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 someone else) under G7 after original author blanked the page. Mandsford 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No established notability. Doesn't seem to be covered in sources other than random web pages, blog entries and youtube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshio Yamaguchi (talk • contribs) 13:31, 30 January 2011
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.
Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. This BLP has remained unsourced for 3.5 years, if someone can add reliable sources that are more than trivial mentions and are independent of the subject to the article I'll withdraw this nomination. J04n(talk page) 13:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources found.--Michig (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meets WP:BAND ctiteria # 11. Corrected citations. One review in Exclaim![1] stating a stand-out track on a various artists compilation: is that enough? Exclaim! is approved per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites. Tour in Europe (per photo): can't comment; didn't search for that. Argolin (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim of rotation in the article is not supported by the reference provided. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A fictional character who has not developed real-world significance in that little to no independent reliable sources have about this topic. Fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (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.
No significant coverage in secondary sources. This person's supposed notability apparently rests on them having gone to Canada, been accused of things, and then been deported from Canada. That the accusations were made (and accepted by a court) seems tolerably well documented in reliable sources, but only a single search result for news coverage of that indicates a lack of widespread notability. Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to make this news item something worth keeping in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2011 (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.
Lesser known Newspeak term, with no effort to prove notability. Believe it to be largely non-notable, from google searches. Sadads (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing sets this particular word apart from the rest. The topic as such is covered well in Newspeak. If we really wanted to, we could have a list of all newspeak terms, but having a page on every single one violates WP not a dictionary - and that includes fictional languages. Travelbird (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two references. Technology like this is being developed, some of it already out there, and some reliable sources are making the comparison to Facecrime. DreamFocus 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. DreamFocus 11:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Newspeak words -- no indication of 'significant coverage' beyond direct discussion of Orwell's work. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Newspeak words. There's no substantial application of this that cannot be described simply in that list.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep article totally fails to assert importance but it does look like a film version is in the works, thus passing WP:BK. Can be deleted if film ends up not being made. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 31 January 2011 (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.
RedirectStygia (Conan) and Stygia to Hyborian Age. Plausible search term, and Robert E. Howard's fictional universe has enough notability (e.g. multiple derivatives works of fiction, from books, graphic novels, movies to TV series to computer games have made use of it) for its own article (though it could certainly use more sources).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree. Stygian was and is still barely a disambiguation page (I had to add Stygian Cove to give it more than one link with the word "Stygian" in it, and and the Graeae, aka the Stygian Witches of Clash of the Titans, to pad it some more). There are few actual articles that link to Stygian or Stygia. There are, however, many links to Stygia (Conan). The only non-Conan link to Stygia is at Glasya and refers to the Dungeons and Dragons layer of Hell which doesn't have its own article. The Glasya article itself does not pass any notability guideline and is about some obscure D&D non-player character, and the Stygia it meant to link to does not deserve mention in any disambiguation page. All in all, the only "Stygia" that has more than two links in the Wikipedia mainspace is the Conan one, thus Stygia should redirect to whereever Stygia (Conan) will be redirecting.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a merge rather than an outright deletion. Hyborian Age, as suggested above, would be a good target to merge it to. —Paul A (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stygia is a major nation within the fictional Hyborian world. Its geography and politics are extremely influential in many, if not most, of the Conan stories. The subject needs to be expanded, and the article needs better sourcing, but that is not a reason to delete. Dolovis (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is nothing in the article that suggests that the sources exist or that even there is enouhgh useful information to keep it as a seperate article. If we want we can certainly merge it into the main Conan Universe page, Sadads (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to agree with this assessment. I really wanted to say keep myself but looking for sources, I couldn't find anything of significance. I really thought it wouldn't be hard to find some scholarly articles about Robert E. Howard's fictional universe but it proved to be surprisingly difficult. As per WP:V, without explicit sources, it's not worth a separate article at the moment, so the most logical course of action is to work on improving Hyborian Age until there's enough sourced material to warrant a split.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article added by User:Kenoiyan which seems to be an avid fan of The Raven. However this particular product isn't really notable. Travelbird (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the product may be less notable - since it's a relatively new product - I believe there's enough dependable sources and references to keep the article online as a work-in-progress (stud) article. I would appreciate some help with polishing this article, its information, and its sources. Thank you. ^^ Kenoiyan (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Note that the many references in the article are really uncritical directory listings of apps. -- Whpq (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two reference links to critical reviews added (one academic). Kenoiyan (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see how they meet the criteria for reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable, third-party coverage. The sources in the article are essentially all first-party. The links that aren't the publisher's site are copies of a press release/blurb from the iOS app store. Two reviews from small blogs, which are not wp:RS. Searches turn up the same first-party stuff. »scoops“5x5„ 01:01, 8 February 2011 (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. NW(Talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List with unsourced claims that certain people support a certain theory. WP:OR, WP:BLP plus the fact that it is highly questionable if this list has sustained notability needed should the world not come to and end in 2012. And if is does - well I guess that's mute point as Wikipedia would no longer exist anyway. Travelbird (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Part way through this debate, user Zenji changed his username name to Accurate Nuanced Clear. See [2].
.......................................
Response from page-starter:
Notability of article increases massively if predicted 'changes' DO NOT occur. Because list will then be a publicly referencable list of people who made claims that turned out to be false. And if they DO occur, then notability is obvious.
These claims are now a major part of public discourse and are having widespread psychological effects.
Is this page more notable than these other wikipedia lists?:
I feel your trite statement about the 'mute point' (sic) about wikipedia not existing if "the world came to an end" may indicate a personal distaste for the subject that may have more to do with your desire to delete the page, than any logical reasons.
Delete - So wrong on so many levels. Organizing people based on an opinion of a future event seems to be a very weak method of categorization. Second, there is no 3rd party, reliable source provided that identifies these people as "2012 adherents" anyways, just the personal research/opinion of the article creator, which is not permissible per original research concerns. Finally, only 2 of the people on the list seem to be notable in their own right (Jenkins and Melchizedek), have Wikipedia articles at all. This is just a flawed premise all-around. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading in this week's Newsweek about George Lucas supposedly being a notable person who believes that the world is going to end in '12, I was expecting a list of adherents. This is just a list of people who have written books to capitalize on the 2012 fad, and I imagine they're socking away their earnings into IRAs and high-yield investments that won't mature for five or more years. Mandsford 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic. Not notable. Original research. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw this at WP:RfF, and agreed with another editor there that at the very least this article ought to have more inline cites to support inclusion in the list. That wasn't done, and anyway it wouldn't have helped any with the bigger problem of meeting notability requirements. There just aren't enough noteworthy people on this list for it to be of much encyclopedic interest. (And I must say that I am if anything counter-swayed by the tone and content of the argument presented by the article's creator on this page). WikiDao☯ 03:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is Original Research, based on Primary Sources, to lump together different people with different beliefs, based on their books, and then label them all as "Adherents". Adherents of what? It seems that they are all talking about different things: pole shifts, orion prophecy, awakening, etc. Any of these folks that are notable should have their various views presented at 2012 phenomenon, if at all. First Light (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: on notability and referencing
ARTICLE IS ONLY A STARTER: It needs people to add names to it. Isn't that the way wikipedia works?
NOTABLE ENOUGH FOR THE REST OF WIKIPEDIA: Most of the names on the list are considered notable enough to be put in bibliography of "The 2012 phenomenon". It also has OTHER names apart from these.
LIST NOT CREATED TO PROMOTE ANY AGENDA. I am a science major at a university that's part of the Australian equivalent of the 'Ivy League'. I did NOT put this list up here because I believe in their views.. I've only heard snippets of the claims and I'm agnostic' on it. But I know it is notable because it is having a major effect on the publlic consciousness:
NOTABILITY and related: This phenomenon is starting to have major psychological consequences on people. Take a look at the 6th paragraph of this post on a 'new age' site. 'Getting angry and disillusioned that certain aspects of this 'prophecy' is not coming true, a young teenager who believes in the phenomenon says:"I feel a strong urge to smash somebodies face right now... Hopefully it will hit the right person."'
Such a list will allow the public to check back on the claims of these people after the event
Suggested improvements and essence of my keep-argument
Somebody suggested to enhance the referencing by adding a quote from each 'adherant' that sums up their views, with an inline citation that refers to the page numbers in the book (or other source).
However frankly I don't have the interest to develop the article any further right now.
I only added it as a public service - because I can see the affect that belief in this phenomenon is having on people. This makes it notable.
If you delete it, I won't be back back to recreate an improved version - I just don't care enough, frankly.
And to be honest, the amount of energy people seem to be willing to put into destroying something rather than creating something - as well as the timed I've wasted defending something I think is obviously 'notable' - is a bit disillusioning.
If you do keep it, I may add the references referred to above later - but I can't promise anything..
However I do think it's notable enough to be improved, rather than deleted.
Bottom line. if you care about the accountability of public information, vote to keep it: it's in the public interest for a transparent list of people making these claims to be created while it's still easy to create such a list. Such a list can then be referred to LATER, WHEN IT MIGHT NOT BE SO EASY TO FIND REFERENCES TO THEIR STATEMENTS.
Acknowledgment You may be right, my contempt for the Y2K/2012/Chicken Little authors may be affecting things. I think it's fair to say, too, that we may be complaining about the title of the article which and our disappointment at finding something other than what we were expecting. For my part, this carries over to an needlessly sarcastic description of your work, and for that, I apologize. I don't want to discourage a new contributor. I understand a little bit better what you are aiming for, and I can see the encyclopedic value. We know vaguely that some people believe, or are claiming that they believe, that something bad is going to happen in 2012, though we laugh it off and don't take the time to ask what they say it's supposed to be. In the U.S., it ranges from Obama being re-elected to the election of President Palin. You might want to do what they call "userfying" your work until it has the appearance that you would want it to have. The way you would do it would be to create an article entitled User:Zenji/List of 2012 adherents and working on it in your own time, without anyone hitting the delete button. Generally, posting an incomplete article or a work in progress is a risky proposition. There was a time when one person would start an idea and others would happen upon it and edit it to add their own information, but Wikipedia became a victim of its own success-- people began taking it seriously, and the standards for high concept articles became higher, and it's no longer the bulletin board that it once was. Try the userfy thing; it's the way most of us create new articles, simply because we've had our own bad experiences here. Mandsford 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 phenomenon to the extent any of the material really belongs there (and if it doesn't belong there, it doesn't belong anywhere). The article's creator is wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Eeng that is a personal attack of the exact sort that prevents people returning to contribute to wikipedia.
Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Part way through this debate, user Zenji changed his username name to Accurate Nuanced Clear. See [3].
No, it was a carefully considered statement about your behavior, not about you. Your creation of the article may have been naive, but by now you've had plenty of time to review relevant policies and guidelines, yet continue to assert arguments which make no sense in light of them, such are your idea [4] that WP should act as a repository of various people's publiic positions for later reference. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and read (or re-read) WP:N and WP:ATA before adding more comments to this or any other deletion debate. EEng (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. This is not Twitter so cut it out with the silly @ stuff.[reply]
Comment I agree that the names and authors of the books mentioned in the article (by Caruson, Crowther, Geryl, Jenkins's three additional books, Melchizedek, Peterson, and Ratinck) can be added to 2012 phenomenon#References, and this can be accomplished without a merger discussion. The 2012 phenomenon article is excellent, although, at 69KB busting at the seams. There are other topics that have not yet been covered, such as persons who are followers (which would be my definition of "adherents") rather than leaders of the 2012 thing. What I'm inferring here is something along the lines of observing specifics about what bestselling authors are predicting, on or around December 23, 2012, some of whom are identifying other specific dates in the manner of The Amazing Criswell. As I've said earlier, it's better to craft and perfect new articles in userspace. For my part, I try to avoid the "L word" in titles. Mandsford 14:09, 2 February 2011 (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.
Self-promotion article created by User:Teamdennison . Local politician. Google shows almost exclusively hits for this person's own website. Fails WP:POLITICIANTravelbird (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. His candidacy in the general election does not make him notable. Snappy (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Snappy stated the article fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. What the hell is with the Blueshirts. There have been a good few articles about FG councillors who are running for election all of whom fail the necessary criterea. Exiledone (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am listing this as another editor wasn't able to list this properly on AfD. The reason for the PROD was "fails the general notability guideline" Travelbird (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, colleges of all sorts are notable. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe high schools are generally considered to be de facto notable and as a college this would be notable. OSbornarfcontribs. 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While California has some relatively low state accreditation standards for colleges, this still appears to be a real institution. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the original nominator (not sure what went wrong with Twinkle, sorry). This college fails WP:ORG, only local sources even mention it, and even then, only in passing. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "this place is real"; it's "this place is notable", and this college is not notable. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 04:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I understand the consensus for schools, it says that degree-granting institutions of higher learning are generally considered notable. However, this is not a degree-granting institution; it is a two-year college that only grants an associate of arts, and that AA is (by the article's own admission) mostly of use in transferring to colleges within this one's narrow circle of affiliated institutions. Basically this is a private, non-accredited junior college. It is only a "candidate" for accreditation by a religious accrediting agency, rather than actually accredited, and it is allowed to operate only because California has very loose standards for religious colleges. --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accreditation is not a necessary qualification for documenting an educational institution in a Wikipedia article, but a very quick look at the website for the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools indicated that this school has been accredited since 2007. Apparently it had not yet attained accreditation back when the last substantial editing occurred. (What happened to wP:BEFORE?) --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real, substantial school, and it's gotten repeated coverage in its local media, at least[5]. I don't see how it would benefit Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of education to exclude verifiable information about institutions like this one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasonings given by OrLady & Arxiloxos. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Amateur/semi-pro team that does not appear to meet WP:ORG. (Quite frankly, the league in which it competes might not either, but that's a discussion for another day.) Almost nonexistent coverage in WP:RS. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Kinut/c 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Social club.--Grahame (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by the looks of it, probably a step above being a mere social club (competing in a national tournament, albeit one of minimal notability), but the nominator is correct that there isn't really enough reliable coverage of the club for an article. Lankiveil(speak to me) 07:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable. Google searches find very little - mostly directory type information and social networking sites. The referenced CNN article consists of a single quote from her and nothing more. No significant coverage anywhere. noq (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. No substantial coverage actually about the subject in WP:RS to warrant a WP:BLP. Also apparent WP:COI, as creation of this article is the only edit by User:Gabbyrevilla. --Kinut/c 09:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure if this is the same person. But even if it is, it's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (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.
Prod contented, thus listed here. Non-notable book with no indication that it's even close to passing WP:NOTBOOKTravelbird (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BK. No WP:RS containing information, commentary, etc., to indicate WP:GNG is met. --Kinut/c 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK. Appears to be vanity-press or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Insufficient participation after two relists, but as there is no opposition to deletion the page will be deleted as though it had been an expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor/author, no major roles, no major books written. Corvus cornixtalk 08:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have played several minor roles, but coverage from WP:RS is very sparse and is limited to parenthetical mentions. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinut/c 09:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:19, 15 February 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP on a Chinese historian. Has lots of claims of notability, however the only thing I seem to be able to find is that he recently wrote a book entitled "Awaken Memoirs of a Chinese Historian ".
