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.
Comment – Player meets the first point in WP:NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League". Niklas Lundström has played one game in Elitserien and therefore passes WP:NHOCKEY. HeyMid (contribs) 17:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the article (and I took this from the version as it was AfDed) "Lundström played his first Elitserien game on December 28, 2010, which was against HV71. However, AIK lost the game 8–2.[1]" With a ref. That meets WP:NHOCKEY. And the link provided in the article also shows that the player played in the Elitserien. I'm not sure why anyone thinks there is an issue. Rlendog (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, I believe, was that the entire text was covered in a single paragraph; thus, it is not easy to understand whether the reference was related to either the information about the player in general, or whether it was related to the Elitserien game – especially if you don't understand Swedish. HeyMid (contribs) 07:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As does the article about the game linked in the article as an inline reference to the statement that he played an Elitserien game. [1]Rlendog (talk) 00:25, 5 July 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.
Delete: The article is a mess, the band isn't notable, and seems like blatant advertising. Thebrickwithouse (talk) 19:13, July 2 2011 (UTC)
F*** This Article: Alright, I probably should have resisted, but ... in any event, take away this outfit's MySpace page, its Facebook page, its YouTube page and its Vimeo page, and you've got a lot of links to porn and X-rated fiction sites. No reliable sources proffered, none to be found. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:28, 3 July 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.
Buch of reasons: Barely referenced; only references appear to be promotional or unrealiable. Reads like a resume. Non-notable person. Also terrible grammar and mistakenly categorized in Category:People. PROD was declined by article's creator, who appears to be a SPA. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈16:36, 2 July 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 The references provided are sufficient to establish notability. We ought to have an article about every restaurant with a Michelin rating, rather than deleting this article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 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.
Tagged an unsourced since 04-2010. Searches on "Northumberland Strait microclimate" in Google Books and Scholar yield zero hits, apparently a non-notable topic. If sources are to be found this would probably be better merged --Nuujinn (talk)16:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I recall a New York Times article about the Confederation BridgetoPrince Edward Island that mentioned the special climate of the area, but that was more of background information. This can always recreated later if and when more sources discuss the topic. I am willing to change my mind on this one. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I found it and added it to the Confederation Bridge article.[1]
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.
Although there has been significant coverage of Wafah Dufour, it is my opinion that she is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. For better or for worse, her claim to fame is that she is related to Osama Bin Laden. As a singer/songwriter, she is unsigned and has not released a record. As a reality TV star, her show was never produced. I'm not sure what would constitute notability as a model. If a person has significant coverage, we presume there is notability, but I think that she falls into the category of What Wikipedia Is Not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bin Laden had very many relatives. Do we need to have an article for each one? I'd say her mother, who also has an article about her, is arguably more notable due to the fact that she wrote a book. Which brings me to me next point: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps Wafah Dufour will become notable in the future, but it is equally possible that her first album will never come to fruition. Extrapolating from this phrase, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual," my feeling is that we should delete the article. I look forward to hearing others' views. GentlemanGhost (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although I am not sure what Wafah has accomplished as a singer, model or other entertainment personality, she does appear to have received a significant amount of publicity throughout the world, over a period of several years, for her efforts to publicize herself in those occupations. See this Google News Search, which on the first page of results alone shows mentions of her in English-, Spanish-, French-, Turkish-, Portuguese-, Vietnamese-, and German-language media. It is true that Osama Bin Laden had something like 300 nieces and nephews. However, most of them don't seek the public spotlight and are not mentioned in the media. Wafah has sought out the public spotlight and received it to some extent. The fact that she is still receiving some publicity more than eight years aftershe started to receive publicity indicates that there is continuing interest in her, even if she has not achieved stardom. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts! You raise a good point. My question is, does publicity equate with notability? I definitely think there are enough reliable sources which have written about her, but despite that, I'm not sure it justifies her inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not supposed to echo or initiate tabloid-style sensational coverage of individuals. But, what does it mean if we were to decide that coverage was mere publicity? Wouldn't that require us to make decisions based on our personal POV, in violation of WP:NPOV? In Wafah Dufour's case there is sufficient coverage of her, on a variety of topics, to flesh out an article. You mention OBL having 300 nieces and nephews. Given that he had close to five dozen half-siblings he may have even more than 300400 relatives. And we wouldn't even consider starting articles about ninety percent of them because we wouldn't have sufficient reliable sources to provide meaningful coverage. Consider this article on OBL's relatives, written after his death. It mentions just 3 of those 300 -- including Wafah Dufour. I don't think there is any question that she is within the small subset of OBL's relatives who merit an individual article. Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If, for the sake of argument, this article were deleted, where should the information about Wafah Dufour be shoe-horned? Our nominator has acknowledged, in the nomination, that Wafah Dufour has been the subject of extensive news coverage, on multiple topics. The Wafah Dufour article is the intersection of multiple topics, including: (1) notable relatives of OBL; (2) fashion models; (3) singer-songwriters; (4) reality TV. Readers interested in any of those topics may want to read more about Wafah Dufour. It would be a disservice to our readers to force the information about her to be shoe-horned into other articles on any of those topics. Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does publicity = notability? Um ... well, yes. It does. The GNG holds that someone is presumed notable if she has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It doesn't pass judgment as to why the media has decided to accord the subject notice. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Significant coverage" is, in fact, one of the central facets of notability. This is not one event, nor is she covered merely for being only one of many relatives to Bin Laden. Roger Clinton, Jr. would not have gotten an article but for his relationship to Bill Clinton, but the "significant coverage" criterion was reached. Wafah likewise garners similar treatment. - CobaltBlueTony™talk14:44, 5 July 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.
fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. sources are only primary sources. could not find any reliable sources. nothing in gnews. nothing in major Australian search engine trove and nothing in major Australian news site [2]. he's only had 7 fights and none of these fights were top level events. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are either invalid links or from the promotion company. He also seems to fail the notability criteria. His biggest claim to fame is an unsourced statement that he ranks in the top 5 Muay Thai middleweights in the state of Western Australia. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any notability criteria. Being ranked in the top 5 of Western Australia does not meet notability criteria, even if true. Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 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. This is an unsourced article about a living person. No sources are cited either in the article or here. WP:BLP mandates deletion in this form, but it can be recreated if reliable sources are included. Sandstein 09:12, 17 July 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.
a sporting event that gets no coverage outside kickboxing sources. nothing in gnews and all google reveals is sources connected to kickboxing and listings. being on youtube or televised or having notable fighters does not grant automatic notability. fails WP:GNG.
