability. MusicBlvd has little indication of why it is culturally significant. I view this article to be in violation of WP:SOAP . Section 6. of that clearly states that All topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources. This article also violates the section External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. This organisation I don't really consider, myself as a major organisation. WP:COMPANY is a guideline that highlights the various different ways an article can be notable. The article also only appears to list Pro's for this organisation therefore does not seem to demonstrate a WP:NPOV. I'd also like to point out that the article Gracenote makes no references to MusicBlvd and that the following Source appears to indicate a company by the name of Music Boulevard and not as the article indicates MusicBlvd. Overall I have quoted the problems with this article and if there is anyway in which you could improve it to a point in which could be seen to compliment the WP:POLICIES it would satisfy me personally however, this AfD debate is to gain overall consensus and I cannot speak on behalf of other people so I will look forward to what other editors have to say. --Olowe2011 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - No, Olowe2011. This article absolutely doesn't violate the section "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article". Read that line carefully. The website used in the company infobox is the company's website. This is the second time I notice you making this claim. From briefly looking at this article it looks fine. Adweek, Business Wire, and NY Daily News are all RSes. The refs aren't very impressive, but they're not AfD worthy. WP:SOAP is about keeping unrelated material off of wikipedia. We don't want the article on law review journals to become a linkfarm for all ABA accredited schools to promote themselves, but if it's an article on the Harvard Law Review then it's perfectly acceptable to contain a link to the Harvard Law Review's webpage. That's not SOAP, that's common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - From the cited sources on the page the company doesn't seem to be a Major organisation as sited in my comment the facts behind this judgement I cannot see why this is a problem. The page name doesn't even relate to the sited sourcing on the page. Clearly this is a remake of a the previous company or of some sort. All references are from 1995 or similar dating and as I said relate to a different named company. There is no sourcing to indicate why this company / organisation is credible. Under current Wikipedia guidelines (in which I am very familiar) an article should prove its significance in a number of ways and reliable sourcing is one of them. If you have a personal issue with me that causes bias towards my posting I'd prefer for you to discuss this on my talk page rather than objecting to everything I post however I appreciate your feedback. As I stated above the only sourcing to this article is the social networking links and sources quoting a different named organisation as Music Boulevard and not MusicBlvd. There is no evidence to prove this company has any relation to that one. I also quoted WP:NPOV because the article does not give a balanced view on the topic. Due to the numerous issues in this article it does fall under the right category for an AfD nomination. I would also like to make clear that other than yourself this topic seems to have no significance at this time to other members of the community. The article MUST prove it's notability in which it doesn't. Therefore I have made this AfD as a matter of numerous problems with the article which I cannot see being fixed due to the lack of reliable information on the topic. In response to your comment about the Harvard Law school this has clearly proven itself to be a credible organisation via good sourcing and proof clear evidence of notability. Regards --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no bias toward you, Olowe2011. I have a bias against misinterpretation of WP:SOAP. The only reason I posted here was because I'd seen a similar misinterpretation applied to the target of your last AfD and I thought it would be good to address. The problem with your suggestion that MusicBlvd is not a "major" organization is that this is just your subjective opinion. There is too much ambiguity in the term "major" for a single editor to make unilateral decisions to strip official urls like you have done in at least two cases now. Generally if the topic of an article is a notable website then the website's homepage may be linked as an external link within that article. That's not a violation of SOAP. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Suggestion - Due to your clearly demonstrating skills in making a quality and well sourced article it would be amazing to see you re-create an appropriate and correctly named article Music Boulevard. I am sure you will do a great job and I look forward to seeing this article. As for this one it looks like a advertising pitch if you don't take a brief look and look into it in more detail you might find you agree with my comments. But as I said if you created that article as a history to this it would be great. --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you've gone ahead and created Music Boulevard??? I've never seen a stunt like this at AfD before. This is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Qworty (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI--This matter of creating a new article just to make a WP:POINT has been referred to AN/I [21]. Qworty (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I have stated in the referenced incident it was not to make a point it was to create a relevant non-related to this article content in which as stated this article provides not evidence of its connection to Music Boulevard created in 1995 therefore I have created one about the one founded in 1995. This article is about a new site which has been recently introduced. If I had made that article as a direct result of this AfD and it was the same content and same topic I would understand your notice to WP:POINT otherwise the article I have made has no connection to MusicBlvd. Regards, --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Telling a user how good they are at making an article is not mocking them I genuinely believe he can make great contributions therefore have asked him to contribute in an article with a relevant name sited in sources. In the new article I have used the correct name referenced in the sources and am developing it for the good not for bad. The AfD only bought my attention to this organisation and I honestly with good intentions have made comments. The guy Thibbs is really good at making amazing contributions and has restructured articles I have commented about before with great effect. I have done this as I said out of good intentions and that to create a quality article. Secondly the new article Music Boulevard is not relevant to MusicBlvd as that article does not highlight any evidence of connection to the Music Boulevard created in 1995. --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing much evidence of notability here, very little coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK I actually bothered searching for further sources now. There is plenty of RS coverage in addition to the sufficient RS coverage the article already had. I just added refs from Boston Globe, Washington Times, Star Tribune, Information Today, and Broadcasting & Cable. More sourcing is readily available. Recommend WP:BEFORE next time. -Thibbs (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the news sources have the name MusicBlvd only with little else. Some provide a little more context: Star Tribune March 15, 1998 mentions "N2K's musicblvd.com features a Frequent Buyers Club, access to MTV news and Billboard charts, while CDNow is strong on music-related merchandise, such as album art posters and band T-shirts." Boston Globe December 25, 1998 mentions some musicblvd.com details. Music Boulevard and MusicBlvd are one and the same. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize you're talking about degree of coverage which is a somewhat subjective determination, but it's hard for me to accept that the AdWeek and Information Today articles don't provide thorough coverage. Did you look at them? As you pointed out the Boston Globe's article also covers the topic pretty well and taken together with the Star Tribune article you linked it really looks like the GNG has been met. There are also articles like this from Kiplingers, this from Target Marketing, and another comparative article from the Washington Post here that all cover the topic in some depth (each of those articles has at least 5 paragraphs devoted to the topic).