Amazon has the following author's (self-)description:
"Gu Chang-Sheng is The People Republic of China's pre-eminent historian of Christianity in China, respected both in the East and the West for his objectivity and intellectual rigor. He researched the history of Christianity in China for the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. During the Cultural Revolution, he spent three years in an isolation camp and seven years as a forced laborer in a factory. From 1976 to 1989, he taught history at Shanghai East China Normal University. Professor Gu was a Visiting Scholar at Yale University's History Department in 1985 and at Yale Divinity School in 1986. In 1989, the U.S. Congress invited him to attend the Presidential Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. Professor Gu remained in the U.S. after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre so that he could speak out for intellectual freedom and human rights. He has published more than 100 newspaper and magazine articles in the U.S., Canada, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Gu Chang-sheng is the author of nine books in Chinese, including Missionaries and Modern China. His most recent article, On Being a Historian for 50 Years, was published in China in July 2007; it was immediately banned and recalled by the Beijing government in August 2007. "
I find it a bit strange that there seems to be nothing else out there on him despite all these claims of notability and there seem to be no independent third party sources talking about him. Quite likely I'm just not apt enough to find things on Google, so if anyone can source these many claims I'm happy to keep the article. Travelbird (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a self-published memoir through Authorhouse which is if course completely useless for establishing notability. But it may be an aid to further research in finding reliable sources. This book indicates that Missionaries and Modern China by Gu Changsheng is a "standard Chinese text". This snippet indicates that there was some sort of broadcast review of the book but the snippet view isn't sufficient to identify exactly what the BBC monitoring service was listing. This book lists the the work as a resource. Note that the transliteration of the author's name is Ku Ch'ang-sheng. Clearly more work needs to be done on this article but these sources indicates that Gu is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that if we can get some editors who read Chinese to weigh in here we should be able to establish notability. I just spent a minute or two looking and found a couple of books that have a good number of library holdings listed in Worldcat[6][7][8] and to have plenty of citations listed in Google Scholar[9]. Taking into account that neither Worldcat nor Google Scholar has particicularly good coverage of Chinese works this would seem to indicate notability, but, not being able to read Chinese, I can't be certain. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't found any one thing which clearly shows notability, but per Whpq and Phil Bridger, looking around there is enough to suggest his importance in his area of research - he is well cited, his books are widely available, and comments such as Uhalley's point to having made an impact in his field. I'd also prefer someone with more expertise in the area to chime in, and hopefully someone will, but at this point I'd go with keep based on citations and how he is generally cited. - Bilby (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I contested the prod here myself because I think AfD would work better in this case. I'm not even sure this is a real person, as Googling for his name and the title of his supposed debut EP only comes back to this article. In addition, the Awards section is full of charts that don't exist (Billboard Best Unsigned Ep, Billboard Hot Charts 200; and the Grammys do not have a category called Best Male Song). Has anyone seen my sled? ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was inclined to let the prod run its course, but this works too. As far as I can tell from Googling around, this article is a hoax. Requests to the author for sources have gone unacknowledged. Even the initial edit summary is suspicious: "I've added the real and verified biography about international songwriter/singer recording artist Jose Huerta." Artists with two Grammy nominations have some kind of web presence, such as a listing on the Grammy site. As stated above, several of the music awards do not exist, and I can't find any reference that the "I Like That Web" award exists either. Finally, the only link in the article is to http://www.josehuerta.info/, which contains only the individual's name and a Twitter widget. I originally tagged this article for speedy deletion as a hoax, and unless the author is immediately forthcoming with sources that we've all somehow missed, this ought to be deleted. Zachlipton (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. And no, it's just coincidence that User:Bornthisway2011 created this article and the subject (according to his Twitter account) really really really likes the Lady Gaga song Born This Way... Facepalm. --Kinut/c 09:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete really blatant hoax, right down to claiming to be on nonexistant charts. It doesn't get much more blatant than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought when I tagged this for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, but the closing admin declined speedy, so here we are. Zachlipton (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2011 (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.
There is some sourcing here, but despite that, most of the sources are not to reliable sources, and there isn't much here which really explains what makes him notable. Corvus cornixtalk 07:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and formatted some others. Several references are to SFgate.com, the web site of the San Francisco Chronicle, a daily newspaper. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Also covered by SFWeekly ([10]), but in terms of reliable sources we only have a handful of local newspaper articles.--Michig (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC) See comment below - enough coverage identified now for an article.--Michig (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and formatted others. Several references are to Internet Movie Database, the motion picture industry standard for documenting soundtrack contributions and Allmusic, the music industry standard for documenting musical albums.--Miriam Ashby (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither imdb nor allmusic is a reliable source. Corvus cornixtalk 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Allmusic is a reliable source for its bios, reviews, and chart positions (which are sourced from Billboard). Since Jon Bernson appears to be, to all intents and purposes, Ray's Vast Basement, the bio and review there constitute signficant coverage in a reliable source. Added to the other coverage, I think that's sufficient.--Michig (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (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.
Apparently fails WP:WEB (trivial sources found), article is largely original research and essay-ish. [CharlieEchoTango] 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only third-party sources we could really find were an article from TechCrunch and a short piece by BusinessInsider. Despite being part of AOL, I agree it fails WP:WEB.[citation needed]– GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 06:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for the IP who added the citation needed tag:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I already stated that the only two good independent sources that I found were the TechCrunch article and the short BusinessInsider article. Google News didn't return anything.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. If you find one, let me know. However, I've seen no mention of one and it seems unlikely that it would.
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.). I've also seen no evidence of this.
Comment. A search for Yedda+AOL turns up considerably more: more than 100 hits at Google News[11], including a number of articles about AOL's 2007 purchase of the Israeli company that originally developed this, e.g.[12][13][14][15]--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A trivial service until proven otherwise. Shii(tock) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability questionable at best, topped off with a nasty little POV rant about how it isn't as good as it used to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not really sure that'll fly. One of the books has a short section mentioning yedda, whereas the others all seem to be either mistaken results or brief mentions of the link. The majority of the Google hits seem to be either primary source stuff (from AOL/Yedda/etc.), or brief mentions in other things. The sheer number of Google Book or Google hits can't really be taken as evidence of notability. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 15:35, 31 January 2011 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced stub, dicdef. Deprodded with a "needs more love" rationale in September but I don't think it's fixable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This has potential but at the moment it's just a dictdef. Travelbird (talk)
Delete as WP:DICDEF, without prejudice to WP:HEY or recreation as sourced content about the concept of extravagance (i.e., as a literary/religious theme?). Note: at the moment, extravagant redirects to eccentricity (behavior) and might be a reasonable target for this as well, but the content regarding extravagance there is essentially just a dicdef as well. --Kinut/c 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our policy to keep short articles with potential - they are called stubs. Our dictionary policy explains at length that shortness is not proper grounds for considering an article to be a dictionary definition. And, as for TPH's extravagant claim that the article cannot possibly be improved, please don't get me started. The rest is the argument to avoid of WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to be a notable subject, though the article is not what it could be ... but as CW says, that is not reason for deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just a dictionary definition, it now mentions more of it. It was one of the seven deadly sins! Something taught to people for centuries is notable. The article has been edited with some improvements. [16] Google news search shows politicians and queens shunning "extravagance" and criticizing different political parties for it. [17] Perhaps some sources can be found from there. DreamFocus 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction I took a look at this claim that "extravagance" in anything like our modern sense was ever a deadly sin. What I found ratified WP:DICTDEF wisdom: we shouldn't try to be lexicographers here, we're amateurs, and our intuitions are relatively useless. I immediately found three scholarly references making it quite clear that the Latin luxuria of Pope Gregory's and Dante's time is far better glossed as "lust" or "lechery", rather than wastefulness, indulgence in luxury or spendthrift habits. Yakushima (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that it can be shown that an article can be written on the subject that is more than a standard dictionary entry. SnottyWongtalk 18:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary entry policy has already been rebutted but, as you still seem to misunderstand and misuse it, please note the following passages which clarify this further:
"One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written."
"Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent.
"Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length."
So, to use the WP:DICDEF policy, it is not relevant to comment on the length of the article. You must instead show that the topic is a purely lexical one, being only about the word as a particular piece of language, rather than being about the topic which the word denotes. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as it currently exists, discusses nothing other than the word's lexical use. There may or may not be an opportunity to expand the article beyond that, but that is immaterial because the article in its current state is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and dictionary definitions do not belong on Wikipedia. SnottyWongcomment 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article already does more than discuss the lexical meaning of a particular word. For example, it tells us that classical authors condemned it as vice. You were perhaps confused by some references to their language but these are matters of translation, given that they wrote in Latin and Greek. In using a variety of different words to reference the topic, the article demonstrates that it is not concerned with a particular one but with the topic which is behind these various words. In any case, we have moved on to a modern psychological view too and so the article continues to develop.
Correction "... it tells us that classical authors condemned it as vice." Actually not. ItThe source cited doesn't say that high spending on luxury is sinful per se, only that it lends itself to vice or (in the case of allowing one's daughters to dress finely, possibly seeming to be prostitutes) to the perception of vice. In general, I take a dim view of trying to translate the terms of ancient texts as if they had precise modern equivalents, especially with value-laden terms subject to cultural change -- it reflects a terribly naive view of how language works, for one thing. And when amateurs weigh in to do it, we get the confusion of "luxuria" (lechery) with latterday "luxury", which has already led to dressing this article with a graphic that wasn't even relevant. Yakushima (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:DICTDEF + random irrelevant detail ≠ encyclopaedic article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICTDEF has been exhaustively refuted above. Please do not cite this policy without reading and understanding it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not conflate wikt:tendentious with wikt:exhaustive. "A goat is a four-legged quadruped. [Famous person] owned a goat.[citation]" is not an encyclopaedic article. Neither is this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your example does not seem to serve your argument as goat is a blue link. Your position seems to be to deny the validity of any stub. This guideline states "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and which is capable of expansion.". Do you contend that all stubs should be deleted? If not, please explain how this case differs from other stubs. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(personal attack deleted) my example should have stated ..."If goat only said 'A goat is a four-legged...'" Satisfied? Of course this in no way changes my blindingly obvious point, (personal attack deleted). No CW, it does not provide "some useful information" -- it is, as I said, simply a WP:DICTDEF, with a random irrelevant detail tacked on. It provides its reader nothing "useful", the only 'use' of it is to provide an excuse for not deleting the article. Did I state that "all stubs should be deleted?" NO!(personal attack deleted). Are all stubs of the type "WP:DICTDEF + random irrelevant detail"? No they are not. Do some stubs, that are not of that type, provide "some useful information" Yes they do. Did anything I said indicate to anybody (personal attack deleted) that I advocated that "all stubs should be deleted?" Of course it bleeding well didn't! So why did you bother with such a (personal attack deleted) misrepresentation of my comment? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caution Careful, there, Hrafn. You let him get your goat. As it were. Stick to the facts. For example: did the Colonel in fact exhaustively refute the argument for deletion from WP:NOTDICT? Actually, he only cited one point from it: a stub isn't automatically a virtual dictionary entry. Did the article contain, as you claim, only lexical information about "extravagance"? Actually not -- it contained commentary on the classics in which the gloss of "extravagance" might be so loose as to suggest that those ancient words (really: the concepts they possibly denoted) deserve full Wikipedia article treatment far more than "extravagance" ever could in English Wikipedia. "Extravagance" can also apply to claims -- in fact, the Colonel has already used it that way in this very discussion, above -- but where does discussion of such extravagance appear in the article itself? Nowhere. By taking this tack, you show why we have WP:NOTDICT in the first place -- if a word has some general applicability, it might denote a concept, but it's not (ipso facto) a topic. If one wants to discuss extravagance in its full generality, that's potentially a lexical topic, but if so, it should be done in lexical resources -- e.g., Wiktionary -- not Wikipedia. Yakushima (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Careless, there Yakushima -- addition of obscure (to the point of irrelevance) semantic trivia does not make it either (i) any less a DICTDEF, (ii) "some useful information" or (iii) an encyclopaedic article. If some poor alien read Wikipedia to find out what "Extravagance" is, they would find out that the most important things about it are (i) it was once considered to be one of the deadly sins & (ii) that it is the name given for one of the (endpoints of the) scales on the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Said alien would be hopelessly confused. This editor is confused as to why anybody considers this to be the foundation of anything (personal attack deleted). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty careless of you to not notice, in the above, that I'm quite in agreement with your position, simply opposed to your debating tactics. Again: show how the Keep-voters are persistently wrong in the facts, both about the topic and the guidelines. Positing some "poor alien" takes the discussion into realms of the imagination, and is rhetorically flimsy. A "poor alien" wouldn't be possessed our our common sense, and it's common sense that should tell anyone that this is a dictionary topic, not an encyclopedic one. Yakushima (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for positing an inadequate tabula rosa and employing inadequate rhetorical skills. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion I have removed your "unsourced negative comments" about Colonel Warden and about me, per WP:AFDEQ. I have replaced them with notations to that effect, per my proposal that such deletions should always be noted in AfD debates.[18]Yakushima (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden: kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments.
Yakushima: kindly cease and desist refactoring my comments.
No, Hrafn, I won't. See Articles for deletion/Maintenance; Refactoring the discussion thread: "It is appropriate to redact personal attacks which are irrelevant to the facts of the discussion. The general format is to replace the offensive language with (personal attack deleted)." Is there some reason why you (and you, too, CW) think you're exempt from WP:AFDM and WP:AFDEQ in cases like these? Kindly supply those reasons on the Talk page of this AfD, if so. Yakushima (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This proposal I am shocked on. This is one of the original seven deadly sins. I am convinced there is a ton of material on this is hard copy - specifically from historians. The meaning of this original sin compared to what it was replaced with (lust) is vastly different. Is the article currently a stub? Sure. However, I am sure that there is plenty of room for expansion if someone has access to a library. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction "This is one of the original seven deadly sins." Actually not. I immediately found three scholarly sources glossing the "luxuria" of Bosch's time as "lust" or "lechery". The English translation of Bosch's "luxuria" was given as "extravagance", but the original Dutch was "wellust" -- basically, "lust". See current Seven Deadly Sins for the references I've added. As for the Bosch illustration, it's been removed as irrelevant. Yakushima (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDICT, and my comments above on factual errors in the arguments of those voting Keep. Yakushima (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have edited the article to remove references to extravagance having been one of the Seven Deadly Sins. As far as I can tell, "luxuria", when it was on that list as such, always meant sexual excess, not profligate and conspicuous consumption or "luxury". Please read the sources cited at Seven Deadly Sins, for verification. Yakushima (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see a case here for an article Extravagance (psychology). [19] It seems to have particular technical meanings (not necessarily identical, though) in more than one personality inventory (Temperament and Character Inventory is one that I've identified). And it apparently has notable genetic correlates. For now, the part of this article discussing one (but only one) psychological measure of extravagance will be replaced by a brief reference to the term's use in measuring Novelty seeking. Yakushima (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, now it turns out that Greek "tryphé" is a pretty specifically Ptolemaic concept referring not just to our idea of "extravagance" but also "magnificence" in the service of political ends, together with a kind of gauzy femininity.[20] Hm, doesn't sound much like that time my little brother bought a sports car he couldn't afford. So much for the idea that a single translated word can represent the same topic. I'd say tryphé might deserve its own article. But "extravagance"? It's just a word in English. Yakushima (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's widely established that this particular article lacks much... but what I haven't seen in skimming the above discussion is what an encyclopedic article on extravagance should become. Looking through the first few pages of the Google Scholar results, I see a number of papers on widely divergent topics which explore the concept of extravagance in some field or another. Of course, there are also a ton of false positives where extravagance seems entirely peripheral to the topic of the paper. The above statement by Yakushima is quite incorrect--extravagance is no more "just a word in English" than love is. Nor do I think the keep arguments hinge around obscure or arcane theological uses. "Extravagance" in Wikipedia should land somewhere sensible which discusses the topic in an encyclopedic manner, including a wikt link. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current article which prevents it from evolving into that. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you "haven't seen in skimming the above discussion [...] what an encyclopedic article on extravagance should become," it's because those who are voting Keep haven't been supplying anything. If you "see a number of papers on widely divergent topics which explore the concept of extravagance in some field or another," it's very likely because (a) they are using it in some specialized sense (e.g., Derridean extravagance, file under "Derrida" and the like) or (b) the real topic isn't "extravagance" but another topic entirely (file under that topic in Wikipedia.) As I edit the article, checking sources, mainly I discover that its purported facts don't check out, or they are about specialized terminology, and the article gets ever smaller. "Luxuria" didn't mean "extravagance" in Hieronymous Bosch's time -- so, out goes his Seven Deadly Sins painting as an illustration and the claim that "extravagance" was one of the Seven Deadly Sins. "tryphé" as a Ptolemaic concept seems to have rather pronounced political semantics, and the Roman reaction to "tryphé" might have been partly a republic's propaganda response to Ptolemaic excesses. Wikipedia already has psychology articles covering the sense of "extravagance" used in the study of novelty-seeking. The "extravagance" article can hardly be anything but all the things one might say about the use of the word (a dictionary's legitimate role), or foreign language words that are supposedly direct translations -- in which case one should cite RS by exports purporting that the concepts are equivalent. It might turn out, for example, that "Derridean extravagance" is some concept so far removed from our normal sense of "extravagance" as to deserve a separate article with a section saying why it doesn't mean "extravagance". As it is, most of the things that have been said so far in this article are, in some way, wrong or off the point. What's correct? Is extravagance "unrestrained excess"? Sure. But is there anything one can't do too much of, or have too much of? Is there any excess that can't be unrestrained? Do we add something to this article about astronomy if some astronomer happens to describe a supernova as "an extravagant stellar display"? Given that one can have too much of anything, what don't we talk about in this article? Love, by contrast, is a feeling, it excludes other concepts. It's not an object, or an action, and it can preclude other feelings. Yakushima (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have created Tryphé. It has just survived one speedy delete attempt. Tag it as you wish, but I think it's an actual encyclopedic topic, and one that goes beyond mere "extravagance". And I have accordingly moved the text describing Tryphé to Tryphé, while leaving a wikilink as a "see also" entry. Yakushima (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is the last resort, and should only be considered after rejecting the possibility that the article can be improved. The dicdefs we should be removing are only the ones that are not capable of being expanded. If they are capable of expansion, they should be regarded as the beginnings of an article, that will benefit anyone who comes along to continue them. I've said elsewhere that I consider almost any common noun that has more than a few occurrences in English capable of being an article for the thing it describes (assuming the thing is of any notability, of course, which is usually but not always the case). This will be true of abstract as well as concrete topics--few English words for abstract topics are complete synonyms. I fail to see the merit of the argument that it overlaps other subjects--essentially everything overlaps other subjects. People have discussed this as a specific concept, and therefore it is capable of being made into an article. Papers on " widely divergent topics which explore the concept of extravagance in some field or another," do justify an article. That the sources could have used other language and been written about a slightly different subject does not invalidatethat the did actually write about this one, DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. If you in fact "consider almost any common noun that has more than a few occurrences in English capable of being an article for the thing it describes", why not start the articles commonness, occurrences, capability (disambig page), article (disambig page), description (tech term for rhetorical device), all of which are used in that claim or are common nouns derived from them? Yakushima (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that nearly all of the content of this article that was there at the time of this deletion nomination, and that has been added since, has been removed by an editor who !voted "delete" above. How can we have a proper informed discussion when the article that we are supposed to be discussing is gutted in this way, meaning that anyone commenting has to spend ages digging around in the article history? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I decided to time myself in "digging around in the article history", to determine how [long] it would take to find [out] how it looked before AfD nomination. From noting the date of AfD posting above, from start to finish, it took about one minute to get to this: [21]. And I was moving slowly. From there you can move forward through the edits, see my edit summaries in context, and square them with the account I give above (since I commented on every major step oi the process of putting this article on a diet.) That's a smallish fraction (maybe 10-20%) of the total time it should take to consider all the arguments and evidence presented above. If you find that smallish fraction an insuperable barrier, I'm sure there are easier AfDs you could be working on instead. Yakushima (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that User:Yakushima's actions in re this topic started directly after this angry outburst elsewhere. My impression is that these actions of removing sourced content from this article and creating the content fork of tryphé are disruption contrary to WP:POINT and WP:HARASS. It could all be coincidence, of course, but I mention the possibility so that you may be fully informed without having to dig further into the edit histories. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. CW indicates WP:POINT. The first sentence of that guideline starts "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied ..." But--I'm not angry about that here. Quite the contrary. Is WP:DICT "being applied" here? No guideline/policy is being applied here until the admin closes the AfD, so there's nothing for me to be angry about. Unless CW believes he's applying policy. But last I checked, he wasn't an admin on Wikipedia. (OK: I was angry at the way CW was personally attacked above, and was also angered when the attacker reverted my edits--which were all made per relevant guidelines. But that's not what CW is talking about here, I'm sure.) CW also indicates WP:HARASS. That starts with "[h]arassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons ...." Excuse me, can anyone here tell who is the target of this harassment CW thinks he sees? CW? Sure, maybe the editor who personally attacked CW above was guilty of WP:HARASS, because he was definitely offensive -- check this AfDs edit history if you're interested. But surely CW should then be thankful that I cited policy in edits to revert those attacks. So is CW accusing me of harassing him in some way? He needs to show precisely where I've done that. CW further points to what he calls an "angry outburst." I invite you all to go look not only at that edit, and the whole AfD discussion it concluded, but also at how the admin closed that AfD: in favor of the argument summarized in precisely the comment CW calls an "angry outburst." Last I checked, angry outbursts brought censure from admins, not agreement. Now, CW may have a point about a possible violation of WP:CONTENTFORK. One might say that the POV I'm supposedly pushing is that tryphé is so much more than mere extravagance that it really has no place in extravagance, except perhaps where I left it: wikilinked in the See Also section. Yet, despite remarking several times about my opinion on tryphé, nobody here has argued otherwise (not even CW). I invite you all to look at tryphé for yourselves and see if you think it's an encyclopedic topic. Then come back to extravagance and ask yourselves: don't you think there might be some semantic extravagance ("unrestrained excess") in any claim that tryphé is a mere subtopic of extravagance? (Uh-oh, now we have to add something to extravagance because we found yet another use for the mere word: in semantics. See how this works, people? See why we have WP:NOTDICT?) Yakushima (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is against policy, but having a point in mind while improving Wikipedia doesn't seemed to be frowned upon anywhere. IMNSHO, here are the improvements I've made to Wikipedia in the course of this AfD:
tryphé -- a new article about a fascinating historical topic.