also nominating K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm for same reasons. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm was part of the K-1 organizations series of regional events typically meant as part of the qualification process for the annual K-1 Grand Prix. Plenty of notable fighters such as Artur Kyshenko, Gago Drago, Jorgen KruthClifton Brown (who was also involved in a WMC - the highest ranked promotion in Muay Thai - world title fight). Deletion of this page would set a precedent for the removal of more K-1 pages all of which were created over two years to complete the overall picture of the worlds greatest ever kickboxing promotion. K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn while not full of the same level of participants is still an important development for kickboxing in Eastern Europe as many tournaments have been held in the Baltic. jsmith006 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2011
Strong Keep. Part of K-1 world wide regional tournaments, the elite kickboxing organization for last 20 years. Links from third party non kickboxing related Estonian online news site [3], from Estonian daily newspaper [4]. Link from third party non kickboxing related Swedish sports news [5]. Also should be noted, kickboxing related media covered the event from Japan to Poland, just to establish the world wide recognition of the events. Also in consideration should be taken the user's extreme prejudice about the subject, continuously nominating numerous articles over the last week.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but 3 third party sources for 2 articles is hardly significant coverage. WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. "kickboxing related media covered the event from Japan to Poland, just to establish the world wide recognition of the events" does not prove it is notable outside the kickboxing world, Wikipedia clearly requires significant 3rd party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be sorry, you asked third party and i gave you third party. Feel like telling me which new articles you gonna nominate tomorrow, cmon you can tell, just for fun. I think you are at 25 total pages right now, or it might be more...Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Libstar - he just gave you "evidence of third party sources to establish notability?" and you are now saying that this is not enough evidence. How much is enough third party sources? 3? 5? 10? What is the point of providing evidence if you say its not good enough anyway? You still haven't given me any examples of sources that you think are good enough for kickboxing - it doesn't have to be K-1 it can be anything kickboxing event related. jsmith006 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2011
many articles have been deleted if they've had 1,2 or 4 sources. the depth and breadth of coverage is an important factor. I know you 2 are pushing very hard for a series of kickboxing events to be included in WP, bu you have to acknowledge that these series of articles are very weak for notability for Wikipedia as per WP:N and WP:GNG, a strong keep is reserved for when lots of sources of indepth third party sources can be found. this is not true here. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering PART of my question but can you please give me an example of what you think is a good kickboxing source? Perhaps you could mention an existing page on wikipedia - you could use MMA if that is too hard. In terms of us pushing hard, it's also obvious that you are pushing even harder to delete these pages as demonstrated by the huge wave of recent nominations, meaning that we are spending more time arguing with you than actually creating pages. Also the events we want to keep are all part of notable promotions IN THE WORLD OF KICKBOXING - I am not adding random organizations or amateur events from the local leisure centre but the top ones from across the world many involving multiple internationally regonised kickboxers, world title fights and grand prixs. All of these events have also been successful enough to have a series of events. jsmith006 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2011
Your major claim of no hits in gnews is been relatively easy to debunk. You seem be be running out of that as well now, on your new deletions, started adding pages with only 2 hits in gnews. How about that of pushing hard to get pages deleted.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can have 5 or 10 gnews hits and not be notable and be deleted. Trivial mentions and non-independent sources don't count. Please see WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now GNews isn't an indicator of notability – strange you were using that argument in SuperLeague and SuperKombat that if it didn’t appear then it wasn’t notable proving that you don’t actually search very hard for evidence when nominating (at least on those pages). Now 2,3, 100 G News hits doesn’t matter because they are kickboxing resources and therefore not notable in terms of Wikipedia "Kickboxing is not notable" – meaning that you must think almost 100% of all kickboxing articles are not relevant (maybe Jean Claude Van Damme is okay but that’s only because he was in some movies). I'm really struggling to think what we can do because it seems there's some sort of invisible wall here that prevents any pages being created for this subject matter. jsmith006 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2011
gnews is an indicator of notability, as it finds many print and online sources. if a very low count in gnews and nothing independent is found in google it is likely not to meet WP:GNG. you aretrying to hide the fact that this event gets very little independent coverage in an attempt to save this article. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Lipstar) are you trying to hide the fact that this is a notable event in kickboxing because it has not been in USA Today (the world is a lot bigger than America you know). Are you also trying to hide your bias against martial arts behind WP this and WP that because your not doing a very good job of it as displayed by your simply amazing number of deletion nominations over the past week - do you get some sort of award for 'Deletor of the Week'.jsmith006 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2011
Comment I'm not seeing significant coverage and it still seems like routine sports reporting to me. The event also had a definite lack of notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(To Pap) while there aren't many notable fighters on the Tallinn event you have failed to acknowledge the K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm which has Clifton Brown, Artur Kyshenko, Gago Drago. You also fail to see that events are actually the most important thing for a promotion in kickboxing (or any other sport for that matter) and the contestants involved. Without any events or any fighters how can a martial arts event bee notable (and by the way I am talking about events with top fighters and K-1 as a whole). I know you are biased against events pages from our first SuperLeague discussion and you would get rid of the UFC pages. You also said you wouldn't try it with K-1 because of the amount of opposition it would get - leading me to believe this was due to the notablity of the organization and any associated events. However, I commend you for the fact you are willing to listen to arguments rather than leap in with a delete just because Libstar has (which is what some of his chums are doing - I'm expecting them soon). You also haven't seemed to notice the methods involved by Libsar (or are ignoring them) - do you think it is acceptable to target a large number of pages in this way without notifying the authors? Forget about wiki rules for a moment because we are human not robots and tell me in your heart of hearts do you think this is okay and do you think wikipedia is a good advert for new editors in sports such as kickboxing and mma. It's okay guys you can come and create 1 or 2 pages provided its in the New York Times or USA today. Btw I know you haven't nominated this page jsmith006 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2011
I didn't even notice the Stockholm nomination (I'll blame it on the late hour). As far as UFC articles, for example, go--I bow to the will of the majority, even when I think their interpretation of WP policy is wrong. My concern is that articles are being put up for AfD faster than I can do my due diligence on them. I also think it would be nice to satisfy this issue, one way or the other, before putting up more articles. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing (and making) the same arguments over and over. Papaursa (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Pap that these recent amount of nominations is absolutely bonkers - but I also have to say (yes once again) that you cannot use the same sources in kickboxing that you can in major sports and some sort of leeway must be allowed. I remember someone saying (not a kickboxing guy) that interpretation of the sources must depend on the popularity of the sport in question (sorry maybe someone can refresh or maybe all this debating is making me hallucinate and I must have imagined it). C'mon Pap surely you can't expect kickboxing in Europe to be covered by the New York Times - even boxing matches in Europe (aside from the Klitscho-Haye fight but prob cus Haye is such a douchebag - sorry Haye fans) aren't seen as big news in the States because it's not in America. I am also concerned that the chips seem to be stacked against the editors - I haven't seen any pages critising mass nominations and only 'it is civil to notify'. I honestly think that if the bigger kickboxing pages go (SuperLeague, SuperKombat, K-1 - not the Mohammed Ouali one that defo deserved deleting) then what's going to stop all of the kickboxing pages from going including fighter articles because big American newspapers aren't covering the sport. Then it's going to be MMA as well (which is already happening). Anyway, at least we agree on some things. Cheers. jsmith006 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2011
Also, while it's on my mind how come Sherdog is seen as an acceptable source for MMA while Headkicklegend and Liverkick are not for kickboxing? jsmith006 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2011
Actually, I've seen it debated whether or not sherdog is a reliable source, but it is the de facto source for MMA fighters' records. There are two other things that come to mind right now. First, according to WP:RS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." So feel free to use kickboxing or MMA magazines, not just internet sources. Second, it would help your case if the articles contained something besides just the results. Personally, I think world championship bouts (for top tier organizations) also help make a case for an event being notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered in reliable, independent sources. Forums that are currently cited are do not qualify as such. I found a brief mention of the event here, but this mention of the event that does not even resemble an article is insufficient for notability. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regional Grand Prix held by K-1, the largest kickboxing org in the world. This makes it notable -- WölffReik (talk) 13:61, 20 July 2011
Merge with K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final. As someone who knows absolutely nothing about kickboxing specifically, I'm a little out gunned here. If the event was noteworthy because of its implications in a qualifying for a more important tournament, it belongs there, or merged with other qualifiers into one article like the 2010 NBA Playoffs. (If the NBA doesn't deserve a whole article for each round of the playoffs, I don't think anyone can argue kickboxing does) If the event didn't have implications in a more important tournament, and it wasn't a title match of some sort, it doesn't deserve an article. (This appears to be how the more mainstream sports work things out. Important tournaments get an article and the final event of the tournament gets its own articles in addition to that; everything else is looked up elsewhere online. That the current practice for the NFL, the NBA and the NHL.) (Damn MLB refusing me my clean sweep) --Djohns21 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reslisting comment These K-q1 listings have been some of the worst discussions I have seen recently. Folks, we need discussion of sources and references to guidelines, not ad hom attacks and unevidenced assertions of notability. Simple question from a potential closing admin, what are the sources, and are they any good? If someone could do some analysis on that it will resolve this nicely. SpartazHumbug!07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by User:Djohns21. This event fails every part of WP:EVENT. If Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's certainly not a sports section. Which is not to say we shouldn't include articles on sports, sporting personalities and sporting events; with this in mind, I'd like to discuss common practice. I have participated in several of these kickboxing and MMA discussions, and I'm convinced we have an unusually large amount of coverage of these events relative to other team and individual sports. It's a rare team sport event which garners sufficient notability for its own article. In individual competitions, like golf or tennis, the tournament seems the basis of coverage, and a vast majority of those are still redlinks. As I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing, I don't see a similar fascination with individual boxing cards I see in this content area (K-1, MAX, It's Showtime, WAKO Euro, WAKO World, etc.). In the 113 cases boxing matches or cards are covered with their own page, I see significant (if sometimes incomplete) citation. I'll not claim an exhaustive search. This listed event doesn't by itself warrant mention because it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. In this case routine sports results coverage can't be used to assert notability. I'll grant Wikipedia should have coverage of these events, but coverage proportionate to their relative importance, and coverage proportionate by common practice. BusterD (talk) 12:41, 27 July 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.