      The question isn't whether comparatively more of the total coverage is significant or trivial. If this were the baseline then all articles would fail. Instead the question is whether there are multiple reliable sources significantly covering the topic period. I'd say that the RSes listed (Adweek, Information Today, Boston Globe, Star Tribune, Kiplingers, Target Marketing, etc.) demonstrate significant coverage and thus meet the basic threshold. The scads of other RSes where MusicBlvd receives only a few lines to a paragraph are perfectly acceptable for filling in details. -Thibbs (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Where is the evidence the links used to connect this Music Blvd with the one founded in 1995 are even related ? Also why is this article keeping getting written as if its in the present tense when there is no evidence to validate the company still existing other than social media pages with similar or the same names which could just be coincidence. There is actually no present referencing to prove this company still exists so why doesn't Advertising content stop being added? The sourcing point towards a company that EXISTED however, no longer. So I think some care over tense needs to be considered before even attempting to re create this article. Going on basics to what you have added so far the article should still be deleted in respect it no longer is notable (might have been in 1995 however clearly lacks it now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olowe2011 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The proof that the 1995 company is the same as the current company is presented in the article itself, and the website is still active. Assuming the URL hasn't been usurped by another company (a matter which would need evidence of some sort) I don't think your swapping the tense is appropriate and it's not in line with Wikipedia's standard practices. Look at Napster for an example of an ex-organization that is discussed in the present tense. It's a convention to cover topics in the abstract present tense. I'm not sure where this is codified, but you can see examples all over Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (striking end because I can't find anything about this in the MoS. Maybe it's just up to editorial discretion... -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
          • Anyone can re create a social networking site or buy a ___domain name which is the same or similar as an old company which had credibility. However this in itself doesn't make the reestablished company automatically notable just on the basis it uses the same names as a company in which was. It is like if a major food chain from 1995 (lets use the name FOODSTORES as an example) went bankrupt or was dispersed and then later a new business person decided to re create FOODSTORES with a website and created social networking sites however, apart from the name and purpose that's where similarities end. It would be like in that case, an article being made on Wikipedia for this new company (which describes this new company) with references from 1995 and only siting social networking mediums and its official website as any form of evidence it still exists. I am sure it is very simple to find a popular company from the 1950's that doesn't exist anymore and then take on its name then write an article on Wikipedia for it then to justify it existing using references from the old company. This is basically misinformation and could be seen as a blatant act of advertising using other peoples company information to justify your own companies on Wikipedia (on the sole basis you named it the same as the one you reference), which I must add is defiantly not what Wikipedia is for. In response to your request for evidence in regards to the website it is not for me to prove the website has a connection to this article. It is for the editor who wishes to contribute such content to prove in such circumstances notability is questioned, using references to prove the material is factual (See WP:VERIFY.) In this case, there are absolutely no sources that prove this company is still existing under which terms made it notable in the first place. As stated before anyone could have created a website using the ___domain of an old company / organisation and post it to a Wikipedia article. --Olowe2011 (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reliable sources all say that the website for Music Boulevard/MusicBlvd is www.musicblvd.com. That is the proof that www.musicblvd.com is the website for Msuic Boulevanrd/MusicBlvd. The RS states it in plain English. If you suspect that the website has been usurped by a modern day competitor or another company hoping to capitalize on the goodfaith of the former company then it's on you to prove that. The burden of WP:VERIFY regarding the website has been met by the Broadcasting & Cable source's statement that "N2K['s] first effort online was Music Boulevard (www.musicblvd.com)" and by Information Today's claim that "Located on the World Wide Web at www.musicblvd.com, Music Boulevard is a...". The burden now shifts to the editor making the claim that despite this evidence the website is actually controlled by another entity. Making vague claims about brand names from the 1950s isn't good enough. -Thibbs (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply - Once again, Them sources point to that being the site in 1995 there is no evidence to prove that website still exists with the same ownership as it did at the time it gained notability. There are no resources you can provide in this century and you are still fighting on the side of this article. And to do something you possibly should have done yourself I would like to point your attention to the following [[22]] look up which clearly indicates www.musicblvd.com was re registered on the 