Removed simplistic discussion of tryphé from extravagance.
Removed a factual error -- the claim that luxuria meant "extravagance", and that it was one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Corrected the caption on the luxuria inset from the Hieronymous Bosch painting about the Seven Deadly Sins to reflect the above correction.
It's not clear exactly what personality-inventory psychologists mean with their various measures (possible incommensurable) of what they call "extravagance", so leaving a mere pointer to the fact that psychologists measure some such thing (which might not correspond very closely to the vernacular sense) was also an improvement.
And if all those improvements made it quite clear that the article before and during this AfD didn't ever really have much more content that a dictionary definition, that's also an improvement to the article: the distracting underbrush is cleared, and if what remains passes WP:N (somehow -- get to work people, if you really believe that!), the real work can start.
P.P.S. Insinuation of a charge ofWP:POINTand WP:HARASS by CW, however (who admits he can't prove any such thing, and apparently discourages other people from investigating, implying he's pretty much summarized the case against me) .... well, CW, what's the applicable policy about such insinuations? Anyone else here want to guess? Yakushima (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've edited the article to provide (perhaps only as a suggestion, mind you) a draft introductory paragraph for the introduction to the full-fledged article that might grow out of this stub, if the article passes AfD. I hope this addresses some of the complaints above, about the deletions and slimming-down I've done during AfD, all of which I think were at least appropriate -- where they were not actually required -- under the various relevant guidelines and policies. Yakushima (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill dicdef, per others. Note that I have indeed read through Mr. Warden's fevered responses to this, and reject them completely, so please no "OMG U DON"T UNDERSTAND DICDEF" responses. Thanks. This is just a common English word, there's really nothing to say about it beyond what it means, and trying to puff up the article length with examples of extravagance is a pretty hollow/shallow rescue attempt. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer DICTDEF, artifically inflated with some random examples not really related to eachother.--Yaksar(let's chat) 20:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the apparent default-consensus meaning of the term for purposes of writing this article (i.e., excessive spending), "extravagance" has been around since at least 1727,[22]. So there's been plenty of time to see it emerge as a general-purpose and as a special-purpose encyclopedia topic. Accordingly, I've just done some Google book searches on "encyclopedia" plus "extravagance" plus one each of the supposed categories: "ethics", "finance", "economics" and "psychology". I haven't looked at every book that came up, but so far I have yet to see any Google-accessible encyclopedia volume that lists an actual article devoted to extravagance. They all seem to use it as, well, a word in English. That is to say, they use it as if the reader is supposed to either understand it immediately or look it up in another kind of reference work whose name starts with a D, not an E. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course, but I still don't get why you'd have an article on extravagance any more than you'd have an article on, say, thinness (which redirects to the health condition of being underweight), or plenitude (which redirects to an obscure metaphysical concept: the Plenitude principle). And it appears I'm in good company with compilers of encyclopedias over the last several hundred years. Yakushima (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2011 (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.
There are thousands upon thousands of similar stories across the world, every year, nothing special about this one. MalleusFatuorum 05:06, 30 January 2011 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being an associate professor, publishing prolifically, and best-paper and department-level awards are not among the criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No recommendation for now, but he does actually appear to meet WP:PROF as a full professor and department chair (per [23]). I haven't looked fully at the sources, but a quick check seems to show he's been quoted/written about in USA Today, among others, and is on the editorial board for Journal of Financial Markets (though I can't immediately figure out in what capacity). Sourcing still needs to be there to satisfy WP:BLP, of course. --Kinut/c 10:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither being a full professor nor being a department chair are among the WP:PROF criteria. In either case, to pass WP:PROF by academic rank or by administrative position, something stronger is needed: either being a distinguished professor or named chair, or being the head of a whole university. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Google scholar finds five papers with over 100 citations each, and one of his papers is the second hit for "stealth trading". That's enough to convince me that he's making a significant impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Original reasoning was "Non-notable, fails WP:GNG". As well, I can find no significant coverage that would establish the notability of this book. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BK. No information, commentary, etc., in WP:RS to show that WP:GNG is met. --Kinut/c 10:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:BK, author does not appear to be notable at present, and book is published by a vanity press. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A theatre teacher who does not seem to meet our notability guidelines for academics. The references consist of a few directory listings, an article in her institution's student newspaper, and one "personal communication". Brian the Editor (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that the bulk of this scholar's work was completed before the internet came into being? The world did not start in 1991. Is Wikipedia biased toward post-internet notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about the internet. If there are offline published sources that demonstrate this subject's notability, then feel free to cite them in the article. Brian the Editor (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for DRM produced 3680 hits, all pertaining to her work. How many hits define notable? Do you have a criteria or is is capricious? How many of the hits need to be listed in the article so that someone can make a decision? When did wikipedia become policed by a few? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the criteria of Wikipedia: Notability (academics), Mennen is notable in not one, but five categories, numbered by category:
1. Her work in the field of vocal curriculum for actors is pioneering, significanting impacting her scholarly discipline. The organization that she founded, VASTA, calls her 'the mother of us all.' The VASTA website recognizes her as a Lifetime Distinguished member, honoring "individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the field of Voice & Speech."
2. She received an award for leadership from a national organization in her field. (U/RTA)
4. her work has impacted higher education in her field, changing the way that actors are trained vocally. Her students are now teaching in higher education.
5. In three ways: Distinguished Alumna, Professor Emerita, and Purdue Legacy award, singling her out for her work for Purdue University and higher education. Purdue University named a scholarship fund after her.
7. She founded the Voice and Speech Trainers Association, an outside organization that includes but is not limited to higher education. This organization named a grant after her.
This information is included in the article itself.Donalds (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's close but I believe the article makes a case that she "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline," problem is, there does seem to be a dearth of "independent reliable sources." However, the national award from the unaffiliated University/Resident Theatre Association suggests to me that there may be a notability in her field beyond her own organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2011 (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.
Strong Keep. I'd arge that being an officially designated U.S. nuclear weapon confers notability. And a very quick Google turns up sources; was this done before the nom? The stub is a mess though, but that can be dealt with without going to AfD... - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, also, the "W41" appears to have been the subject of Deepwater Horizon conspiracy theories, too. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being a production-level nuclear weapon is notability enough, but the conspiracy theories add that yummy wiki-flavor (flavour for the benefit of the folks on the other end of the pond). Could use some expansion, but AfD is not for cleanup. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nuclear weapons program that was around for years, is notable. This isn't just a couple of guys hammering out some scrap metal in their garage. This is something quite major! Article now has references. DreamFocus 12:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Sources seem to establish notability. SnottyWongconfabulate 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger and DreamFocus. Nuclear weapons are notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Number built 0", so no, not "a production-level nuclear weapon". A cancelled warhead for a cancelled missile system, lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:54, 3 February 2011 (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.
This is a list of things related to a specific event, however this knowledge is merely trivia and serves no real purpose (other than trivia value). Films related to the JFK assassination, books based on Pearl Harbor, any of these things are irrelevant trivia. This article parallels discussions such as those. Perhaps some of this content would be better merged into the 9/11 article. Either way, this article is not worth keeping as much of it is subjectively worded in the first place (WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithink215 (talk • contribs) — Ithink215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: We have cultural reference pages to JFK's assassination, and nobody has made anything of it as yet. This article should be kept. It's not trivia, it documents how 9/11 has affected pop culture.--Editor510drop us a line, mate 16:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP has lots of "Whatever in culture" articles. This is more worthy than most, and well sourced as well. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Completely inadequate deletion rationale by the nom. Merely saying "this is trivia" is an opinion, not an argument; WP:OC is a guideline regarding categories, not article content; and if you think "some of this content would be better merged into the 9/11 article" that rather undercuts your opinion that it's all "irrelevant trivia." The subject matter of a work of fiction is a defining element of it, and the depictions of a subject in fiction are highly relevant to that subject. So either way you look at it, it's not trivia, provided it's a substantive depiction and not merely a mention (Young Mr. Lincoln = substantive depiction. "In episode #305 of Will & Grace, Jack sarcastically calls Will 'Honest Abe'" = insubstantial mention.) postdlf (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2011 (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.
Founding a company and being a successful CEO is not, of itself, sufficient to address the WP:BIO criteria. There is a lack of sources to demonstrate the significant impact in an encyclopaedic sense and these seem unlikely to be found in the near future, considering the article history. PROD contested, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShort: Meets WP:BIO. Long: Founder of a relatively large multinational & multi-industry consulting corporation which employs over 7,000 people,[24] listed in the OMX Helsinki and independently quoted[25] as the world leader in its field, Mr. Pöyry is the subject of a 400-page full-color memoirs-style biography[26] written by Prof. em. Raimo Seppälä, and a celebrated Finnish businessperson, internationally recognized[27] in the pulp and paper industry. Thesetwo on-line source are a good starting point, but an extensive wiki-article could be written based on the book, available in the most public libraries in Finland. He never received vuorineuvos, but would have probably been eligible. Quote: "Despite losing his father at a young age and sustaining difficult injuries during the War, Pöyry led a long and unbelievably eventful career from a trainee of a Swedish paper mill to the top, to the demanding world-wide paper mill planning duties." --hydrox (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't find in WP:BIO that "Founding a company and being a successful CEO is not, of itself, sufficient". Since Howard Brennan is notable, the standards are looser than would seem to apply here. Here is a Finnish to English google translation of the advertisement for the biography (I had to use a Google cache, I don't know how long the cache is available) here. The subtitle "Jaakko Pöyry's a long way to Sodankylä to six continents" shows the man is famous world-wide. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would have been clearer to point to the WP:GNG criteria. The point being made is that there is no WP:CEO type definition of what makes corporate execs notable, the general criteria must be satisfied. As a book has been added since nomination, significant impact can be judged based on that as a verifiable source. Fæ (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hydrox's sources above are pretty compelling. Hopefully some of them can be actually added to the article in the near future. SnottyWonggab 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Successful business founder, who gets coverage for his accomplishments. DreamFocus 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In his speedy delete recommendation, Tom Bergen (talk·contribs) wrote, "this article is not evidence-based;the term Medical peer review is ambiguous and is confounded by Clinical peer review for which an article meeting Wikipedia standards now exists". I have removed the speedy deletion tag and initiated an AfD discussion to give the community the opportunity to evaluate this article, which has existed since August 2006. Cunard (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Clinical peer review, which covers the exact same material, only better. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (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♥♦♣ ♠ 03:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Medical peer review (Mpr) contains content critical of the process; citations for this can be found on Sham peer review. It contains a link to Specialty medical peer review, deleted without AfD 22:14, 1 September 2008 by User:Maxim. Mpr contains a link to Utilization review, deleted 22:12, 1 September 2008 by Maxim, without AfD or talk page discussion, while a merge tag existed on both Utilization review and Utilization management, another linked article on Mpr. Mpr contains links to Sham peer review and Subpoena duces tecum. Clinical peer review, while it contains additional content on the process, has no mention of peer review difficulties and no internal links at all, and was called Physician peer review until Tom Bergen moved it. The move summary specifically indicates Bergen's plan to delete Mpr by making Physician peer review a similar name, thereby forcing a redundancy. There has been some skirting of the rules here already; I would be very leery of any outcome that did not address the additional content on Mpr. Anarchangel (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a page on the song "I'm Broken". There is zero reason for a separate entry that only details info for one version of the single. L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2011 (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♥♦♣ ♠ 03:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A page on this song already exists. There is no need for a separate page containing info on the single only L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2011 (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♥♦♣ ♠ 03:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a blatant advertisement & does present itself at being notability. The few references they article does link don't appear to notable ore reliable resources. Article was originally in on Kantonus's userpage, they requested it be moved into the mainspace & as soon as user had enough edits to move into main space, moved it, even though movereq was clearly showing that it was mainspace material. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 07:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Google News search shows plenty of results. I don't see a problem with notability. De-advert the language and trim it down as needed. The version history is really unnecessary. --Pnm (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 02:40, 30 January 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:GNG, though this is a borderline case. His claims to fame are, in no particular order, being a passenger on Flight 93; having what seems to be a semi-professional minor rugby competition named after him; and being portrayed in a few documentaries about Flight 93. However, merely being a victim of an airline hijacking does not itself confer notability. Even if the rugby competition is deemed notable (I do not, at this moment in time, have an opinion one way or the other), it doesn't "transfer" notability to him (to put it in reverse, if I'm a friend of the very notable Jimbo Wales, and me and my buddies play a game of Quake 3 Arena and call it, with Mr. Wales' blessing, "The Jimbo Wales Honorary Invitational", our little competition does not become notable). And simply being portrayed in documentaries doesn't bestow notability, either - the movies are about Flight 93, not Mr. Bingham flying on Flight 93. As far as his rugby career is concerned, he does not seem to meet the criteria listed in WP:ATHLETE for rugby union players, as the San Francisco Fog are not a first class rugby union team, and do not seem to have participated in full-pro competition - but that should probably be confirmed by somebody more knowledgable about rugby union than I. Regardless of final outcome, the article definitely needs a rewrite, as the glurge-factor is currently off the charts - and if it's determined that he does, in fact, meet the WP:ATHLETE guidelines, the article should be appropriately restructured to cover Mark Bingham the rugby union player first, and Mark Bingham the guy with the PR firm who flew on Flight 93 second. Badger Drink (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he sails past the WP:GNG. Your waffling about fictitious gaming events is wholly irrelevant - someone having an event named after them does add to their notability. He is still noted to this month: "In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the compelling story of Mark Bingham, the gay rugby player who helped bring down United Airlines Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, captured headlines. Arizona Sen. John McCain, in a 2008 interview with the Blade, cited Bingham as one of his gay heroes."[28]Fences&Windows 03:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Someone having an event named after them does add to their notability" - no, it doesn't. Coorelation is not causation. It's a good indicator that there may be something notable about them, but this is hardly a guarantee of anything. At most, it may warrant a redirect from Mark Bingham to the rugby tournament, if said tournament passes WP:N. And you're saying that if John McCain namedrops somebody, they're automatically notable? Nonsense. Badger Drink (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Wikipedia is not a memorial, Bingham was one of only a few passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 to capture the public's attention in a major way (others include Todd Beamer and Jeremy Glick). Hundreds of Google Books hits attest to this. I don't mean to portray Bingham as a "victim" per se (which might be seen as belittling his heroic efforts, along with other passengers, to thwart the hijackers), but he literally was a victim of the hijacking, and he does qualify as notable under WP:VICTIM: "The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Bingham's notability is not as a rugby player, not as a PR executive, but as a 9/11 hero, and he is definitely notable for that. --Metropolitan90(talk) 04:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over two thousand people were "literally" victims of the hijacking. I'm not sure how Bingham can be reconciled with WP:BLP1E. A lot of books have lists of the people killed in the hijackings, and the few spot-checks I made from the link you provided seem to confirm this. Badger Drink (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most of those people did not receive persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources that devoted significant attention to their role. Let's look at some potential sources. This article from The Advocate is seven pages long and devoted to portraying Bingham as the "Person of the Year". This book, Critical Perspectives on 9/11, is 176 pages long, and almost 9 pages of that is devoted to Bingham's experience. Here is a syndicated Associated Press article devoted to Bingham. In fact, an entire book was published titled Hero of Flight 93: Mark Bingham. The coverage given to Bingham in reliable sources goes far beyond treating him as just someone on the list of victims killed on 9/11. See WP:1E which says, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Bingham easily passes the "Howard Brennan test". --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just to emphasize something: Bingham was not just "a passenger on Flight 93". He is believed to have been one of the passengers who attacked the hijackers and thus prevented them from crashing the plane into the United States Capitol or another major landmark building. That's why he is often called a hero. --Metropolitan90(talk) 08:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, over two thousand people were "literally" victims of 9/11. However, no more than a handful of those people are still household names ten years hence, about whom we can write genuinely and reliably sourced encyclopedia articles that rely not just on one single "Victims of 9/11" blurb in The New York Times, but on broad and sustained coverage in a variety of sources; Bingham is one of that handful. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - He's the subject of the highest award in LGBT rugby, the Bingham cup; he's consistently rated in top 100 lists in Advocate, Out, and other such media; he's literally the chief subject of a new national park; and he was the protagonist in a major Hollywood film. I don't know how much more notable a dead amateur athlete can be. He was not just a witness; he was the man who saved thousands off lives. His name continue to appear in reliable sources through today, almost ten years after his death. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 02:40, 30 January 2011 (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.