Person has been a player in one small tv show - perhaps will become notable and become a singer and recording artist but they are not yet as the external supports show. Aspiring to be this or that is not a claim of notability and neither is a part in an eight episode E4 (channel) reality soap production - Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 2 July 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.
a sporting event that gets no coverage outside kickboxing sources. 1 gnews hits and all google reveals is sources connected to kickboxing and listings. being on youtube or televised or having notable fighters does not grant automatic notability. fails WP:GNG
also nominating:
Strong keep – United Glory are one of the strongest promotions in Europe – top 3 in the continent and top 5 worldwide. They have just had a very successful dual kickboxing and MMA tournaments the kickboxing tourney was won by Gokhan Saki – a top 10 heavyweight kickboxer and involved participants of the calibre of Errol Zimmerman, Hesdy Gerges (It’s Showtime Heavyweight champion), Nieky Holzken, Ruslan Karaev, Alexey Ignashov, Semmy Schilt (kickboxing) and Strikeforce world champion and top 3 ranked heavyweight Alistair Overeem. It was a notable event that was well reported by kickboxing websites. I would have suggested to the page editor that he should find some better sources and then maybe the deletion tag could be applied. jsmith006 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2011
I tried to find third party sources but could not. " It was a notable event that was well reported by kickboxing websites. " No, third party coverage is required to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you actually tell me what you consider to be a good source and could you actually give any examples please - as Jehrobot was courteous enough. I also thought GNews was the most important way of guaging notability for you - so 1 hit must be somewhat impressive and an indicator or notability. Do you also think that perhaps a tag giving the author the chance to improve the article would be fairer so they have the chance to improve it? jsmith006 (talk) 7:37, 2 July 2011
Rather than simply refer me to one of the many WP's - can you please give me an example of what you think would be a good source for kickboxing? jsmith006 (talk) 8:52, 2 July 2011
major newspaper, or major sports news site (that is not connected to kickboxing). anything indepth and independent of kickboxing. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While those would be very good, kickboxing or MMA magazines (or even websites) qualify as reliable sources as long as they have independent editorial control and/or acknowledged independent experts as authors. I think the bigger problem with many of these WP articles is that many of them fail to show they're more than the routine reporting of sports results. Papaursa (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Half the sports related pages in wikipedia could be under deletion like that. Just for an example, like i mentioned earlier pradal serey did not give me any decent gnews hits either, and i wonder how many hits you gonna get from major sports news site (not connected to kickboxing) for it. Its only been practiced in southeast asia for 1000 years or so. What you doing is nothing to do with wikipedia anymore, you're on some kinda personal power trip here and just don't care.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost every fighter on this card is highly notable. This was one of the biggest card of the year. -- WölffReik (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2011
Keep all While more information about the events other than results would be nice in the articles, I'm finding coverage in a variety of areas including affiliates of USA Today. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must be a better searcher than I. Could you provide a link to any of them so the article references could be improved? I'd have added some references if I'd found them, but struck out. Cloveapple (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sources could be added surely almost 20 days would have been enough time to add them in? Ultimate Glory 11: A Decade of Fights has only 1 independent reference (I'm not counting the one that appears to be the event site!) The Sherdog site is an independent reference and is probably an ok reference since it has editors and therefore has fact checking. #12 has a blog (bshowassault.blogspot.com) as one of the two references. WP:SPS applies here. Though there might be a case to make for this blog - I don't know. The other one is sherdog again so that's probably ok. So again one reliable source. #13 has adcombat.com which I can't judge as a reference and mmamadman.com which I also couldn't judge. Both seem independent. I'd have been happier if either listed editors but they might be just fine. Cloveapple (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - quite simply they lack the sources to meet WP:GNG - if after all this time no sources have been found then we can assume there are none out there. Even the single Sherdog reference simply reports the results without editorial comment. One of the keepers, above, says "I'm finding coverage in a variety of areas including affiliates of USA Today." but none have been produced. TerriersFan (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:RECENTISM. Once again, a fighting event with no sources. Same page defenders, same poor arguments. The only independent source, Sherdog, merely reports routine results. No section of WP:EVENT has been met, all independent coverage is WP:ROUTINE. If page defenders spent as much time digging up sources as they did asserting notability in AfD and complaining about these processes, we could likely keep a few more. If King Kong were fighting Godzilla, we'd still need sources. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 24 July 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. sourcing issues do not appear to have been addressed so the delete side wins it. Can i remind the participants that casting aspertions on the motivations and actions of other users could be a good way to get your votes discarded so please don't do it. SpartazHumbug!19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is a blatant use of the encyclopedia for event promotion. Using a poster to illustrate the page demonstrates the slippery slope issues at play. Not all sporting events are notable. Provided sources for event are sports blogs. As I stated in the AfD procedure for this event's predecessor (which has already occurred and not drawn significant resonance from the kickboxing media): "Filling in a redlink on a notable fighter's kickboxing record seems a low bar for inclusion." Since the event hasn't occurred, WP:CRYSTAL is also in play here. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The contributor has already added sources and it’s obvious that more details will emerge as the event occurs. I would suggest people wait till the outcome of the first Super Kombat page before nominating extra pages as it does feel like the kickboxing pages are under siege by deletionists who are nominating what seems to be every single page. As mentioned in previous nominations this is a notable up and coming promotion which has notable fighters competing in a tournament format competition with tv and media interest from across the world including Eurosport one of the top sports channels in Europe. If you have any idea about mma or kickboxing think 3rd most notable in Europe behind It's Showtime and possibly United Glory (about 4th or 5th globally). This is an important event and it should not be deleted on notability issues. If people think we are here to promote events in some sort of sinister manner you are wrong. We are fans who are passionate about our sport. Thank you. jsmith006 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2011
Strong Keep Another abuse of some users that hint positions and want to make points on our back, honest writers who improve the kickboxing database. There are lot of kickboxing fans who use in this moment wikipedia, because of our work (Marty, Jsmith, me and others who are involved in the kickboxing projects) the database is the most complete on the internet. About this Superkombat organisation: considering K-1's decline, this Romanian promotion is in this moment considered the second promotion from the world, after the famous DutchIt's Showtime. There will be one title involved in this event, from parental organisation WAKO-Pro, while other notable fithers are scheduled to fight: Stefan Leko, Mighty Mo (kickboxer), Singh Jaideep, etc. I would also argue that martial arts are not as mainstream as most other sports so relying on the big newspapers like the New York Times for event details is not going to be possible. But, the promotion signed a contract with Eurosport (all the events are LIVE broadcasts on this tv channel) and with televisions from Asia, South America and Pacific. IF YOU KEEP ABUSING US (the honest kickboxing writers who write work here as volunteers), we will leave the community! This is an abuse, kickboxing is practically dead in United States, where you follow mainly MMA. You practically dont respect the other continents, Europe and Asia, from where this phenomen appeared. You are completely behind kickboxing and dont have minimum knowledges, no offence.