11-July-2003. Please explain to me why a site made in 1995 with 30 + Million views (in which by that standard this article topic is notable) was re registered by another person / entity other than which the article states was in control of the name. It is beginning to look like whatever you are faced with you will argue regardless which I hope doesn't represent an attack against my judgement as you have challenged me on the basis of me being new before I am wondering if that fact gives you bias onto my judgement. However, in this case I am right to point out the facts in which remain. There is no sources that can account for the company still existing now other than a website with the same name as the one created in 1995 (which as Whois states was registered by another entity in 2003.) You cannot prove that this company is still relevant or still has a major cultural impact. --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not "attacking" anything, and I newer "challenged" your newness. I do think that it's inappropriate to delete urls from company websites willy nilly based on the underlying theory that urls = spam in all cases. And in this particular case I think it's pretty obvious that the burden of proof lies with the party making the charge that the website listed in all of the reliable sources as the company website has been usurped by ne'er-do-wells. I do see your recent efforts to blank official company urls like this to be a misjudgment, but I recognize that you are doing this with good intentions. Fighting spam and promotional garbage is a valuable activity, and I applaud your intentions, but I think your efforts could be made with a greater degree of care. -Thibbs (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quoting the article: "MusicBlvd was the first music related and lyrics website in the world, with 80 million+ unique page views per quarter since 1998.[6] By 1998 it was described by The Boston Globe as one of the "big three" online music sellers alongside CDNow and Amazon.com, and MusicBlvd was lauded for its informative extras (links to artist biographies, reviews, features from a wide variety of national music publications, and a then-novel list of links to artists who have influenced the artist).[7] By 1999, the company was ranked 9th among all electronic commerce sites, with around 2.7 million visitors in the month of December alone.[8]". It sounds notable to me. Cavarrone (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- Firstly: subject is notable per coverage in reliable sources. (Oddly, the nominator even refutes their own claim that it isn't notable by creating a duplicate article at Music Boulevard.) The issues about relevant content within the article are for talk page discussions, RFC, etc. -- not an AFD.
Secondly: MusicBlvd or Music Boulevard (owned by N2K) was a major source of internet music in the 1990s (as described by the newspaper sources cited such as USA Today, New York Times and the book The Cdnow Story: Rags to Riches on the Internet. pp. 185–186..) MusicBlvd was bought by CDnow on March 17, 1999 [23] [24], because, according to the book The Cdnow Story: Rags to Riches on the Internet, it was their "chief competitor." CDnow was eventually absorbed by Amazon.com in 2002. [25] The current musicblvd.com ___domain appears to be owned/operated by a company unassociated with this subject, just like the current cdnow.com. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you review the article history you will noticed on which grounds it was nominated. Since it has undergone significant changes / improvements by myself and another editor. If you read what the article originally said and made reference to then you might agree at the time it would fall in line for AfD. --Olowe2011 (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although there were a number of keep recommendations "article is useful" is not a policy based argument. The only "keep" policy based argument came from Batard0 asserting GNG had been met but with no links to sources (and claiming a blog as a source) SpinningSpark 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proxmox Virtual Environment

edit
Proxmox Virtual Environment (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: There's been significant coverage on a ZDnet blog, which I find to be a reliable source in the context of the subject, and the same for Linuxuser. I'm not entirely impressed by these sources, but I think they are sufficient to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT guidelines. It needs a rewrite for encyclopedic style, but that's outside the scope of a notability discussion. --Batard0 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same concerns as Dialectric above. No independent secondary sources. Those linked above are entirely promotional. Also, there's no guarantee these blogs weren't written by advocates for this product. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Castronovo

edit
Vinny Castronovo (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)

Fearing the notability about this one. Perhaps I just don't have the right notes down about television people or dancers. I fear he fails GNG just by doing some online research. Doesn't appear to be a lot of reliable third party coverage about him, but, maybe just appearing on TV is all he needs. SarahStierch (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If appearing on the telly is enough, then an article is needed about me. He fails the notability guidelines and this article needs to be deleted. Op47 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Weight of an Empty Room

edit
The Weight of an Empty Room (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 appear to meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HueSatLum 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_November_6&oldid=1142633903"