This was previously salted after having been repeatedly speedy deleted in the past. It was created again this week with different capitalization and I moved it to the current location due to a request at WP:RFPP. The sources used are not reliable. Two are user-generated sites, one is simply an online episode of the reality show he was on, and one is the subject's own website. I searched gnews and nothing useful turned up. Despite being repeatedly deleted in the past there does not appear to have ever actually been a discussion about this article, so I'm bringing it here. As I cannot find proper reliable sources I move this be deleted and the protection be restored and expanded to other capitalizations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are some references out there, but nothing that really justifies a separate article considering WP:BLP1E. If this article is deleted, I suggest creating a protected redirect from Lee Marks to I_Love_New_York_(season_1)#Contestants. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His TV and web-TV career does not add up to much. The article is confusing to read, because somebody deleted the phrase "also known as Mr. Boston" from the lead sentence but did not delete all the references to him as "Boston" in the article. However, he does not appear to have achieved Wikipedia-style notability under either name. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I originally PRODded this for other issues, but deprodded it after the original issues seemed to be fixed. After further consideration, I think the notability is questionable enough to warrant AfD discussion. There is a possibleconflict of interest here on the part of the original author, based on hit #9 in this Google search, where, although the link no longer works, the page title matches the article name and the username in the URL matches the author of the article. Several claims in the article are uncited and questionable at best, and I think that overall, he's just not notable enough. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two inventions seem to be his and genuine - and I have heard of the Surfbike (which as I live on a wide flat sand beached coast and have never even in wild moments wanted to surf may mean something...). As to his sporting achievements, I pass the buck to those interested in sport. Peridon (talk)
Weak Delete - Not much coverage about him that I could find. There is this article. His kayak variant was pitched on the Canadian Dragon's Den, and he was a semi-finalist in the 2007 IDM DEsign Awards. If there were some more coverage, this would be enough to push it to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google has now removed the link that I referenced in my deletion rationale above, probably due to it being a dead link. For future reference, it consisted of a link to a Twitter account under the same username as the author of this article (as evidenced by the URL), and the title of the page, which on Twitter is the user's name that they have entered into their profile, matched the title of this article. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed seems to be self-promotion. The inventions as such are not especially notable, and much less so is the inventor of them. Travelbird (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the Web site's claims, this does not seem to be a real organization at all. No Chinese Wikipedia article. More suspiciously, both the English[29] and the Chinese Web site[30] contain very little actual information. I am not convinced that this is a real school, and even if it is, I am not sure I see its notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their English language website seems to be http://www.get.org.tw/ndi/e_ndi/index.htm which does have a lot of info. They get a mention a a Taiwanese government site here and on the website of the Brazilian representative office (the de facto embassy) here which indicates that this school is genuine. As higher education institution are usually considered notable, we should probably keep this one as well. Travelbird (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-notable publishing company which has had little or no coverage in reliable third-party sources. The article itself is completely unreferenced. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organisation per WP:ORG. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. The last AfD a couple of months ago was closed as No Concensus due to a handful of !votes which seemingly did not consider the notability of the company to be an issue of relevance. However, there weren't any secondary sources available then, and there still aren't now (just check with the links above.) Unsurprisingly, in the intervening two months, the article has continued to sit there completely unreferenced, because adding references is impossible when no sources exist. There is no scope for an encyclopedic article on this topic so there is no way to improve the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to their own website they specialize "in the innovative on-demand publishing model" which means they are nothing else than a fancy copy-shop that also may do a bit of promotion on the side. They print whatever you send them for a fee. This doesn't pass WP:CORP. Travelbird (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. It does assert notability by claiming "it has steadily grown its catalogue and its profile", but without specifics and better yet reliable sources backing it up, it's essentially a meaningless statement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 31 January 2011 (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.
Only one source, no notability besides a queen staying there. Minimal hits on Google, almost none reputable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be part of the Balmoral Estate though the article does not say so. Not notable in its own right, though it probably deserves mention under that entry (though not in this form). AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have its own page on that site [31], however, nor is it searchable on the site directly or using the A-Z index. I'd still favour including it in the Balmoral entry with a redirect. Lots of parts of, say, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London are notable, and some qualify for their own entry, but it is usually best to keep them within the main entry unless they have a significance other than that accorded to the property itself. So far as I can see, at Balmoral the Queen and guests sometimes stay in the Castle, sometimes in the Lodge, and I'm not clear what notability the Lodge has beyond that. But I admit I've never been invited to stay and am not claiming direct knowledge! It may be of great architectural merit or some dramatic events may have occurred there. AJHingston (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Balmoral Estate. Debatable as to whether this would be notable in its own right, but as it's part of a wider subject that is notable, coupled with the fact that there's only a small amount of encyclopaedic information itself, Balmoral Estate seems to be the best place to put the verifiable information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There is a section about the estate (albeit a messy one), so we could put a paragraph into that section quite easily. I think there's a good case to split Balmoral Estate into its own article anyway, but that's a separate debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now with no prejudice against later re-creation. Generally I would say that any place a member of the royal family stay frequently is inherently notable. However there isn't really enough in the article to warrant a separate one for the moment. If some expert has more information at a later stage the article can be spun-off from Balmoral Estate again. Travelbird (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very notable! This Lodge has been at the center of the stories in the Royalist press. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either OR or (more likely) a copyright violation Travelbird (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to County Cavan. Looks like it was copypasted from somewhere, but also, I couldn't find much info about it other than it being part of the aforementioned county. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with a view to merging a related but non-plagiarised section into County Cavan in the future. Heggyhomolit (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the writer of the page that is getting all this attention... I have not contributed to this site before. The article is and abbreviated version of a paper I completed as part of my MA in history. It is pasted. It is accurate and it is not anyones work other than my own... There are no other articles on this area I believe I am the only one to do so. I believe as such it should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Cúl Ghear (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is your own work, OK - so long as it hasn't been published. (If it had, you'd need to release copyright.) However, it cites no references. So long as you can reference to outside sources, I'll go for a keep. If you can't reference it, it'll probably have to go. It could be put on WikiResearch (or something like that) where original research is welcomed. Cite Leo Swan and whatever else you used. Find other stuff. Look at WP:RS to see what's good and what isn't. If not sure, ask. Peridon (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the same token, if it's a paper you wrote for your class, it doesn't belong here anyway; that's a violation of WP:NOTESSAY. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can I also add that the article would need to be completely rewritten to comply with WP guidelines. It would also need to be renamed to just "Magherintemple" with the Irish translation added to the first line of the opening paragraph. Heggyhomolit (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish 'translation' is probably the original and 'Magherintemple' an anglicisation (not a translation - machaire or machair is low grassland, and Teampaill is as likely to come straight from a shared source in Latin 'templum' as it is to come from English). There should be a redirect from the Irish form when this is sorted out. Peridon (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overly detailed article for an insignificant place. Snappy (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again delete if you must... I will reference this article when i have time. As far as being an insignificant place "Snappy" what exactly does that mean?
Peridon, s far as the names Magherintemple and Machaire an Teampaill both are in use. Machaire roughly means in English a plateaux or a level place on a hill or mountain. A low grassy meadow is Maigh usually anglisised as Moy May or Magh.
The article is well researched and it is correct. If another editor wishes to amend it to meet guidelines for submission that is grand. Is mise le gach meas An Cúl Ghear — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Cúl Ghear (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (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. Anyone who thinks the content might be mergeable can contact me and I'll sort them out. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Now merged and redirected. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a thesis? A bald assertion doesn't make it so. Indeed, it isn't a thesis at all. It's an encyclopaedia article that would be, in a traditional encyclopaedia, under the title Painting, environmental concerns of or some such. Indeed, that's pretty much the very title that title it is under in at least one other encyclopaedia (Forbes 1998) harv error: no target: CITEREFForbes1998 (help). Moreover, I can look up "paints; health, safety, and environmental factors related to" in the index of (Seidel 2007) harv error: no target: CITEREFSeidel2007 (help), a third encyclopaedia, and find that that subject is in volume 18 pages 74 to 75, as a sub-topic of paint. We even have an equivalent sub-topic here, paint#Dangers (a section title that we could improve, learning from a more comprehensive encyclopaedia), for which these two would be quite ordinary break-out sub-articles, as Wikipedia often has, as we aim to reach the same level of coverage as is already in the encyclopaedias we are attempting to provide free content alternatives to.
I do wonder sometimes whether some people at AFD have a full grasp of what encyclopaedias contain and what we are aiming for in writing one that is intended to be as comprehensive as other existing encyclopaedias. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different to environmental issues with paint? They seem to be dealing with the exact same subject except in a different order. A simple merger (since there's a small amount in one article that isn't in the other) seems in order, with no deletion required. Which direction the merger should go is a matter of naming conventions. And, as noted above, this subject is quite evidently encyclopaedic.
The idea that this subject is a heretofore undocumented subject is simply laughable, given how easy it is to find encyclopaedias covering this topic, and bespeaks of yet another unresearched deletion nomination by TenPoundHammer, alas. I'm guessing that this is, like Erpert's equally laughable idea that this is a thesis, another egregious misapplication of the original research policy as a magic catch-all based upon no actual looking to see whether indeed the world does document a subject, and borne not of the application of our content and deletion policies but of some foolish idea that encyclopaedia articles have single-word titles and that stubs and start-class articles are somehow complete and comprehensive explanations of a subject, that can be taken at face value and used as the sole indicators of the coverage or extent of a subject by the encyclopaedia writers who are supposed to be looking at Wikipedia from the point of view of writing and improving our many incomplete articles, which includes a fairly basic step of looking to see what we are aiming for.
Forbes, Stewart (1998). "Environmental Issues in Metal Finishing and Industrial Coatings". In Stellman, Jeanne Mager (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety: Chemical, industries and occupations (4th ed.). International Labour Organization. ISBN9789221098164.
Seidel, Arza, ed. (2007). Encyclopedia of chemical technology. Vol. 27 (5th ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN9780471484967. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Keep. A notable topic. The article is a bit of a how to guide and it needs a huge cleanup but these are not reasons for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the third article of this type that the nominator has put up for deletion. See other discussions at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture and the environment]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water and the environment. All these articles fill a gap in the WP hierarchy of articles. There are a large number of articles of this type. They form a useful continuum for the reader. They form a hierarcy as follows:
Topic -> -> Topic and the environment -> Environmental issues with topic
Environment -> -> Sustainability of topic
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was originally called green painting. Its written as a how to guide at the moment, so needs to be rewritten. It needs to quote various sources for the suggest method of reducing the effects of paint on the environment. A possible merge can be discussed after the article has been referenced and written properly. DreamFocus 02:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why both this article andEnvironmental issues with paint are both required? What is the intended difference in scope between these two articles? Seems like a textbook content fork to me. Choose one title and merge them. SnottyWongconfabulate 19:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read both articles. This one is far longer, and it would look out of place if merged there. Just remain it. Its about reducing environmental impact of painting. DreamFocus 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read both articles. They are both about the exact same topic. That one is longer than the other is immaterial. Like I said, pick one to keep and merge them. Doesn't matter if it's this one (the longer one) or the other one. There is absolutely no reason to have two articles on the same topic. It's like having Red and The color red and Human perception of red light all as separate articles. No one is trying to "destroy" information here, so you can calm down. We're just saying: put it all together in one article. SnottyWonggossip 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The how-to portion is welcome at Appropedia, a wiki of sustainability and appropriate technology topics. --Teratornis (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. lifebaka++ 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This dam and the 29 below are all planned, non-existent dams in Iran. They are not under construction or complete. The articles were created in April 2010 with several being PROD'd citing WP:CRYSTALBALL and were subsequently de-PROD'd by their creator. The creator's reasoning is cited here among other places. Part of the problem is, eight months later, the articles remain tagged-stubs. Aside from failing under CRYSTALBALL, these planned dams lack the notability for stand-alones and can, if not already, be sufficiently covered in List of power stations in Iran. Whether these dams will be built isn't a sure thing. Articles on dams, with the exception of a few very controversial, usually aren't started until construction begins; similar to when one would create an article for a music album. Next to each dam article, I placed a source to the developer's website.--NortyNort(Holla) 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can they possibly be merged? I don't see any sufficiency to keep them individually, but perhaps together they could warrant an article. Shadowjams (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims"
AND
"For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online."