Comment (to above) Your assumption is absolutely correct Bbb23 although your reasons are not. If many people are taking it personally then maybe it’s because you aren’t very good at communication. Calling Cyperus threats silly because he cares about his pages and is genuinely upset about his (sourced and notable) pages being nominated is pretty cold (not very fitting for a person who doesn't like mean people according to his profile). If I’d have had you guys ganging up on me two years ago I probably wouldn’t be here either. We may seem like stupid kickboxing fans who aren’t into philosophy or the wonders of the universe but the events we write about are notable for kickboxing. The recent (possibly deliberate) targeting of our pages by people with little or no knowledge of the sport, actually appears very unfair esp as sources have been applied and weaker pages haven't got a mention. I’ve worked on kickboxing pages for over two years here and never had a problem till recently – it’s quite distressing to see something you have worked on for two years seemingly being undone before our eyes. jsmith006 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2011
Comment. It's human and understandable after investing time and energy in an article to want to keep it, even though, of course, none of us owns the articles we work on or create. However, Cyperus's comments go well beyond such a response, screaming and crying abuse and conspiracy. "Silly" is a nicer word than he deserves. Frankly, you're part of the problem as phrases like "ganging up" and "possibly deliberate" are clearly euphemisms for the same allegations of conspiracy. Anyway, fortunately, Cyperus has you to comfort him and to encourage such misguided views. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To above - Well done for checking his talk page – you really got me there. Of course I’m going to offer support. If I’m correct you were the one who had some sort of argument with Cyperus to start with – before I’d even begun my role as ‘comforter’ so to accuse me as part of the problem is absolutely laughable. Cyperus is a young user who is only just getting to grips with Wikipedia, to who English is a second language, and you a supposed hater of ‘mean people’ could have been more understanding given the circumstances. One last thing, have you even checked how many kickboxing pages have been nominated recently SuperKombat World Grand Prix, SuperKombat World Grand Prix II, all of Thai & Kickbox SuperLeague, K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn, K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm, KOK Europe GP 2011 in Vilnius/KOK Europe GP 2011 in Chişinău – if this isn’t a concerted effort by deletionists (one in particular) then I don’t know what is. I won’t even ask your opinion on it because to you guys this is probably better than Christmas for a four year old. “Quick guys over to the K-1 pages there’s deleting to be done”. jsmith006 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011
Actually, you do a better job confirming that you are part of the problem than I could ever do. However, all of our comments are becoming distracting. Hopefully, every AfD will be evaluated on its own terms.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What an earth are you talking about – I’m part of the problem – what problem is that, resistance to you guys? I don’t remember ever going around to multiple pages and slapping a deletion symbol without even consulting anyone. I haven’t gone around saying that you’d better not create anymore pages until this is sorted out. All I’ve done is stuck to my subject of speciality and created pages. If you think it’s a good thing to make things so rigid that people in certain fields are scared to contribute or are driven off because they don’t want to have to deal with this sort of thing – then yes (to you) I must be part of the problem. jsmith006 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2011
Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It is notable and well sourced. It was also one of the biggest cards of the year.WölffReik (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete event hasn't even occurred yet. and for it to pass notability it must have third party sources. being telecast in 83 countries is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Title match, maybe notable? Fighters that are scheduled to fight? Should we also delete the It's Showtime events in your opinion? Let's delete whole kickboxing database. It's Showtime and SuperKombat are not important, it doesnt matter there are both top 3 in the world organisations. And same users came here too, I wonder if there are not same person. Cyperuspapyrus (talk)) 17:38 CET, 2 July 2011
no, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. please provide evidence of third party sources (ie not connected to kickboxing or the televising) to demonstrate notability. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the notable exception of WP:CRYSTAL arguments supporting deletion, this thread looks essentially identical to the other kickboxing AfDs. I found this Romanian news source, but it's a brief mention of the event and the fighters involved. I'm not convinced this is enough coverage, though there may be more after the event occurs, at which point it would be appropriate to make this article. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Jehrobot - thank-you that is a constructive comment we can work with. To other deletionists, this is how to get your point across without upsetting people. jsmith006 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2011
New Source[8] or type Local Kombat prezinta gala SUPERKOMBAT Constanta! Stefan Leko se bate cu Morosanu! Vezi TOT cardul galei de pe 16 – preview showing fighters etc. The website it belongs to also has boxing, wrestling, mma and is the premier website for combat sports in Romania. jsmith006 (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2011
Not really Another kombat.ro? That's three. Fails WP:DIVERSE. All of these sources are merely sports promotion, and don't meet the standard for independent reliable sources. I could see a merge between all three events and the parent company. To make it clear: This page fails WP:CRYSTAL, because the event hasn't even occurred yet. It fails every other test of WP:EVENT as well. Fails WP:EFFECT, fails WP:INDEPTH, fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and fails WP:PERSISTENCE. I'm seeing no clash on those issues. I'm seeing zero policy-based arguments for keeping above. I'm seeing lots of: "we're so put upon in this this arena of editing..." and "but it is too really important..." I'm not buying it, and neither should the closing admin. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 10 July 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.
Delete per WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE. Whilst there are a lot of articles on the internet speculating on the possibility of the lead actor role being filled there's nothing else at all about the film Who.was.phone (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF as extremely premature article creation. The film and role was announced here, but actors are often attached to roles without anything ever resulting. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:53, 4 July 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 started this article, and I partly agree with the above comments. Scholars have long debated the connection between Japanese and Tamil, but to rule off by saying "There's no relation at all between Tamil and Japanese" is ridiculous. And "The Japanese romanization isn't even correct for many of these." if you mean 'ou' instead of 'ō', that is a common transliteration style used as it forgoes the need of having to use the diacritic mark for elongated.
I agree that the article should be deleted, not for the above reasons, but because I have yet to find a near exhaustive list of cognates, while Japanese and Tamil show structural similarities (I speak both), because of their outside influence from Chinese and Sanskrit respectively it is hard to draw definite conclusions. Time to hit the Susumu Ouno sensei's books.
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 agree that this page should be deleted. The only semi-reliable source on Charlie Morrow that I could find was a website created by him himself, http://www.cmorrow.com/. The article itself looks as if it were copy and pasted. In other words its not put together very well. It could use improvement and more reliable sources.--Sarah.Maretich (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(July 5, 2011) Charles Morrow is an extremely important figure in avant-garde music of the latter 20th century, both for his own compositions as well as his activities in the field, e.g. the New Wilderness Foundation, EAR Magazine (one of the pioneering publications devoted to experimental music). In fact there is in entry for him in The Grove Dictionary of American Music, an extremely significant and authoritative reference source. The new 3 CD set just issued by Phill Niblock's XI label (Experimental Intermedia) should do a great deal toward rectifying Morrow's seeming neglect in recent years. This article certainly should not be deleted. Hopefully I can find some time later this month to make it conform to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.10.249 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 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.