Is it only me who sees that there is something terribly wrong with putting deletion tag on the articles according to the Wikipedia guidelines or is it really the case? All articles have proper official references and since dams are large projects with far reaching effects, these separate articles have been created to allow for expansion. There are many articles on wikipedia which took more than 8 months for their expansion. So this time line is basically not a reason for deletion. These articles can not be merged with the list of powerplants article since that is a list type article and when I created, it was a list. It has been cluttered now, which I am thinking to clean up in order for it to remain a list class article. Anyways Iran is one of biggest dam building nations on planet earth, to the extent of damaging their local ecology. May be the person who has put the deletion tag should instead put his/her energy to expand the articles instead of obliterating them. Deletion is easy, creation is not. --Irooniqermez (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the articles have been tagged with {{notability}} since April 2010 but that isn't the main reason they should be deleted, rather WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTABILITY. Each article does have a reference, albeit they just go to the IWPCO main page instead of directly to the project. We know they are planned but we don't know if they will be constructed or when they will be constructed. Not every dam goes as planned because of funding, opposition, etc. Until then, they are non-existent planned dams. Iran is a big dam builder in the world and if the dams are collectively controversial, they all can be placed in List of power stations in Iran or List of dams in Iran with a relative blurb. Every dam also has some sort of impact on the environment. List of power stations in Iran is still list-class and already contains the information each stub contains. Once construction begins on a specific dam or it is specifically the topic of "sufficiently wide interest" then stand-alone articles can be created. Right now, we just have 30 potential perma-stubs on "unverifiable speculation" regarding whether they will be constructed in the near future or future. Good enough for inclusion in a list but not a stand-alone article. Some context: in the vast majority of cases, if a notable music artist stated they were planning a new album, would an article be made on it on that point?--NortyNort(Holla) 09:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music albums are a bit different from dams, do you not agree? You still have not answered why you have tagged deletion under notability and crystalball, despite the rules clearly say that deletion is only to be considered if the articles are not referenced. Many dams are on wikipedia which have never been built and there is no intentions to build them. As for these dams work on some of them in these 8 months might have started. Have you checked to prove the contrary? I guess not. Tagging for deletion seems to be easier than searching for references. You just want to delete them by hook or crook. As I said, you might get away destroying the articles. But you can not destroy the knowledge generally. Relative blurbs do not have any place in a respected encyclopedia. Only referenced data has. Sufficiently wide interest? And let me guess, you are the one who is deciding that, right? --Irooniqermez (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to get the articles deleted "hook or crook". I also agree albums are different then dams, I was just trying to put the notability in context. We know these dams are planned and I commented on the referencing above as well. There are articles on proposed dams on Wikipedia, and some probably aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. A good example of a proposed dam that is notable enough for a stand-alone article is the Belo Monte Dam. Notice the international attention or "sufficiently wide interest" that specific dam has received from sources, even those independent of the subject. Those references and notable attention are essentially "the one who is deciding", not me. I couldn't find this referencing on the proposed dams above. I am not trying to "destroy the knowledge" and didn't say it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I just believe the articles shouldn't be stand-alones. I also gave suggestions for incorporating the same information within the stubs into a list. If it is more then a blurb, then whatever. I sense an undertone in your language that I am pro-Iranian dam or something of that sort. I hope that is not the case and if so, I will refrain from this discussion here at AfD.--NortyNort(Holla) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of prejudice. I can also reciprocate and accuse you of Anti-Iranian sentiment. But I will not. I just expanded and updated your lead deletion article as an example of how you have not done anything to improve the articles instead of proposing to delete them. As per above mentioned rules, you are on the side of err. Furthermore, I am not going to be held hostage to this irrational situation. I created a list of power plants in Iran for Wikipedia investing my PRECIOUS time since there were none in English Wikipedia. Translating is not an easy job, and to my folly I had assumed English Wikipedia users would in the interest of knowledge appreciate it. But that was a foolish decision on my part and since they are now open source work, I can not delete them, but if I could go back in time, I would have never created them. Arrogance I do not like. You people want to delete it, instead of improving it. Then go ahead and do it. Why you are bothering me? If you can not contribute and construct then there are only two things left to do on Wikipedia, ie deletion and destruction. As for this deletion list, I will not contribute anymore. I am not responsible for all the articles on Wikipedia. The whole idea of Wikipedia is based on community improvement of articles. The responsible member of this community where ever and whenever sees a deficiency in an article does her/his best to improve it. Holding hostage the initiator of the article by putting deletion tags is childish and immature. As for me, this is the end of conversation and I am not concerned with this matter anymore. Certainly, these deletion tags have not been put to improve the quality of articles or Wikipedia as a whole as clearly demonstrated by my expansion of above mentioned article. I hope you understand my extreme frustration with your actions.--Irooniqermez (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor creates an article, it is their job as the creator initially to establish notability and reference it properly. Other editors can help in this effort and often do here especially with new editors. Did I not put a direct reference next to each article above? It is difficult if hardly anything is in English or the project is bilateral and has several names. Creating 30 "assembly line" stubs on proposed dams and placing the same general reference to the developer's home page for each isn't a good way to denote an article's notability. If I did the same, I would not be surprised if someone nominated them for deletion. I try and improve dam articles all the time, usually when they are in the news, under construction or I find interest, etc. I also do not speak or read Persian as with the Azad Dam references. Most editors on the English Wikipedia don't. Google translate didn't even do a good job with the Azad Dam references, it translated it as the "Water dam". The way I had to connect the two was with the MW capacity and location. The Azad Dam was also more than likely under construction when the article was created which wasn't researched or mentioned at the time. I am sure your translations are helpful, albeit those 30 stubs didn't require Persian translation. I apologize for any seemingly harsh language but I feel you are taking too much offense to this. I also think we are all using our precious time here and it is universally appreciated.
After some understandle confusion here with the Aras Watershed Dam and Persian references added to the Azad Dam, idicating it is under construction, I no longer support the deletion of those two.--NortyNort(Holla) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete all. Short unsourced stubs without indication of notability. The link to IWPCO general website [[32]], which says nothing about concrete projects, is not sufficient and does not account as a reference. To establish notability reliable sources with precise references are needed. During eight months there has been no attempts to fix these problems, so deletion seems to be justified. Beagel (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Azad Dam which has significantly improved. Beagel (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Aras Watershed Dam now a redirect.--NortyNort(Holla) 03:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per NortyNort and Beagel. Johnfos (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:26, 30 January 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no harm in tossing up a redirect to Manipulator (album) just in case someone searches for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:26, 30 January 2011 (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 incubate. The delete !voters make a stronger argument here but per mansford I'm going to exercise admin's discretion and move this to the incubator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of wide use. NO sources. Definition is recursive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"No evidence of wide use." - Which other terms would you prefer then? The vaguer "British Uruguayan", or the completely inaccurate "Anglo-Uruguayan"? --MacRusgail (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. There are now "sources", but I am extremely wary of using online ones, since they have a short shelflife, and then someone comes along and removes them and claims the article is "unreferenced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs)
Keep Uruguayans of Scottish origin are of note (there's even a Catalan article on the same). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Granted this has nothing to do with whether the topic itself is notable or not, but ... this naming pattern is not a scholarly standard outside of the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
As Cordless Larry notes, the term "Scottish Uruguayans" does not appear to be used outside of Wikipedia; specifically, none of the sources you cited seem to use it, and I highly doubt any Spanish sources use analogous terms either. cab (call) 13:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the two sources in the article do not constitute significant coverage and may be unreliable (they look self-published to me). A search suggests that the term "Scottish Uruguayans" is not used outside of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most available material on this subject matter will be in the Spanish language, not English. If people do not like the term "Scottish Uruguayans", they should come up with a viable alternative.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do such Spanish-language sources exist, though? Perhaps if some were found then the significant coverage criteria would be met. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources covering this as an individual topic. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I hate to see this one get deleted, in that I believe that the article creator would be able to make more out of it. In addition, I think that the topic of immigration into Central and South America from the British Isles is under-represented. On the other hand, there's not much information (such as the number of persons who are of Scots descent, or the Scots-Irish, Scots who migrated first to Ulster and then onward-- in the U.S., it's been a large population). Sources may be available in Spanish, and Google translate does very well with Spanish, which might make it easier for MacRusgail to locate and read them. On the other hand, he or she, like the rest of us, does this during spare time and it's hard to perfect an article in a short time. Mandsford 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both sources given are dubious. It is stretching importance too far. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (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.
No evidence that this is a notable theme... just a list of things that mentioned elms. Listcruft, like a bad "in popular culture" list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Listcruft plus failure to meet general notability guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:25, 30 January 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with nominator. Article as nominated [33] appears set only for self-promotion of an otherwise non-notable film. To quote the article, "Operation R.E.L.P was released in limited quantities and has only had two public showings. As it was a not-for-profit production, the film was never sold. However, a one-off limited edition version was created, but only distributed amongst the production crew.". In searching, we find it had no distribution, only two public screenings, and no reliable sources speaking toward the film. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film, no coverage in WP:RS. --Kinut/c 09:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two public showings and no physical release? Geez. I've literally made more notable movies in my backyard. And that's even assuming this even exists. Not on IMDB or even on Google ("Did you mean Operation Repo?"). The names in the article are pretty unlikely too... Kaiser Wilhelm von Shakespertin? Woof Woof and Co? Sounds like a hoax and/or just kids messing around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 31 January 2011 (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.
Way too specific. None of these is notable. Sources don't seem to back up them being "lentic". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of these man-made lakes were a created by the people of Maharashtra working under the Indian Famine Codes to avert a major famine in 1973 in Maharashtra. Working on these projects created employment for many jobless people allowing them to purchase food and in effect reduced deaths from starvation. The article has potential to be improved substantially. Numerous sources already exist, many more can be added. Perhaps someday we will have a separate article for each man-made water body. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified an IP editor who made me aware of this article via his personal narration of the events leading to the building of these reservoirs. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- These bodies were mainly constructed during the drought of early 1970s and provided a guarateed income to rural people in the drought stricken areas. Since then these reservoirs with stagnant waters have come under attack for spreading malaria. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
These bodies are much smaller than reservoirs created by placing a dam on a river. The word in Marathi language for lentic water is "Pazar Talav" which translates as Pazar = Drip and Talav = lake, tank or reservoir. Some reports describe them as percolation tanks.[34] So these can not be lumped together with the conventional dam reservoirs. A personal observation: since most Wikipedians familiar with Maharashtra are probably young and in their twenties and from the urban areas,and therefore to them the history and geography of rural part may as well be that of an alien planet.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Tending towards delete, but not quite there. There is much doubt that PORNBIO is a sustainable guideline. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO; no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guidelines. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. CAVR is not a notable award [35], let alone a "well-known" one, and the "nomination" amounts to little more than receiving six votes in an online poll [36]. No significant reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had previously been deleted as an expired PROD at Keeani Lei (pornographic actress). Might meet PORNBIO if one includes the FAME nomination HW deleted diff and/or her nomination for the 2010 AVN Awards' Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene, which doesn't appear to have been added to the article. However, meeting PORNBIO means meeting that in addition to meeting WP:BASIC, and I couldn't find evidence of that after trying web, GB, GS, GN, LEXIS NEXIS with her various names. A passing mention in "Romantic Signs in Pornography" by Eric Maroney page 22 in Woman in Mind Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2008), published by the Women’s Studies Program at Southern Connecticut State University was about it. Might be some coverage of her in print adult or skateboarding magazines whose content is not on the web, and might have been on G4 (TV channel), but somebody would have to find and cite them exactly. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The FAME nomination was removed about a year ago under the details for WP:PORNBIO [37], which refers specifically to FAME when noting that only final-round nominations are covered by that guideline. This was merely a preliminary "nomination," excluded by the guideline itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One might also see that in considering the creation of a properly sourced BLP, the mention on the FAME nomination might be reasonable to include in the article as a peer recognition from her industry, and we editors may simply exclude that sourced bit of information from our thoughts when assesing overall notability. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Шизомби may be confusing the subject with Kaylani Lei with respect to the 2010 nomination. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. She passes PORNBIO then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. She passes the "additional criteria" of PORNBIO but "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (emphasis in original). On the basis of evidence at hand, she fails to meet the "basic criteria" WP:BASIC though, and thus fails WP:Notability (people). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fan cruft of a non-notable "actress." Carrite (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets PORNBIO as Шизомби pointed out. Multiple year nominations of AVN Award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts.SPNic (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Passes PORNBIO with AVN nominations in multiple years. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article subject has not been nominated for awards in multiple years. The subject has appeared in scenes which were nominated for awards in different years. These awards are not classified by AVN as going to the performers, but fall into a different classification. PORNBIO no longer enjoys clear consensus support, due to the indiscriminate mode in which "industry awards" are showered around among interested/interrelated parties, and if it is to be applied at all it should be limited to those awards/nominations which unambiguously go to particular performers -- in the case of AVN Awards, those classified by AVN itself as being for "Performers" or for "Acting"," not to any name that appears on the 75-page laundry list of nominations. [38]Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These awards are not classified by AVN as going to the performers, but fall into a different classification." I have to agree. The number of pages is somewhat irrelevant, particularly given the large margins and font. More relevant perhaps is that there's about 154 awards compared to the Oscars' 29 or so (more if including scientific and technical, but still less than 50). AVN's Best Retail Store (West) had 21 nominees, possibly others have more. The most the Oscars seem to have is 10, for Best Picture, but most have less than 5. I suppose an award with even more categories and nominees could conceivably still be notable, provided it gets the kind of coverage one would expect a notable award would get. The AVN award is of some note, but exactly how many RS (other than AVN itself) report all the nominees and/or winners and/or on the awards show itself? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try a different argument then... Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." (emph. mine) The AVN awards are notable in and of themselves as they've been referred to as the "Oscars of porn" by CBS news, Reuters and the Globe and Mail, among other news organizations. Since it is clear that she has received multiple nominations, I can't see how she fails ANYBIO... Tabercil (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet CBS, Reuters, and the Globe and Mail don't report the noms or winners of the AVN awards, do they? Perhaps not so well-known. One might as well say barnstars are the Oscars of Wikipedia. Anyway, as pointed out above: (1) Lei didn't get any nominations. She was in scenes that were nominated. By this logic, James Franco, Natalie Portman, etc. are nominees for Best Picture Award. (2) the additional criteria under which ANYBIO falls states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." "Meeting" ANYBIO, PORNBIO, etc. is not the end of discussion. It's a starting point for it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... a starting point that through numerous discussion over many years by many editors has come to create a consensual agreement as to what constitutes an acceptable notability for that genre, and thus for meriting inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, mainstream reliable sources do not generally report on porn stars. Yes, reliable porn sources do not generally report on mainstream actors. Guideline encourages that sources be considered in context to what is being sourced. If/when WP:PORNBIO is changed to eliminate that consensual agreement, this individual and assertions of notability can be revisted and reconsidered. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is still open? Well, as long as it is... I acknowledge that the few MSM RS that have called the AVN Awards the "Oscars of porn" don't have to back their claim up with evidence, nor are they obliged to report on the awards. After all, it's been a longstanding policy that WP does not require something to be true, though one would think that if the AVN Awards were the Oscars of porn, that multiple RS within the porn industry (other than AVN itself) would be regularly reporting on the AVN nominees, winners, and awards show. That doesn't seem to be the case. It's not clear to me the extent to which AVN magazine/AVN.com itself even reports on the AVN Awards. avnawards.avn.com doesn't appear to go back further than 2010 [39]. There are official DVDs of some of the older programs, and out-of-print VHS of some of the others.
With regard to the nominees and winners of the "Best All-Girl Couples Sex Scene", it's apparent that they are the scenes and not the actresses in the scenes (unless you have a RS to suggest otherwise?). The award is not called the "Best Group of Actresses in an All-Girl Couples Sex Scene," in which case I believe I'd be agreeing with you on that point. The nominees in each category are in grey text; Keani Lei was not nominated for "Best All-Girl Couples Sex Scene" - because she is an actress; she is not a sex scene any more than JM Productions is (which, like her, is in the smaller red text listed under the nominee "The Violation of Kylie Ireland" in grey). Similarly, The Jeffersons: a XXX Parody, Video Team, and Metro Media are not nominees for Best Actor, they're just listed under the nominee, Ace. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you're splitting hairs here. Let's look at a similar mainstream example: The MTV Movie Awards and Teen Choice Awards both have awards for "Best Kiss"/"Choice Movie Liplock", which is very much a scene specific award. Those awards are clearly mentioned in the articles for the various actors who were nominated for them (e.g., Sean Penn). Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not splitting hairs. "But look at how Wikipedia handles this other award" is not an argument. But as it happens, those other articles appear to be handling that other award correctly, since it appears MTV chose to give its award to the actors. AVN chose to give its award to the scene. Who are we to dispute their choices? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to note that, on the relatively infrequent occasions when a nominated scene has its own identifying title, that AVN typically does not list performer names -- another indication that the performer names are listed to identify the scene, rather than as the award recipients. For example, item 40 on the 2009 AVN awards list, as announced by AVN [40]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per demonstrated meeting of the aplicable notability guideline. Awards notable to that genre, show notability TO that genre, even if to no other genres... and that an award is given to a group for the recognized actions of members of that group, does not denigrate that award. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline application of already dubious PORNBIO rule. This biography is sourced from her own website and an interview she did with "Xcitement magazine". The other two references have no info; they're just to the fact of the nominations debated above, added to the article in order to meet the rule in question. Other than that, we got nothing. This is not a suitable basis for a biography here. --WTFITS (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2011 (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. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this was previously deleted by strong consensus in 2009 and I see no real improvement in the article. most of it is directly from the Estonian foreign affairs website [41]. which says there are no embassies, no agreements whatsoever, there has been no leader visits. two way trade stands at less than 10 million euro. yes Estonia helped with the Pakistani earthquakes but sending 2 people and donating 64,000 EUR is a very small contribution to overall efforts. There is almost no third party coverage of actual bilateral relations. those wanting to keep must show evidence of actual significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Pakistan's relations with many (though not all) of the world's nations are important, there doesn't seem to be either co-operation or hostility between these two. "In 2009 Pakistan was ranked as Estonia’s 77th export partner and 37th import partner" says quite a bit about this. As LibStar points out, there are no embassies, agreements, or historical background. I think 64,000 Euro works out to a little less than $50,000 in U.S. dollars. I think that the author has made some great contributions on Pakistani topics, and at 170,000,000 people and some nukes, Pakistan is larger and tougher than most Westerners realize. However, there's nothing much to say here that can't be said in one of the foreign relations articles. Mandsford 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
€ 64,000 is 87 027.2 U.S. dollars. --Sander Säde 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got that one backward, € 1 = $1.33 rather than $1 = € 1.33 (using the exchange rate I was looking at). If it had just been $87,028.00 I might have said keep.... Mandsford 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, it may be borderline notable, but the article can be re-created if/when there are better sources and topics. Just one article view in January 2011 before today speaks for itself. --Sander Säde 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When these articles first came up, I did the math and the number of combinations of sovereign states (not to mention the bru ha ha over the rest) was quite unmanageable. Is there an alternate location to consolidate basic diplomatic/economic information between states? So:
when recognized each other
embassies/missions
annual trade volume
on sentence on any current developments
This would be helpful as the objection here is going to be that useful information is being deleted. Knowing relations are not significant is as informative as knowing they are. We will have a more constructive discussion here if we focus on where the information belongs specifically, that is, this should be a "merge" discussion, not a "delete" discussion. We might even set a precedent for handling these low priority relationships. I do agree that the relationship is not substantive enough for a dedicated article. Now that "X–Y relations" articles are here to stay, we should have some guidelines for when a relationship merits an article and when basic information on a relationship belongs in an alternate location (and what/where that specifically is). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, those x and y relationships that aren't notable are referred to in the articles called "Foreign relations of x" and "Foreign relations of y". You, or anyone else, can merge some of the information to the F.R.O. of Estonia or F.R.O. of Pakistan article, or both. I don't think that there's ever been a time when these were not "here to stay". I think people assume that that LibStar wants to delete all x-y relations articles, which is not the case. Finally, there have been poorly managed discussions before, back in 2009, that solved nothing. Only those people who regularly look at the "Centralized discussion" box at the top of the deletion log page were ever aware of them, and none of the AfD Forum participants were ever told about them until they'd gone along for awhile, so the two groups did not communicate. At that point, one of the Centralized guys would say "close your discussion until we're done talking" and the AfD guys would say "no, don't think so, we're working here". Nobody likes to be told to shut up. Maybe if one of the Centralized Discussion dudes wants to include folks like me and LibStar, Biruturol, Norton, etc. at their next party, "we" might work something out. Until then, it's a case-by-case thing. Mandsford 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Mandsford for your kind words. yes I do not believe all bilaterals to be non notable. just wish people spent more time on more notable combinations. we tried in the past to come up with some guidelines but some people just want to keep all bilaterals so it didn't go anywhere. LibStar (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are you suggesting redirect? if so you can't redirect to 2 articles. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a recreation of a previously deleted page with no improvement to its virtual dictionary-entry content. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the author - The entire content of this article was in fact copied from the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs webpage on Estonia-Pakistan relations, which readers can read from Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia-Pakistan relations. Certainly, if the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs consider this relationship worthy of notability then I can not see, why not Wikipedia sees such relationship worthy of notability. It is also noteworthy that the Ministry has not created any bilateral relations page with other major OIC countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh and Nigeria, and with any OPEC country. I will choose to abstain from any voting this time. (Jalal0 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
the fact that the Estonian foreign ministry does not cover other nations is irrelevant. All articles are assessed on its merit. Foreign affairs websites are a form of primary source. Lifting content from one website is hardly advancing notability. As per WP:GNG this article lacks third party coverage in multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argument 1: Based on the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists policy, I suggest the page be kept. Comparision to the Estonia – Sri Lanka relations be made. Consider the fact that in 2007, bilateral trade between Sri Lank and Estonia was less than 2million Euros, whereas Pakistan-Estonia trade was nearly 9million Euros. A significant difference in favour of Pakistan.
Argument 2 I had initially included quite plenty of information in the original page. A lot of information had in fact be deleted by other members, to make the relationship look insignificant. Moderators are requested to read detailed information from this link: [42] It will be apparent that there is more information then whats currently displayed on the Wikipedia page.
Argument 3 Pakistan current policy is focussing to gain Free Trade Agreement with European Union. Based on this policy, Pakistan is even trying to maintain good diplomatic relations with European microstates such as Liechtenstein. See P.R. No. 172/2007, Date: 28/06/2007, PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS BY AMBASSADOR AT LIECHTENSTEIN. Estonia too, though a small country, is still a member of the European Union, and therefore Pakistan values such relationship.
your arguments fail to show how there is significant coverage that is required to satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG. Nobody has found any third party sources, you keep citing the one primary source. Lastly saying that relations with Liechenstein somehow makes Estonia-Pakistan notable is pure synthesis. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
similarly, Pakistan-Paraguay was recently deleted because of lack of third party coverage, the same standard should apply here. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were several other reasons as well behind the deletion of Pakistan-Paraguay relations page. Lets not count on one-sided truth. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
What is the rationale behind choosing which page to merge this article with? (Jalal0 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment In this case, the article was written by an editor who has made many good contributions about topics related to Pakistan. The naming protocol on the nation x and nation y articles goes alphabetically, rather than by which nation is larger. If something like this is solved by a redirect, not necessarily a bad idea, better that it redirect to the foreign relations of the more powerful state. Mandsford 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing beyond arbitrary data here, Wikipedia is not an almanac. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2011 (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. Article hasn't been touched during the last week when Arielmoonchild33 promised to improve it. Will userfy on request. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources used do not support family background or biographic facts. This is not a notable person. Main editors are Arielmoonchild33 and Volvo144deluxe. One is likely the sock puppet of the other and the article's subject/agent. Please see their edit histories for ongoing creation of article variants. RebekahThorn (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE ARTICLE Sources do support family background and biographic facts. This is a notable person and family. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE this is not a notable person. This person is trying to gain the notability he lacks using Wikipedia for his private purposes. The events cited to support his notability are not notable at all. Erymata (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Erymata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete "This institution verified that prof. Alfred Freddy Krupa de Tarnawa is descended from the Ashina of Khazaria Royal Clan in an unbroken male line" - here we go again (more royal descendants...). I might get into trouble for saying that since he is "the administrator of the Ashina of Khazaria DNA Project at Family Tree DNA" they probably would. Then again, I mightn't. Two other articles related to this subject have very recently been speedied and I wouldn't disagree with the same happening here. His grandfather seems to have possibly been of note - enough to have a street named for him (although here in the UK that often happens to people who served on the local town council for 20 or 30 years without getting kicked off - and never doing anything much except turn up for meetings). However, the notability of his ancestors is irrelevant. I can't (well, I might be able to considering this) check out the Croat and Serb references, but here's one in English: "In 1995, Alfred Freddy Krupa graduated with a Master of Fine Arts in Painting at the Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb, Croatia.[13]" And what is reference 13? It's www.visit-croatia.co.uk/zagreb/ which is fine if you are thinking of visiting Zagreb, but says absolutely nothing about Krupa. References are supposed to back up the claims in the article, not give a tourist guide to a city. Another is to the English home page for the Tokyo Gakugei University. Are Krupa and his scholarship mentioned? Well, what do you expect? Ancestor Hunt is another. That's one of those places where you can find a coat of arms for your surname. They do say "Just select a surname to view a coat of arms but please remember, coats of arms are for fun and most family coat of arms were assigned to THAT one particular family, not a surname in general", which is more than some such sites do and I give them credit for that. A-K finishes with Krohn. (De Tarnawa isn't there either, so I can't see the point of this reference at all.) Oh, wait... It's about the municipality of Kamanje - but that site doesn't appear to list municipalities. The Portaloko reference appears (it is in Croat) to be about Juraj Baldani. Then we have an advertising site for Zürich, and finally one at www.karlovacdanas.com in what could be Croat that does mention him as administrator of iGENEA. I hope that someone will analyse the Croat based sites, to save me having to wade in. Good luck... Peridon (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To correct the above, the karlovacdanas article does refer to the alleged descent from the Ashina dynasty, but I can't say how reliable this site is. Nor can I say how notable can be descent from a dynasty of a land that was conquered in the 960s CE (by Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Peridon (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The karlovacdanas site seems to have articles like "Scientifically proven: a love affair with the parent assists in his career!." --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, how can they tell that he is descended in an unbroken male line? By records, maybe - but by DNA I doubt it. Anyway, how could they tell that the males were all offspring of legitimate unions even if the DNA chain worked? And how many other people might be in the same position too? Peridon (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you ask, in genetic genealogy it is recommended that you test multiple cousins who share the lineage. For example, if you think you are the direct descendant of Dirk Gently then you test, but you also test 4th, 7th, and 10th cousins who also should descend from Dirk Gently. The prof is in both the genealogical records and the DNA test. Without genealogical records? Pah. One could prove that Alfred Krupa, Sr. and Alfred Krupa, Jr. were related by testing one of AK,Jr's 1st cousins. --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read in that article, one can determine shared ancestry (and from reading elsewhere have found that surname and ancestry don't always match, even with Kohens...), but can one say specifically who the ancestor was? For example, someone might be shown to share ancestry with a group, as with the Phoenician ancestry in Malta, but can one be shown to descend from a dynasty from a thousand years ago rather than just from the Khazar people that they ruled and presumably were a part of (Khazars being a Turkic tribe in origin - how distinct were they genetically as opposed to politically and, for part of their history, religiously? (I must confess an interest here - I have a character who can recognise his descendants after hundreds of generations, and I've just seen a way for him to be able to do it. Wouldn't work for normal people, though...) Peridon (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important To Read I feel that I must put this answer here because I don't know where else to put it. Sources do support family background and biographic facts. This is a notable person and family that is under attack. I see that Rebekeh Thorn has led this attack against the Krupa family and that you Thorn say that you are concerned and that a group of you want to take anything about the Krupa's off of Wikipedia. Why are you out for blood? Why are you so angry? Folks, it seems that she has a motive for deleting these articles. Why does Rebekah Thorn have the right to get anything deleted. She is just a person out there with an opinion. Thorn take your stuff out of your sandbox and stop directing people to read it. Stand up and verify what you have written. Are you afraid that the Krupa articles will diminish your own? Thorn, I put the challange out to you to take your own article and put it up for review. It has been in the sandbox since 2006 I believe. Thorn has deliberatly gone after this article and any with the name Krupa. She has succeeded by using her own contacts and devices in the other two articles. Rebekah Thorn, I am not a sock puppet for anyone. I am supposed to have the time I need to rewrite, but that chance was not given to me. You had my articles deleted and now you are trying again. This woman is going to get away with having another verified and documented article deleted, if she is not stopped. If she succeeds, this is censorship. Wikipedia people, don't let this happen. And Peridon you stated "I've found a quite good way of getting rid of them is by demolishing their case - I've made a start at the AfD. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Censorship is not what it is all about and who made both of you God and any of your group (according to you Thorn there is a group of you) so what chance does this article have or any other with the name Krupa in it to stay up. Thank you Thorn and anyone else coming forth and destroying freedom - (you are making a mockery of Wikipedia - everyone can write an article - right - welcome to the new controlled razor shark infested waters of non-freedom writing - and intolerance and prejudice. Hats off to the know it alls and I hope I broke every rule in the book because according to you Thorn you are out to take down anything regarding Krupa and that is just wrong. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do support family background and biographic facts. This is a notable person and family. Bring back what Wikipedia is supposed to be.
Comment My remark about 'getting rid' was in connection with the continual reposting of articles that did not fit Wikipedia's standards. "you are making a mockery of Wikipedia - everyone can write an article" - yes, everyone can so long as it fits with Wikipedia's standards. I do not consider that this one does. I have never come across RebekahThorn before this, but I have just viewed her contributions and there has only been one other case of her contributing at AfD - and that was to vote Keep. "This woman is going to get away with having another verified and documented article deleted, if she is not stopped." Can you quote evidence of this career of deletionism? Verified? By whom? Documented? Unless the rest of the Croat documents are better than the English ones, no. If you want to enable people to gain more info on Zagreb, you put double square brackets around the name, and that links to the Wikipedia article. You don't put in a reference to a tourist site and leave the main claim in the sentence unreferenced. As to references - one of the references concerning Baldani does mention a Krupa. This is most certainly Alfred Krupa the elder, on whom he wrote in 1985 - ten years before the current subject "graduated with a Master of Fine Arts in Painting". The article does not say that he was a noted child prodigy, so I feel safe in assuming it to be the grandfather. I also feel that the grandfather might be notable enough for an article. Peridon (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledgement One of the other nominations is mine. I think though the objection is to my long history of tracking IP address edits to articles and revising as appropriate. It makes it gosh darn hard for the legions to change text to fit their pundits. --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Offer If the art and Croatian experts think that Alfred Krupa, Sr. is notable enough for an article, I would be more than happy to edit a basic stub with valid sources. I would doubtless put it on my watch list and trim out anything that was unsourced or did not pertain to the life and art of Alfred Krupa, Sr. --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of making the article more wiki applicable. I would like time to do it so please do not delete. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issue. Firstly this band's only results in google are self-created pages such as myspace, secondly this article appears to be self-written in the form of an advertisement by a person affiliated with this band Heggyhomolit (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent recreation. This article has been deleted several times in the recent past, only to be recreated by the same user. The article reads like an advertisement, and the only thing about them which comes close to them having notability is stating that an album is "critically acclaimed." However, there is no verification of this, and I highly doubt there is the possibility for it. --23 Benson (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. And I can find no critical acclaim for the album that is supposedly critically acclaimed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I accept the above criticism and have updated The Credo (Band) page to include references to independent album reviews and record label sites to make it comparable to Wikipedia entries for similar progressive rock bands. --FrankenGene (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — FrankenGene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per original arguement. See WP:BAND Criteria point 1; references fail to meet requirements. Sorry lads but WP is not a source for music promotion. Heggyhomolit (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a locally referenced, if small, band. They've got a lot of output and have some good linked sources. Klar Distribution (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not an arguement. The article does not meet WP guidelines, see WP:BAND. Heggyhomolit (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reviewed the added sourcing and remain unconvinced that this meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many bands that have entries in the progressive rock category in Wikipedia that are no more well known or more poorly referenced eg. Ark (UK Band), Arena (Band), DeeExpus, Frost*, and that's only getting to 'F'. This entry is a work in progress and it will improve further in the coming few months as I track down more information. It is not intended as an advert, and will happily change any wording found to be objectionable. -- --FrankenGene (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC) -— FrankenGene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Generally, the state of other articles is not germane to this discussion. You are welcome and encouraged to improve the referencing in those articles or nominate them for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, generally maybe, but specifically I must respectfully disagree. I have accepted that the original article was very poor and warranted deletion. The updated article is now as good or better than many other entries under the progressive rock band category. Furthermore, this band is at least as well known as many others in the category and deserves to be listed amongst its peers. I argue that comparison with other similar articles is valid in these circumstances so as to demonstrate fair and equitable treatment. Otherwise, how are we to tell the difference between reasonable deletions and malicious ones, especially when notability and reference criteria have an element of subjectivity to them. Lastly, to the commenter who sought to diminish my arguments by appending my editing statistics to the end of my previous post, poor show. I have been following progressive rock for more than thirty years and know a little about the subject, that is what should matter, and not the frequency of my editing. -- --FrankenGene (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really should be assuming good fath, with regard to other editors. This AfD was not created as an act of malicious intent, rather the act of patrolling a page, and making an informed decision on the matter. To quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "plenty of articles exist that probably should not." You really shouldn't be taking into account the content of other articles in your reasoning for keeping or deleting this article. This AfD is about Credo, not any other article. --23 Benson (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point is that it does not meet one point of criteria on WP:BAND. These guidelines are there to ensure that the servers are not flooded with articles merely written to promote something or someone and will ulimately have no encyclopaedic purpose. Please read the following which is criterion 1 from WP:BAND:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
The only references provided are of a trivial nature. The other 11 criteria are not met in this case. Heggyhomolit (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and no other indication of meeting the criteria at WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. For a group appearently active for nearly two decades there's surprisingly little of... well, anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. (WP:NAC) The article is so changed since the initial nomination that the original nomination statement no longer applies. Subsequent decisions should be taken only with regard to the new state of the article. Withdrawing per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Fleet Command (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article tries to make up a fictional brand called "Windows Live Office". There is no such thing as "Windows Live Office" (and this article also fails to provide a source to that effect) and therefore this forgery of brand names is direct violation of laws. You needn't worry about this articles contents: They are already included in Windows Live Skydrive and Office Web Apps. Fleet Command (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: An editor has moved the original article to Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, in an attempt to address the nominations concern but has created new concerns, discussed below. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There may not have been a "Windows Live Office", but there was Microsoft Office Live which seems to be the actual subject of this sources cited in this article. Pending any explanation from other editors as to why this separate article might be appropriate, I'd suggest a redirect.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Well, I don't oppose with redirect but I don't know what is the good of a redirect either. It is definitely not a plausible typo, you see. As for the contents, they should go, per Wikipedia:Content forking. Fleet Command (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to look under the "Related articles" section of WP:CONTENTFORK. Just because two or more articles contain a significant amount of information in common with one another, does not make it content fork. --Damaster98 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and here comes the main contributor of the article! You are wrong, dear sir! That would only be valid if you hadn't made up this funny fake name. But since the name is fake, the relation is also fake. The contents aren't related at all; they are exactly the same. Fleet Command (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you seem surprised seeing that part of the instructions to nominate an AfD is to inform the creator of the article of the AfD nomination, and you did this yourself. My contribution here is just as important as any other authors. Back on topic, you cannot assert that just because the article title is not the "official branding", the actual subject of the article does not exist. In fact, if you had read the articles Office Web Apps and Windows Live Office, you'd notice the relationships AND differences between the two. The contents that are different between the two are outlined in my point below.