Frank (talk·contribs) saying "- This isn't some fly-by-night geneology club: and "If you know of neutral, verifiable sources, by all means please add them"
Gdavid3 (talk·contribs) saying "Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources...and see what develops"
Michael A. White (talk·contribs) (who proposed deletion) saying "Contested prod; non-notable family organization, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources"
The revision history shows no changes since September 2009, when a WP:SPA added more unreferenced detail. It's July 2011, and the hoped-for improvement in secondary sources during the last AFD has not come to past. With its only source a primary source, and no evidence of notability established in the otherwise unreferenced article, it is clearly a candidate for AFD. 67.101.5.92 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's tiresome to see these AfDs close with a complete lack of reliable sources, and yet not only have Keep people claim that they're notable absent such sources, but that stance taken seriously at close. WP:INS is unequivocal: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. This article never should have been given more time beyond the seven days the original AfD ran, and it should be given no more time now. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. It may have dodged the first nomination because the article was given a chance to prove itself notable, but no sources were found. SwisterTwistertalk06:30, 4 July 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.
Notability doubtful. Unreliable sources. The way the author keeps removing the maintenance templates, gives me the idea of self-promotion or a COI-problem. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, minimal EV, even the record company the band is signed to Lonely City Records don't seem to be a significant company, only have a myspace page. Fallschirmjäger✉11:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YOU put in the speedy deletion request. And you did so in direct response to me linking it to The Divided Circle page - upon YOUR request. Also interesting to note that you marked my Wrexile page for speedy deletion within 30 seconds or something of me submitting it - so you couldn't even have read it properly, let alone checking any of the references. Do you get kicks from this stuff?
Also - why are the sources unreliable? And now you're accusing me of 'creating articles' myself? Why the hell would I do that?! Oh, and I removed the maintenance templates because (a) most of them were in no way relevant and (b) because I thought I'd fixed the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miserable1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About reading it properly: take a look who signed it! I have nothing to do with the speedy deletion.
About the template: as I said the sorurces you mention are not independent and reliable. Reviews from albums or download/orderpages are no reliable sources. Facebook, Soundcloud and Myspace idem dito. Did there albums or singles made it into the hitparade? That is usefull info to stave their notability! Is there anything known about "Lonely City Records"? Just a few hits, if you don't count Facebook, Soundcloud and Myspace (hey, where have I seen these names before?) Forensics and The Divided Circle have at least one musician in common. And Wrexile is so friendly to help both. Sorry, mate! But your reply on this only convinced me more about selfpromotion. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never claimed I'm not trying to promote myself/ people I work with.... if there's something wrong with that then by all means delete all my contributions. Am officially passed caring! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miserable1 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 July 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.
To the page creator: Wikipedia isn't the right place for these sorts of things, but there are Minecraft wikis available on the internet. Perhaps you could contribute to one of those? --Taelus (talk) 16:52, 2 July 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 subject of the article (a series of microcontrollers) fails WP:N. The article does not have any references and the external link it has does not indicate notability since it is a primary source. Searching for Holtek AND HT48RXX on Google Web returns 10 pages of 100 results, but none appear to be sources that can evidence notability. The majority appear to be data sheets, mentions in parts catalogs, and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Searching Google News, no results were returned; Books returned a book republishing Wikipedia content; and Scholar, one mention in a university's teaching materials. Rilak (talk) 09:00, 2 July 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 subject of the article (a series of microcontrollers) does not meet WP:N. The article has no references, only an external link to the vendor's website. As a primary source, this external link does not evidence notability. Searching Google Web for Holtek AND HT48FXX returned 406 results. Most results are from parts catalogs, data sheet archives, and Wikipedia mirrors. There does not appear to be any non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources as required by WP:N. Searching Google News returned no results; Books, a mirror of the Wikipedia article; and Scholar, no results. Rilak (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Holtek. The article doesn't do any good being a stub with no possible future of expansion, so it would fit better in the Holtek article. SwisterTwistertalk23:50, 5 July 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.
also nominating related article Impact FC 2. hardly any third party coverage and nothing indepth. a few passing mention in gnews [11]. nothing in major Australian search engine trove [12] and nothing in a major Australian news website. [13]. completely lacking in coverage and in no way meets WP:GNG. being televised or having notable participants does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLibStar, I think it is important to consider that martial arts events in general do not receive a great deal of press in newspapers of record like the NYTimes, etc. They do, however, receive write-ups by dedicated MMA news sites such as www.fighting.com, which is owned by AOL, and Sherdog, which is an ESPN affiliate. These sites do independent reporting, have editorial staff, and frequently receive press clearance to attend these events in that capacity. These are not fan created sites or blogs by non-experts. Failure to find Gnews hits doesn't mean that something is by definition not-notable. It is a starting point, not the final answer. Newspapers run stories that they think will appeal to readers, which means that non-traditional sports do not receive the same amount of coverage as traditional sports like football and baseball. It seems to me like your string of nominations of MMA and kickboxing articles are based on the idea that non-traditional sports should receive the kind of news coverage that traditional sports do (in non-niche publications), but this is a tautological argument. Once something receives that kind of coverage, it will likely no longer be characterized as non-traditional. I had suggested that references exist for this page in another Afd debate, but rather than encouraging me to find and add them, you quickly nominated the article for deletion. Why the rush to quickly remove so many martial-arts related articles? There are many editors who would be willing to work with you to improve these articles, for which notability is not as black and white as you are making in seem in your noms. I am happy to provide references for this page, but I wish you had done a more thorough job of searching for them yourself before nominating the article. I have nominated several MMA articles for deletion, so I am not advocating that everything be retained. I am advocating that you familiarize yourself with the types of secondary sources that are generally cited in articles of this type and recognized by the community of editors who have helped several such articles receive "good article" status. Not doing so, and continuing to nominate pages with the same argument of "no substantial coverage" (and by the way, a failure to find third-party coverage is not grounds for deletion; secondary sources that allow information to be verified is sufficient) can give people the impression that you enjoy being adversarial rather than collegial. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not thorough search? I searched 3 different means and found nothing. If I found substantial coverage I would not have nominated it. " a failure to find third-party coverage is not grounds for deletion" it definitely is, please read WP:N and WP:GNG. This may not be a mainstream sport but we don't lower the bar for notability because you want to. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was confusing "third-party coverage" for tertiary sources, which is why I was suggesting that secondary sources would be acceptable. You made no claim about the necessity for tertiary sources. Yes, you are correct that third-party coverage is necessary for notability. I have made the change to my previous post to correct for this misinterpretation. Let's at least agree that the notion of third-party coverage in secondary sources is a complex idea and jargony expression that is prone to misstatement. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’m not as big a fan of mma as kickboxing but this is a notable promotion in Australia and one of the bigger promotions outside of the USA – there are a large number of fighters who have had experience in the top organizations such as PRIDE, Strikeforce and the UFC, some of who have been top 10 ranked fighters – see Josh Barnett and Paul Daley who for whatever reason are fighting outside of the top events. I would suggest giving time to improve the article as opposed to deletion which I feel is harsh. I also feel that the removal of this page will affect other mma pages and this will detract from wikipedia’s usefulness. If this was an event in a back room in Alabama with few notable fighters I would agree with its deletion but Impact clearly have enough pull to attract good fighters to its cards in what is a growing MMA market in Australia. Remember just because an event is not held in the USA by the UFC does not mean it is not relevant or notable in the context of mma. Thanks.jsmith006 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2011