I'm not disagreeing with you that the title "Windows Live Office" is not the actual branding used by Microsoft to brand http://office.live.com . However, this service definitely exist and as such should not warrant an AfD for the article. I'm open for discussion for an alternative naming of the article. -Damaster98 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not surprised. Second, I don't care what other articles have to say as long as there is not a source. After all, you wrote much of the other articles. Fleet Command (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the other articles (such as Office Web Apps) have references contained within. They are fact-based and have been sourced. Judging by your comment (throughout this entire conversation), I'm under the impression that you are prejudicing that everything I contribute on Wikipedia are non-sourced and are "made up" by myself. It would be great if you take a read of those other articles first before saying "there is not a source". Thank you. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not prejudiced. It is just a matter of WP:NPOV of your point of view as well as what I wrote below. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or Rename. There's a few things the requestor's request above had been misleading:
While it may not be referred to as "Windows Live Office" by Microsoft, the exact same service the article being referred to is often branded as "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" [43]. This service definitely exist on http://office.live.com and is not a "made-up" service. It is listed as a separate service than SkyDrive on http://home.live.com/allservice (notice "Office" has its individual entry). As such, the most we should do is to rename the article. This is a discussion about the naming of the article, and definitely not a reason for AfD.
Office Web Apps refers to the technology underlying Windows Live Office. Office Web Apps by itself is a standalone product that can come as an add-on with Microsoft SharePoint Server to be individually installed on enterprise servers, or hosted as part of SharePoint Online. In both of these cases, these have nothing to do with Windows Live. In particular, the "Features" section of the current Windows Live Office article mentions features that are in no way mentioned in the Office Web Apps article due to the fact that they are unique to the Windows Live-specific service (e.g. Hotmail integration).
In addition, Windows Live Office is the service that is replacing Office Live Workspace - not Windows Live SkyDrive or any other service. As such, the "History" section of the article is specific to the Windows Live Office article, and this content is not covered by any other articles, and would be inappropriate to be included within any other articles.
As such, this is definitely not a case of content fork, and does not meeting any of the reasons for deletion on the WP:DEL policy. Reiterating myself, the reasons the requestor had raised should be at most about the naming of the article, and definitely does not contribute to the reason for AfD. --Damaster98 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't expect the main contributor of the article to vote otherwise! Still, what you say is pure nonsense that you made up! Where is your source? You have none. You made all these up! The fact is that the sources only mention two brand names: SkyDrive and Office Web Apps. There is no Windows Live Office. You also keep saying "as mentioned earlier". You made a terrible mistake mentioning those unreferenced nonsense earlier. Fleet Command (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources had been given in my points above, and within the articles themselves. Take a read of the Office Web Apps article, paragraph two and you'd find information about point 2a) above, and the source as well. Office Web Apps (the technology) in itself does not offer features such as version control, integration with Hotmail, security/login via Windows Live ID, or co-authoring/collaboration with other Windows Live users. These features are only available as part of the Windows Live Office (http://office.live.com) service, or you may call it "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", and not available as part of Office Web Apps for the enterprise, or Office Web Apps on SharePoint Online, Office 365...etc. --Damaster98 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hosted individually by various business via Microsoft SharePoint Server or Microsoft SharePoint Online
Each "service" is built upon the "technology" and adds its unique feature sets and functionalities. Thus it is inappropriate to say that the "service" is the same as the underlying "technology" (i.e. Windows Live Office (or whatever you want to call it) - the service - is not the same as Office Web Apps - the underlying technology). --Damaster98 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you stopped repeating your own personal opinion and introduced a real source, call me. Fleet Command (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not see I've provided sources in everything I've said above? Take a read of this: Office Web Apps platform comparison overview - Microsoft Technet which was already referenced within the Office Web Apps article. If you would go about and do some research YOURSELF (and I honestly do not think it's too much effort given that there are already references within the articles themselves) that would be great. It would be great if you could be more specific exactly what sources you need (and don't say everything - there's enough links in the comments I've provided above). Your reply had been completely ignorant of what I have taken time and effort to write above. Here's a few more sources that I am repeating here for your convenience: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] If you want more please be more specific as to what you need explained or "sourced". I'd be utterly disappointed if you reply with another ignorant response without thoroughly reading any of the sources I have provided above. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion here and judging by your ignorant and offensive attitude I cannot foresee that happening. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source to confirm that there is anything called "Windows Live Office". None of those sources confirm what you say about the service and the underlying technology as well as a mandate for something being missing in the middle that your fictitious Windows Live Office has to fulfill. Simply put: There is a web application called Office Web Apps that creates and edits office files, while there are web applications like SkyDrive, SharePoint and Workspace that interface with those files. The relation between these two group of services is akin to the relationship between Microsoft Office and Windows Explorer. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact your sources say that "Windows Live SkyDrive" and not some fictitious thing "is a part of Microsoft's Windows Live service that allow users to upload their Microsoft Office documents to a computing cloud and share them with other users. Users can also create, view and edit Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote documents from a web browser using the integrated Office Web Apps. The service utilizes Windows Live ID to limit access to the documents the user has uploaded, allowing them to keep the documents private, share with contacts, or make the files public." Fleet Command (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said above, I agree with you that the naming of the article is incorrect, as it is not officially branded "Windows Live Office". You're right, reiterating what you said, there is a web application called Office Web Apps that creates and edits office files, and there's services like SkyDrive that provides cloud storage for these files. However, there's also another layer in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive) - and that's the web service located at http://office.live.com - and this service manages and organises these office files - and this is what this article (regardless of the naming) is about. One cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "SkyDrive", because as I have sourced using http://home.live.com/allservices and http://explore.live.com, Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office" (i.e. http://office.live.com) from "SkyDrive" (http://skydrive.live.com). One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps", as Office Web Apps (the web application) is also used by other web services like Docs.com (i.e. http://docs.com) or Facebook Messages (source: [54][55]) which are not associated with the web service located at http://office.live.com - as there are no integration between them at all - the "Office Web Apps" on Docs.com and Facebook Messages cannot be accessed via http://office.live.com or SkyDrive. There needs to be an article about the web service located in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive) - an article about the thing that's located at http://office.live.com. Whether you'd like to call it "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" as officially branded by Microsoft or anything else that's fine, but an article needs to exist to describe this service. --Damaster98 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're going in circles.
You start a lot of your sentences with "You cannot say". But in all those cases, I can say and in fact I do say so.
You keep saying "there's also another layer in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive)" but I don't think so, don't believe so, don't see it in your sources and have no idea why you think there should be one such layer (and even if there is, why it should be exposed to user.)
Sometimes you speak outright against sources and yourself! You have thrice used the the term "underlying technology" in this discussion, but each time to refer to different things! And so it happens that these "underlying" things are all exposed to user (= not underlying) via the web browser! In addition, whereas you referred to Office Web Apps as an underlying technology, Microsoft refers to it as a Silverlight-based application.
Look, if you would like to just repeat yourself, you are welcome but I won't repeat myself again.
The "You" in "You cannot say" is not specifically directly at you, or any particular individual. I apologise for the misunderstanding and have corrected it to read "One cannot say" in my response above. However, in your response when you said "I don't think so, don't believe so" - this is purely your own personal opinion and just because you don't think so doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and I have sourced everything I have said in my response). I feel that you are very slow in understanding the subject matter and concepts here, and hence why we're going in circles. You say you don't think there's a layer between SkyDrive and Office Web Apps, then just answer one question - what is that service located at http://office.live.com? It is not "SkyDrive" (as Microsoft clearly distinguishes it from http://skydrive.live.com), and it's more than "Office Web Apps" (as it offers additional features like version history and integration with Hotmail - something not offered in other "Office Web Apps"-based services like Docs.com). Here's the three layers:
- Office Web Apps - creates and edit office files
- http://office.live.com - allow users to manage office files (i.e. manage document version history...etc.)
- SkyDrive - cloud storage to store office and other files
And I apologize for not understanding that "you" means "one". Now please provide source for every instance of "one cannot say"; because you are not a reliable source for what one can say or cannot say!
Your sources say:
• Office Web Apps - Creates and edit office files
• SkyDrive - A cloud storage to store office and other files and allows users to manage office files (i.e. manage document version history...etc.)
• http://office.live.com - Your sources do not say anything. How do you know it is not just a humble shortcut to SkyDrive? (After all, you are not creating separate articles for hotmail.com and mail.live.com).
You need to be able to read better FleetCommand - we're going in circles because of your failure to read what I wrote. Every sentence that began with "One cannot say" have a proper rationale AND source following on. I'll put it in table format if that helps you easier to comprehend:
Statement
Rationale
Source
1. One cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "SkyDrive"
2. One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps"
Because Office Web Apps (the web application) is also used by other web services like Docs.com (i.e. http://docs.com) or Facebook Messages. These other services (Docs.com, Facebook Messages) which also use Office Web Apps are not associated with http://office.live.com - there is no integration between them at all - the "Office Web Apps" on Docs.com and Facebook Messages cannot be accessed via http://office.live.com or SkyDrive.
I think statement #1 above quite clearly addresses your concern that "http://office.live.com is not a humble shortcut to SkyDrive". In fact, your analogy to Hotmail is totally incorrect - http://hotmail.com redirects to http://mail.live.com - they are the same thing, whereas if you go to http://office.live.com and http://skydrive.live.com they are totally different. One clearly reads "Office - Windows Live" as the title of the site, and the latter reads "SkyDrive - Windows Live" as the title of the site. --Damaster98 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Office: View, edit, and share Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote documents from almost anywhere using Microsoft Office Web Apps on SkyDrive. Learn more.
The source distinguishes two services: Office Web Apps and SkyDrive; no mention of a third service. Clicking on the word "Learn more" takes you to your next source. (Read below.)
explore.live.com/office-web-apps: On title bar, the word "Office" is highlighted, while the large title on the middle reads: "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive". As you can see, office refers to Office Web Apps. If that is not enough, the distinguishes two services:
Get Started: Get online with Windows Live SkyDrive, then upload your Microsoft Office files and share them with others. Create or edit Office files online even if you don’t have Office on your PC.
Work from virtually anywhere With Office Web Apps, you can work on your Microsoft Office files virtually anywhere there's an Internet connection. Access your Office files in SkyDrive from supported web browsers.
You said: Because Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office" from "SkyDrive". But as you see, Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office Web Apps" from "SkyDrive"!
right|110pxNext, you said: "One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps"" because other services also host Office Web Apps! But have you forgotten that besides other web service providers, Windows Live also host Office Web Apps?! If that is not enough, see the included screenshot of Microsoft Word Web App: The URL reads cid-0ee0f5c6f873726f.office.live.com/view.aspx
You have not realized three things:
That URLs are merely access helpers and do not constrain web services. Even in Wikipedia, there are sometimes multiple URLs to one thing. For instance File:Bing logo.svg can be accessed via [59] or [60] or [61] or [62]. Likewise, the same thing on SkyDrive can be accessed from two different URLs. For example: [63] (office.live.com) and [64] (skydrive.live.com)
In Wikipedia, Verifiability is what matters not Original Research made from one's own point of view. In other word: One is not authorized to write something in Wikipedia for which one provides a "Rationale" column in table! The fact that you are forced to invent a fictitious title like "Windows Live Office" is enough evidence that what you write is synthesis of published material that advances a position and therefore not allowed in Wikipedia.
That every article in Wikipedia must be notable (received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources); otherwise it is merged or deleted. The subject "that specific copy of Office Live App that is integrated in Windows Live SkyDrive" is specifically not notable, hence it is merged into Windows Live SkyDrive and Office Web App.
No, FleetCommand. On both home.live.com/allservices and explore.live.com/office-web-apps, as you yourself have quoted above on both instances, "Office" here refers to "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" (as one thing), which is the service located at office.live.com. You're taking your own personal interpretation here and trying interpret that as simply "Office Web Apps" neglecting the entire title as a whole.
As such, Statement #1 above means Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)" from "Windows Live SkyDrive".
Next, you say "But have you forgotten that besides other web service providers, Windows Live also host Office Web Apps?". There you have it - Windows Live host Office Web Apps, Docs.com also host Office Web Apps, Facebook Messages will also host Office Web Apps, and enterprises can also host Office Web Apps on their own SharePoint servers. As such "Office Web Apps" is a browser-based application hosted by multiple services, and hence "Office Web Apps" is not the same as "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)", they're two separate layers as supported and sourced by Statement #2 above. Your screenshot merely proves the point that it is a screenshot of Word Web App from "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)" - I can similarly show a screenshot of Word Web App on Docs.com.
In response to your three things:
1. I am perfectly aware of this, and as such the URL itself is not used a source for Statement #1 above. Rather, I have used official Microsoft-owned websites as sources to demonstrate the point stated by Statement #1 above.
2. Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability, No Original Research or Synthesis applies to "all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". It does not apply to discussion pages such as this one where I am simply trying to explain concepts, rather than using it as sources or references in the actual article itself. As such other than the article title "Windows Live Office" which I admit is incorrectly titled, there is nothing in the actual article Windows Live Office that attributes to Original Research or Synthesis. As such, I'm happy for the dispute against the naming of the article, however the notability of the article is what should be discussed here (which leads to point 3 below).
3. I have demonstrated notability of the article (i.e. the topic "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive") in my response to Pnm below. I am happy to include these into the article itself at a later time.
Furthermore, I am disgusted by the fact that when you wrote "The fact that you are forced to invent a fictitious title like Windows Live Office is enough evidence that what you write is synthesis of published material that advances a position", you are asserting that just because I incorrectly named one article title that everything else I write on Wikipedia is a result of synthesis. Generalisation much FleetCommand? --Damaster98 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. What? Are you under the impression that Windows Live Office is not an article? Or are you under the impression only because AFD is not an article, you can use as many original research here as you like to secure a KEEP verdict and then leave the article as is?
3. Yes, thanks for proving notability. (Although one can argue that you proved the notability of SkyDrive not "Windows Live Office", per last sentence of WP:NTEMP, but I don't.) However, still the issue of the fake brand name is not resolved. It is fake and must be removed. Where the content goes does not concern me for the time being; although I probably come along and argue for it to be merged to SkyDrive because of contextual similarity, overlap and article size.