Comment none of the above keep !votes provide any evidence of third party coverage of this event to meet WP:GNG. I could not find it covered in the Australian media. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks I would have to look at this closer, I just wish these kind of links were in the main article rather than poorly sources articles created in the first place. I'm not sure how third party MMA and sherdog.com is. Usatoday counts as a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having the references in the article would be great, but certainly the same can be said for lots of other wiki pages. Not every article is going to be perfect. Tagging pages as needing additional references is a good way to attract the attention of people actively involved in maintaining them. Or, you could start a discussion on the page to see if others could come up with references that you might have missed. I think that part of the reason you seem to be drawing a lot of criticism in AfD discussions is because you are nominating a slew of pages for deletion without taking these steps, and in some cases, not informing the page creator when the page is up for deletion. These steps encourage people to improve pages. AfD discussions immediately make people defensive since the stakes are high (no one wants to see the result of their efforts disappear, particularly when they suspect that the nominator does not have the same familiarity with the subject matter or sources that frequently report on it). Discussions about notability are important, but nominating articles for deletion is not always the best way to encourage these discussions and achieve constructive results. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am still learning, but these are some of the lessons I have found helpful along the way. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I think that part of the reason you seem to be drawing a lot of criticism in AfD discussions is because you are nominating a slew of pages for deletion without taking these steps" I have number of multiple searches for sources for each deletion. the criticism does not phase me, as these series of articles all have questionable notability (and lack third party sources) as sporting events. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the criticism doesn't phase you it just means that you nominate more pages. Almost every single deletion nomination in the martial arts section is down to you - what is that you find so threatening about martial arts Libstar and why are you refusing to notify the owners? jsmith006 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011
Comment I also wish that the sources that are being mentioned in these AfD discussions were incorporated into the articles. I don't know who owns sherdog or is responsible for the content, so I don't know how independent a source it is, but I would say it's probably the premier website for MMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sherdog has its own staff of independent journalists and subject-matter experts that report on events happening around the globe. As you know, Sherdog's record of fight results is the de facto standard for every single MMA fighter page on Wikipedia. To interested parties, the names of the editorial team and contributors can be found here. To my knowledge, writers are independent of fighters and fight promotions. Their failure to be a mouthpiece for UFC brass has actually created quite a stir from time to time. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Another example how much time this user puts into looking for sources before nominating pages for deletion every day. Good job Buckeye, specially the ones from USA Today.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources found, although most seemed more focused on the contract and payment disputes than the fighting. Astudent0 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 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.
WP:NFOOTY requires an appearance in a professional league or an officially sanctioned senior international competition. Lorran has yet to do either. Deserter110:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTY clealy states that a player is considered notable only if they have 1) played in a senior international competition, or 2) played in a fully professional league. Lorran has not done either (and the local Rio trophy is not equivalent to a national cup). Deserter112:17, 2 July 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.
Graphic and computer animation designer of unclear notability; prior prod (on the grounds of lack of sourcing) was removed by creator when he added some "sources" — but those sources still fail to constitute actual reliable sourcing, as every last footnote is to a blog entry, a Twitter feed, his own website or iTunes, and not a single one of them is to real media. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up with some real sources, but as of right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note on sources: Kotaku and GameSetWatch are considered reliable sources by the videogames wikiproject; and Joystiq considered situational (WP:VG/RS). So my only consideration is if the coverage at these sites can be deemed significant. Marasmusine (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku - Considered reliable after 2010 (2 such citations made, #28 and #29); considered unreliable before 2010 with exception "...only those (significant) opinion posts that are written by established writers are allowed." Established writers cited: Brian Crecente, Editor-In-Cheif (#8) and Michael McWhertor (#2).
GameSetWatch - More information on the reliability of this site as a source can be found here.
1UP.com - Listed as reliable source (footnote #21 cites an interview about the artist's scope of work).
Offworld - Normally considered a situational source, however the writer of the cited article (#7) is Brandon Boyer, who is considered the exception to the situational status of the blog.
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 article doesn't really meet the Notability requirements. Should any Chrome Extension that has been written about in a blog post or review have a Wikipedia entry? Pattern86 (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted. There is simply no content that cannot be found on the website for the extension. According to Wikipedia's policies, advertising is prohibited. The article is simply not educational, it is written with the same conventions of an App Store blurb. The article is not a hoax and the idea for the article is not in and off itself bad. That said, the lack of content and the advertising nature of the article are grounds for deletion. If the article contained tricks to use of the extension, instructions for installation, or a history behind the develop, things may be different, but as written the article is strictly advertising. --Alexeink (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete No reliable sources to back this article up. Additionally there may be a CoI with the author of the article being the author of the subject software. The fact that the article gets created the same day the code goes into it's latest stable release is more than enough to convince me of a CoI on this article. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 12 July 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. The earlier "delete" opinions are given less weight as it is not clear that the people who made them were aware that the source of the text is a public domain US government country study, which invalidates the assertions that the text is unsourced. Sandstein 05:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. It's not all bad, but this, my friends, is a classic example of verboten "original research" that The Great Philosophers deemed out of bounds for Wikipedia in days of yore. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but not on its own. Perhaps it can be included in one of several articles on the economy of China. Also, We should give the author the chance to provide sources for his information. It is good enough to keep for a week (without deletion) so that it could be sourced. A further issue is that there are already several articles already touching on the subject and has value to add to such pieces. DeusImperator (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We should give the author the chance...": The original author has not been active since 2007; some 35 other editors have edited the article, only one of which has managed to provide a reference to a source. So who is "the author" whom we should give that chance? --Lambiam11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised that no one above seems to have noticed that the article is completely sourced. It clearly states at the bottom that it incorporates public domain material from the Library of Congress, which I consider a reliable source. It is not just an essay written by some student. In addition, it is a notable topic, and worthy of inclusion.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even remotely close to being sourced. Statement after statement after statement after statement appear with no in-line footnotes... This is a flat F of an essay in any high school social studies class in America. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, there is plenty of precedence for adding material verbatim from public domain sources on Wikipedia, and adding a note at the bottom of the article. I have made the exact source of the information more clear now, so perhaps that will resolve the confusion.--Danaman5 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Danaman5 is right. In spite of having been edited often since its creation based on Library of Congress material, there has been only one substantive change in all those years: the addition of one paragraph of material, properly sourced in-line. The rest is all wikification. --Lambiam19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOTESSAY applies to "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic", which this is not. This is a summation of expert opinions written by a reliable source, the Library of Congress. It is no different than an article copied over from the public domain edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, of which there are many on Wikipedia. Many of the delete voters seem to be operating under the false notion that this article is unsourced, which is simply not the case.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this article could be recreated. I do not believe this is content forking; I wish such articles were possible for every country. In this case however, there is a lot of content here with no in-line citations and it is hard to put any of it into the "source." The content does not meet WP:V because verification is not a theoretical matter - the editor must present content in a way that users can reasonably verify. Giving a single citation to a huge source does not meet V. Also, the content is not encyclopedic and is filled with speculation. The source is good for some things, but does not meet WP:RS for everything. Delete now, and recreate when someone wants to devote time to this massive, difficult project. Blue Rasberry (talk)22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the template used for referencing to make the exact source more clear. To find the exact paragraphs, click on the "China: a country study" link that is now at the bottom and scroll down to the "Living Standards" and "Income Distribution" sections. Additionally, I don't really see the "speculation" or "personal opinions" in the article that others have pointed out. Perhaps someone could provide some examples.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to see a way to reference every paragraph in this article for me to consider it well-referenced. If you formatted your background reading reference into an inline citation and then inserted it 20 times or however many times it needs to go in, then that would be a starting point for other people to add their own references without confusing what came from what source. It might be the case that the same citation needs to go at the end of every sentence, especially if as little as one other reference were added to each paragraph. I see that this reference is to a website which generates temporary dynamic content, so I understand why it is not possible to make direct references to the exact section headings. Still, the user deserves some explanation of how to verify the source, and that is not clear right now.
Here are some statements which seem to me like speculation or personal opinions:
"Until the end of the 1970s, the fruits of economic growth were largely negated by population increases"
"In the 1980s one of the most visible signs of the economic "revolution" was the appearance in Chinese cities of large quantities of relatively modern, varied, colorful clothes, a sharp contrast to the monotone image of blue and gray suits that typified Chinese dress in earlier years. "
"In 1978 there were only 3.6 sq m of living space per inhabitant in these cities, a reduction of 0.9 square meter since 1949. To remedy this problem, construction of modern urban housing became a top priority in the late 1970s,"
"There was never any attempt, however, at complete equalization, and a wide range of income levels remained"
"The small but dynamic domestic private sector also produced some lucrative opportunities"
"Perhaps the most serious gaps in living standards between rural and urban areas were in education and health care."
The problem with these statements is that they all make a subjective assertion. These and other similar statements in the article could be fixed, but the problem with WP:V is paramount. Every statement in every article on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and this article is extremely difficult to verify right now. Blue Rasberry (talk)05:38, 10 July 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.
Fails WP:PROF. Subject is an entry level lecturer at a regional college in Bangladesh. I prodded the article, but the creator of the page contests deletion. Notability has not been established via reliable sources. (the only newspaper article cited in the page only mentions his presence at a meeting in a single sentence. So, I propose Deletion of the NN prof bio. Ragib (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because you teach at some third rate university (even it it were a top tier university the rule would apply) does not mean that you are notable. DeusImperator (talk) 18:13, 2 July 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 doesn't seem to be a notable organization. Searching "American Universities and Colleges Association of Bangladesh" on Google only returned results that repeated the lead sentence of this article, which makes me believe that this was a one-off idea that never really went through. LoganTalkContributions06:51, 2 July 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.
Delete. This appears to be at best fiction, at worst a hoax. The league's YouTube channel consists of four videos, none of which shows anybody playing basketball. Two of those videos identify the league's best and worst players, with on-screen text about their statistics but no photos or video. Another shows the logos of the league's teams. Another one shows the logos of the league's teams with their win-loss records from the last season. I don't see anything here that leads me to think that this league really exists. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely to be a hoax. No coverage, and a professional league who's website is a subdomain of some free hosting service? Sounds suspicious. Quasihuman | Talk20:00, 2 July 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.
I was walking around in front of the church this afternoon (using Google Earth) and there appears to be a historical marker of some kind right at the bottom of the handicapped ramp going up into the front of the church. Haven't found out what it says yet. (Oh, and one of the sites for Mobile Historic Preservation Society may have downloaded some malware on my computer). --Kenatipospeak!04:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While it is certainly possible that this church is historically significant for something else, the tangential connection to one notable person doesn't make it notable. A 30-minute search revealed nothing from reliable sources. The Archdiocese of Mobile itself, which includes links to the histories of most of its churches, only includes a basic page without any history for this one. Furthermore, it is not listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage or the National Register of Historic Places. Unless someone can come up with something really good, I'd say delete. Altairisfar (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, it is listed on the Alabama Register -- it's part of the Whistler Historic District. And, as the Alabama Register lists the "building date" of the WHD as "Turn-of-the-century", then St. Bridget Church may be one of the oldest buildings in the district, as it was built in 1867. I have to agree with you though that on-line sources are hard to come by. --Kenatipospeak!01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that historic, then someone should add why it is notable to the article itself and add some sources, even if they aren't online. As someone who has worked almost exclusively here creating articles for historic Alabama properties listed on the National and Alabama registers, I wish that I could find a good reason not to delete. I know that the article claims that it is in the Whistler Historic District, but contributing properties to historic districts that are listed on the National Register are not considered notable for that reason alone. The argument that it is included in a historic district listed on the state register makes an even weaker case. Altairisfar (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's good to know about being in the district not necessarily conferring notability (and we're not even certain that the church is a contributing property!) --Kenatipospeak!15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churches, even those dating back to 1867, even those which have a poorly documented claim as the baptism site of a railroad employee who famously wrecked his train, are not inherently notable. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The baptism claim is not poorly documented. It's in the book Casey Jones: Epic of the American Railroad[14] by Fred J. Lee (the authorized biography by one of Casey's friends), it's in the church register and it's on the historical marker in front of the church. --Kenatipospeak!15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete Although this is a well known Catholic Church, it has no significant reason to be a Wikipedia article. The article in itself has not enough information on the church. There is no reason St. Bridget's Catholic Church should be an article with no real significant historical purpose.--Ltuck3 (talk) 21:44, 2 July 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 merge the content into another article, perhaps a new one titled Monty Python sketches. The general consensus here is that whether or not all of the sketches meet the general notability requirement for having it's own article, the larger issue at hand here is readability and style. Having 30 very short articles is not as good as merging the content into one or a few comprehensive articles on the topic. There's no clear consensus here as to whether it should be the former or the latter, some here feel that one article would be fine, others feel the article might get a bit long and dividing the sketches by year would be for the best, but this can be done through editorial discussion. A merge still needs to happen, but I'm going to leave it in the hands of editors to discuss this and come up with the best solution. (non-administrative closure) Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking....22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Monty Python, Shakespeare, and English Renaissance drama By Darl Larsen,
search says p 98 but I see no mention there? Thanks, I did finally get that, it's just that (and not being snarky at all) the reference was so short I missed it. "an undertaker's sketch where it is decided to cook and eat a recently deceased woman."
"A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy," contains partial transcript of the sketch and some discussion.
What the BBC thought of Monty Python... ohh, that looks familiar.
One line, full text is "a sketch in which Graham Chapman, playing an undertaker, offered to dump and eat the body of John Cleese's dead mother."
I'm a bit disappointed by the overall quality of these results. The burden is not to simply locate a collection of places it's mentioned however briefly, but to locate the foundations upon which an article can be built. Based upon these sources, we would at best be able to provide one paragraph of material the is verifiable per our core content policy.