1. I stand corrected and there are no contradiction in my statements. You need to understand that "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" is "office.live.com". They are same thing and it is the topic we're discussing about. "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", or "office.live.com" (whichever way you prefer to call it), remains a different layer from "Windows Live SkyDrive (skydrive.live.com)" and "Office Web Apps". This is demonstrated and well-supported by sources indicated in Statement 1 and Statement 2 in the table I provided above.
2. First of all, I have always recognised Windows Live Office is an article, and as I've said before, there are no original research nor synthesis within that article. Your accusation of "synthesis" is directed at the "Rationale" column in the table I gave above, within this "discussion" namespace. Please understand that in a "discussion page" like this, the Wikipedia policy "Synthesis" do not apply. No reliable secondary source is ever going to read "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is notable on Wikipedia" - you always have to support your argument using synthesis of primary and secondary sources. A common example of using synthesis on "discussion pages" is to use the number of Google hits to support a position. To make it clear to administrators - there are no original research nor synthesis in the Windows Live Office article namespace.
3. Since the requestor for this AfD has agreed that notability of the article in question has been established, I think we should be at a position to close this AfD. As evidenced by the sources I have given below to Pnm, the reliable secondary sources specifically relates to "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" (the topic in question), not other instances of "Office Web Apps" (such as those on Docs.com or SharePoint) nor "Windows Live SkyDrive". From FleetCommand's response above, the requestor of this AfD agreed that this is only a matter of changing the naming of the article and I have no objections to this suggestion.
1. You STILL have not realized that URLs are means to an end, not web applications. You still say office.live.com is this or office.live.com is that, despite that fact that I clearly showed that what you find on office.live.com is sometimes SkyDrive ([[65]) and sometimes Office Web Apps ([66]) and despite the fact office.live.com plays no part in your article. Honestly, what are you driving at?
2. ...Or are you under the impression only because AFD is not an article, you can use as many original research here as you like to secure a KEEP verdict and then leave the article as is?...
3. Wrong! You didn't solve the problem; you just made it worse. Now, unreferenced nonsenses like "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive provides the same basic functionality as Windows Live SkyDrive" fill the article. Sourced statements are even worse. Statement "this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50MB" has a source but that source contradicts the statement outright. (The source, which must be retrieved through Web Archive, talks about SkyDrive.) I once thought that the article must be deleted because its contents are merely Content forking. But now, I think it must be deleted because it is pure nonsense. Even if it is corrected I still do not see why Office Web Apps and Office Web Apps on SkyDrive should have separate articles of their own.
4. You have failed to understand one last thing: Notability, content forking and all other policies here are also means to accomplish Wikipedia's mission: To provide our readers with accurate and reliable information about significant subjects in the most effective manner. What you did is in conflict with this mission.
1. What are you driving at? Your inability to comprehend is unbelievable. I will not waste time anymore trying to explain to you that "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" is "office.live.com" - the topic in discussion, which is distinct from "Office Web Apps" and "Windows Live SkyDrive" as supported by Statements 1 and 2 in the table above. We're going in circles because of your inability to comprehend what I wrote above. I have provided sufficient explanation above for anyone to understand.
2. The synthesis I have provided on this AfD namespace are simply used to support Statements 1 and 2 above, which are in turn used to support my argument. I do not foresee Statements 1 and 2 above to be published within the actual Article namespace in discussion (neither is anything else discussed here). Now, WP:NOR states that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources". The Article in discussion here does not contain any of such original research or synthesis, and as such does not violate Wikipedia policy.
3. First, I have not made a change to the article. Second, so you think it must be deleted? Since when is this about what you think? Third, Office Web Apps and Office Web Apps on SkyDrive should have separate articles of their own because of a well sourced-supported Statement 2 in the table above.
4. Your accusation of Conflict of Interest is completely ungrounded, and I take that with utmost offense. A friendly reminder per WP:Conflict of interest that please "do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."
Come now, dear Damaster98, give it a rest. All this juvenile vilification only destroys your excellent reputation in Wikipedia. And what would you get in return? An article that says Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is integrated in Hotmail and uses Office Web Apps! Until now, we've settled our previous disputes in a very friendly manner. Can't we just get along without calling each other names and taking offense? And what would you lose if this article gets deleted? All its contents are already on Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have not called you nor anyone names. Second, you have launched a series of false accusations against me personally (including but not limited the accusation of COI above), and it is within my right to defend myself. Let's set that record straight. --Damaster98 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Office Web Apps or another similar article if one exists, otherwise, DeleteWikiManOne (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows Live SkyDrive#Windows_Live_Office. The it exists / it doesn't exist argument is tedious to follow and somewhat irrelevant. Where are the reliable, secondary sources? The only one mentioned above was eWeek article, and it doesn't mention Windows Live. There aren't any reliable secondary sources in Windows Live Office which are post-transition from Office Live Workspace. This WindowsITPro article says the replacement for Office Live Workspace was Office Web Apps integration in SkyDrive, and http://explore.live.com/office-web-apps calls the service "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive." The topic is Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, and lacks reliable sources to substantiate its notability on its own. --Pnm (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to locate and include additional reliable secondary sources into the article. --Damaster98 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd change my recommendation if you provide sources here which demonstrate notability. --Pnm (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some reliable secondary sources to support the notability of "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive":
Notice that all articles specifically talks about "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", rather that other services which also uses "Office Web Apps" such as Docs.com or the SharePoint version which can be self-hosted by enterprises.
Please let me know if there are additional sources that you'd like me to provide to demonstrate notability. Thanks! --Damaster98 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A I'm satisfied with Telegraph and eWeek. (PC Mag is unsubstantial; the others are probably not reliable sources.) --Pnm (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources located by Damaster98. --Pnm (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: The article now talks nonsense. Now, unreferenced nonsenses like "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive provides the same basic functionality as Windows Live SkyDrive" fill the article. Sourced statements are even worse. Statement "this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50MB" has a source but that source contradicts the statement outright. (The source, which must be retrieved through Web Archive, talks about SkyDrive.) These two are just examples. Almost the entire article (except History section) is like that. Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add the "ref-improve" or "cleanup" tag. These are not reasons for an AfD. --Damaster98 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the clarification. I updated the nomination to reflect the new concern. The new concern is that the article now reads:
"This service [Office Web Apps on SkyDrive] provides the ability to: [~snip~] Allow users to share the documents and have multiple users simultaneously co-author Excel and OneNote documents directly within the web browser using Office Web Apps"!
In which way does that sentence you've quoted above meets CSD:G1? --Damaster98 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences do not meet CSD; articles do! (I'm not nitpicking; get the technical point.) The sentence above, like the rest of the article, is patent nonsense. It says: "Office Web Apps uses Office Web Apps"! So does the rest of the article. It says: Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is integrated in Hotmail! "The service also integrates with Microsoft Office 2010 where users may save their files directly onto Windows Live SkyDrive." How can Office Web Apps on SkyDrive be integrated into Office? (Wow! Office getting "integrated" into Office!) And the result of this integration is that Office 2010 can now upload to SkyDrive? Don't you think it is actually SkyDrive that is "integrated" into Office 2010?
All these nonsense would have made perfect sense if you hadn't changed your philosophy of 3-layered-model and the article was still named "Windows Live Office". (Although, no such thing as "Windows Live Office" exist.)
The article doesn't remotely meet CSD G1. --Pnm (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! It far surpasses patent nonsense and falls within the purview of ultra-patent nonsense! It says Office Web Apps on SkyDrive lets you upload to Hotmail, uses Office Web Apps and is integrated into Microsoft Office 2010! Obviously, you should read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense.
All references to liveside.net in the article has been replaced. FYI I do not own liveside.net nor did I publish any of the references. Deadlinks have also been replaced with working links. As such there is no longer the issue of Wikipedia:Verfiability (self-published sources).
The issue of Verifiability is still not resolved. Now, the article outright fails verification. For example "Hence similar to SkyDrive, this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50 MB" is not stated in your source. Your source says "SkyDrive" and not Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, provides such storage. Even if we assume that you are right, then the issue of WP:CONTENTFORKING comes up yet once again. As another example, Paul Thurrot has never said that the same copy of Office Web Apps that is hosted on SkyDrive is the one that is also hosted on Hotmail. Fleet Command (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Windows Live Office is a valid search term so keeping as a redirect is logical. —MikeAllen 10:06, 2 February 2011 (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. Assertions of Fogelnest's notability were not backed up by specific sources, weakening keep arguments. Assertions about the article's authorship have been ignored. lifebaka++ 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article needs to be improved, but 138 Gnews hits, many of them non-trivial indicates notability. Dewritech (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author blanked the page in this edit. The article was eligible for a speedy delete per G7 at that point. Perhaps, rather than restoring the edits and nominating for deletion, as the proposer did, it would make more sense to revert the reversion of the blanking and add ({{db-blanked}}) to the top of the article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article needs work, and I'm not sure how notable being the pres of a national legal org is, but I'm in doubt enough to say keep for now.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page reads like a short resume; Wikipedia is not a directory of people who have had careers. Abductive (reasoning) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of the unreferenced BLP. The only thing I can find was this that says he played one of the years mentioned in the article but doesn't even say if he played in a game. J04n(talk page) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above {{findsources}} searches, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music journalist. No third party sources to establish notability. No references at all, in fact: totally unverified. The author credits are to minor books and articles in run of the mill periodicals. Writing an article in the Ryanair in-flight magazine does not notability make.GrapedApe (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this article which I don't feel is really independent coverage. And there is this polish language article about one of his books. But aside from that, I cannot find significant coverage about him or his writings in reliable sources with an emphasis on reliable. I can find interviews like this, and reviews like this, but they aren't reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:39, 7 February 2011 (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. Tone 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced WP:BLP article tagged as such since August 2009. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but it was reverted within the hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me", which fails to address the problems of an unsourced WP:BLP article. Article is ineligible for WP:BLPPROD because it was created before March 18, 2010. Icalanise (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or Merge to Sonic the Hedgehog (character) I dug deep into Google through tons of blogs and private websites to find a mention on The Guardian. He gets a lot of attention by the blogosphere which - although unusable as ref/source - does indicate a certain notability. Sonic the Hedgehog is a well known video game character and although I am normally very critical of overly fast inclusion of articles in this field I'm going to say "weak keep". Travelbird (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Teancum seems to have nailed it. This article needs to have its references improved, but the topic is notable. -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTH in general, and #2 in particular. As a side point, infinite nominations for AfD are bad enough, but now the barely transparent PROD process can be duplicated with WP:BLPPROD? Surely they should be mutually exclusive. Anarchangel (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged as an unsourced WP:BLP article in July 2009. Since that time no references have been added. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but the tag was removed within an hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me". Icalanise (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep According to imdb she now seems to be called "Nadine Nicole" which incidentally may be a reason to move the article to Nadine Nicole. She seems to have been a guest star in a couple of series episodes which might just get her past the notability bar. Travelbird (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its ok to prod an old unreferenced BLP as not notable or even verifiable, but prodding it simply for being unreferenced (if it was created before March 18, 2010) is not appropriate. The actress is borderline, but she seems notable enough for inclusion. I have added a ref.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there are a couple of sources providing significant coverage, but I'm not sure it's quite enough for notability at this time. Agreed that this is a borderline case, though. Robofish (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is more or less a call for clarification: is the National Institutes of Health Director's Pioneer Award sufficiently prestigious to fit under WP:PROF's #2 criterion? If so, perhaps it should not be deleted. If not, I see nothing about this professor that is sufficiently notable otherwise. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:PROF#C1. Google scholar shows seven papers with over 100 citations each, two as first author [67]. That said, I doubt the award meets #C2; it looks less like a prize for distinguished research and more like a research grant to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS h index of 21 in a well cited field is probably sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should read WP:Prof and do WP:Before before creating more AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publication record insufficient to meet WP:PROF C1. The one national award she received is not sufficiently prestigious as suggested by the nom to meet WP:PROF C2. It's an award given to support research with potential and promise. This is not what C2 is getting at. I have little doubt that within a few years Ting will easily pass WP:PROF on several criteria levels, but not yet. --Crunch (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2011 (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.
No indication that this particular speech is notable in its own right, since the only source is a singular blog post. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and come up with a better name for this very notable and controversial speech by Bill Cosby, which I remember clearly. When I Google with the search terms "Bill Cosby NAACP speech controversy", I see numerous articles in reliable sources discussing this speech. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "blog post" mentioned above was a lengthy article by Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor at The Atlantic . That's a reliable source, because he's a professional journalist writing for a major publication. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous reliable sources found even when searching for "Pound Cake Speech." PeRshGo (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable references, including books. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This speech was discussed on many TV shows and in many magazine articles. It was talked about in books and it sparked responses in essays. Whole books were written solely in response, such as Is Cosby Right? by Michael Eric Dyson. Some of the source I found in a quick search:
These would help flesh out the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proquest shows 34 hits from newspaper articles. It seems noteworthy. Will Bebacktalk 06:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a pretty famous speechJmm6f488 (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Binksternet shows there are plenty of reliable sources to support notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but I'm afraid the nominator is right about WP:NF. It could be argued that by being screened at a notable festival counts as "it's been taken note of" but the community disagrees. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is incomplete in many aspects but the subject is enough notable, featured in some international film festivals. Bill william compton (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be intransigent. If you feel it can be improved, go for it! Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Glad will not be intransigent. Notable, as featured in international film festivals. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Screening at a film festival is not a notability criteria as listed at WP:NF, except for criteria 2c The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. And this film does not match that criteria. Tassedethe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (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. Tikiwont (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A massive crystal ball if I ever saw one. So much speculation its beyond believe. It doesn't even have a record label behind it, not track-listing, an unconfirmed titled, its been in production since 2006/07 and has no confirmed release date. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 05:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The few bits of information I can find (including the article refs--btw, the second one links to a blog's comment section) are too outdated to pass WP:V. Starting Never is more like it. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nina Sky is no longer signed to this label and has since come out with other albums, so this will never come out. WP:CRYSTALNate•(chatter) 05:50, 30 January 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominating user did not succeed in stating his reasons, so nomination may be defective. However, there are no third party sources confirming notability, and the magazine seems to be defunct, as most recent content on its web site dates to 2008. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no sources in article meeting WP:V. Icalanise (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Doesn't appear to have ever really gotten off the ground. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:07, 31 January 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by policy this page should be deleted, but in this case we could wait two more days to see that she doesnt win the Aussie Open title (as doing so would allow her to pass.) Mayumashu (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree lets wait a couple of days before we have to go and ask someone to put it back KnowIG (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this she's entered the junior championship, not the main tournament. According to this she lost the semi-finals of that tournament. She may become notable in the future, but that is a case of WP:CRYSTALTravelbird (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2011 (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. Closing as "keep" because there is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG and the fact that one of the "delete" !voters is conceding that she may barely pass WP:NTENNIS. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is currently in the top 10 [68]? She was at the finals of the US Open in 2010. So keep.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason to keep. She fails notablity as she hasn't won a gs and has not been ranked in the top 3 of juniors KnowIG (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, she may technically pass WP:TENNIS/N even if just barely. However the Luxembourg tournament is certainly not the world's most important one and she lost in the first round. Since that seems to be her only participation in a senior tournament she's not really notable yet. She may well become so in the future but at the moment this isn't really someone who is guaranteed to have sustained long-term notability. Travelbird (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reevaluating this and taking another look at the topic, it does indeed appear to pass WP:NOTE - that is, has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources that are verifiable. This includes archived news articles, as well as more recent coverage - in multiple different languages. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notwithstanding the "scholarly" debate above about whether she is important, multiple reliable secondary sources that are verifiable have seen fit to provide significant coverage about the subject. What would become of a Wikipedia that put its article inclusion decision making above the decisions by reliable sources? Wikipedia would become nothing more than just another website on the web. Cirt has it right. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May well be a worthy person but I cannot find any reliable sources inside or outside the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Google news archive and Google books searching for "Karlina Leksono" [69][70] found what look to me like enough sources to pass WP:GNG. There are also some relevant looking hits in Google scholar [71] including a claim that her arrest at a protest sparked a media furor [72] and this intriguing excerpt from a book that is unfortunately unavailable for preview (The making of women's activism during the Reformasi years, M Budianta - … in Southeast Asia: Comparing Indonesia and …, 2003): "The expansion of Karlina Leksono-Supeli's career from an apolitical scientist to a committed activist is a good example. Known as a brilliant young scientist, the researcher ..." Here is another book with nontrivial coverage (two long paragraphs) about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources, particularly the book, noted by David Eppstein above. RayTalk 05:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per A10. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:31, 30 January 2011 (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.
Facepalm. --Kinu t/c 09:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
![[59]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[60]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[61]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}