*snort, spits coffee on keyboard* Wow, when I'm wrong I'm wrong. The page says right there in black and white that these are reliable sources. *scratches head, wipes keyboard* I'm now going to have to hunt through history to figure out why I thought that, and thanks for pointing that out. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OnMonty Python, Shakespeare, and English Renaissance drama By Darl Larsen: the description of the sketch, and the analysis of its ending, carries on half-way down page 98. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge material into a new Monty Python sketches article - There appear to be about 30 WP articles on individual MP sketches. See Template:Monty Python for a list. It appears that virtually all of those have few or no sources justifying notability. Even the notable sketches like The Argument Sketch are poorly sourced. Many of the sketches probably fail the WP:Notability requirement. I suggest that some MP-knowledgeable editor create a new article "Monty Python sketches" which contains a list of all the important sketches (say, 1 or 2 paragraphs each); and we delete the poorly sourced sketch articles. Sketch articles with obvious notability, such as The Argument Sketch, can be kept (although even that needs better sourcing). The new "Sketch" article could be a WP:List article, or just a normal non-List article. --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "delete" part would be totally inappropiate. There's no question that there are sources for this, and that thus we can verify some parts of it, so there's no compelling reason to remove the topic. "Merge" is what has to happen if we want to maintain attribution for the material, a requirement of the GFDL license. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal does not mean the material disappears from the encyclopedia: Im simply suggesting that the material be moved into a broader article that covers several sketches, because the notability of each individual sketch is marginal. For example, look at the very famous The Simpsons show: it does not have articles for each sketch/episode, but instead collects them into groups, for instance there is an article The Simpsons (season 5) that includes about 20 episodes. I'm suggesting that that is the best way to go for Monty Python. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One important WP policy decision related to this was the famous Pokemon decision from several years ago: there used to be individual WP articles for each Pokemon species, even those that were of marginal/low notability: so the solution was to aggregate them into articles such as List of Pokémon (546–598) ... that is a good compromise solution: the material is still in the encyclopedia, but the importance is not over-emphasized. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out that the license doesn't fit well with "delete and merge," I thought it was clear I was supporting a merge from the first. Sorry for being unintentionally obfuscatory. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Can you clarify what you mean by "merge"? Do you mean merge this sketch article into some other existing article? Or into a new Monty Python sketches article like I propose? Or something else? --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Each sketch is notable, give or take a few sources, but make for very short articles. A list of the notable MP sketches would make the most sense to a comprehensive article that is still notable (possibly even moreso since it's the collection of sketches that MP is known for and not any one particular sketch except perhaps the Parrot one). It's less a notability issue as opposed to style. Redirects should be left behind since all of these are likely search terms. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seeing as MP made dozens and dozens of sketches, such a list might become excessively long. Perhaps merge all sketches into episode or season articles? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 30 WP articles on individual sketches. Assuming 5 are notable and deserve their own articles, that leaves 25 to get merged into List articles. If each sketch were represented with 1 or 2 paragraphs (not unreasonable, since many of the articles are that size), that would be 25-50 paragraphs. That would be a large list, but not too large. If it is too large, breaking it by year may be okay: it looks like MP was on for 5 years: 1969 to 1974, so there could be 5 articles. I don't think breaking the lists by episode would help the situation: there are probably only 2 or 3 (WP article) sketches per episode. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4 Seasons might be better than 5 years, it'd be more in line with other TV series lists. Episodes typically had half a dozen sketches, along with animated bits etc. which deserve a brief mention but not an article. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:35, 9 July 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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only references provided to support notability are Facebook pages, indirectly related fan sites, Twitter pages, and pages anyone can upload to. Lots of SPAs have been giving this article attention (and removing CSD tags, etc.) that AfD seems the best way to handle this one. Singularity42 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update The article's author has essentially turned the article into a stub: [36]. In its current form, the article could just as easily be deleted under A7. I'm not going to tag as such, as there is some significant content in the article's history. However, I won't oppose if anyone else wants to. Singularity42 (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The article was just given some editing to make it in a neutral point of view. Also the newspaper articles found are from tamil newspapers, and they said they dont publish online when i gave them a call. Is there any possibility to scan them and send it to wikipedia? :) . Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialajithkumarfanclub (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether the article is written from a netural point of view (that wouldn't be a deletion criteria). This issue is whether there are reliable sources that support this person meeting WP:MUSICBIO. You should check out those criteria. Singularity42 (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have cited a article on a newspaper now of p-factor and his band hip hop tamizha performing at a radio station run music festival. I will look into more. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.128.47 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely autobio of BLP. Lacks sufficient sources outside a promotional context. The newspaper article link recently added does improve the page, but can't be considered significant or salient coverage. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 2 July 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.
Delete and redirect to Weird NJ. The subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. He does not meet the general notability guidelines either as a gnews search for the past year yields only 2 results. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who created this page. Mark Sceurman may appear to be only a minor person, But the magazine he created , Weird N.J, has been around for nearly twenty years, it's been read and enjoyed by tens of thousands of people and not just in New Jesrey. He helped document history that was never reported anywhere eles. also it led to an entire series of best-selling books detailing weirdness in other states, including Florida, Texas, Pennsylvannia and Illinois, a line of merchandise, and even a TV series on the History Channel. I beleive The fact that he took an underground newsletter and turned it into a profitable publishing empire with interset in other states gives him notability. However it's finding the sources that is the problem, very little has in fact been written on him.Vincelord (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep - joint author of Weird N.J. book, joint publisher of the Weird U.S. books (correction/insertion) and co-host of TV series. [37][38]. Nothing inspiring, but "notability" is a concept intended to prevent abuse, not to assess subjects' eligibility for the Nobel Literature Prize. Perverse to have a WP article on "Weird U.S." and kick out Sceurman. Opbeith (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting eliminating the information about the author: rather, just moving the information to another article. When a fairly minor author is notable for only one thing, and that thing already has a WP article: it is best for readers to combine the two articles together for "one stop shopping". A "redirect" will remain with the author's name, so users searching for the author will find the article. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not too unreasonable on the face of it, but it's been my experience that Redirects and Merges tend to "lose" information on the way. Opbeith (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. above should not be interpreted as a retrenchment from a Keep position - he's still notable as an author and deviser of the book series and television series. Opbeith (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's coveraqe about him when covering the Wierd franchise; for example [39] and [40]. Also, per WP:CREATIVE he meets point 3 as being the co-creator of a well-known collective body of work that has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 5 July 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.
Weak Keep I don't think the article's references strictly pass the General Notability Guidelines, but I really don't see the harm in letting this referenced article survive. It isn't the sort of topic that is going to generate a lot of useless or promotional articles, and while Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article seems encyclopedic enough to keep. Monty84508:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but recreate within broader article - The information in the article appears to be accurate and encyclopedic, however, fossils are an extremely common topic in WP, and this article does not conform to the WP convention for how fossils are documented. Looking at the category Category:Miocene animals that this article belongs to: it is the only article of its kind (single era; single locality). In addition, the WP convention is to use the word "animals" not "fauna". Since the fossil community of WP has not established this class of article, this one-off article should not exist. The Paleontology project should weigh-in here and contribute their vision of how this info should be presented in WP. My suggestion is that a broader-scope article be created, e.g. Miocene animals of Asia and the info be placed in there (looking at Category:Miocene animals helps clarify this). --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced material of scientific merit. I have no objection to a merger as proposed by Noleander, but if performed, the article history should be preserved, making deletion not appropriate. LadyofShalott18:53, 2 July 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. Irrespective of the reliability of the source proffered, one source is not multiple which is the test that i have to clsoe this duscussion against. The delete votres are therefore the policy based arguments SpartazHumbug!05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But nominate individually. Most of these albums are released on major labels and have multiple reviews online. For example, this shows quite a few third party sources, plus reviews. I'm almost going for a speedy keep on this. The Undead Never Die (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately the Sputnik review wasn't written by one of their professional reviewers, perhaps a separate page 'Grand Belial's Key discography' would be a better option than individual pages? J04n(talk page)18:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete:afan-submitted review (even if staff-checked), on a website dedicated to such reviews, is not indicative of any particular notability. If this is (as Google News/Books seems to indicate) the best (and quite probably only) source that can be unearthed, then this topic has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Underlined a couple of phrases above to emphasise my point that "fans" (enthusiasts, call them what you will -- people who are writing for love not money) are not "independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P)11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if the review was a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#sputnikmusic. Not anyone can submit reviews, only certain skilled writers, and the paid staff must approve it. The quality level of the reviews is thus kept high. These approved contributors[42] who go through the same editing process paid reviewers do, aren't just people that submit a few reviews, but a rather large number of them, sometimes in the hundreds. DreamFocus09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I saw J04n's post at WT:ALBUM and thought I'd toss in my two cents. It looks like this discussion is focusing too much on whether the Sputnik review is credible or not, which I feel is a little off topic. Whether or not it's reliable, it's still only a single review. Both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS are seeking "significant coverage" through sources, and one lonesome review just does not satisfy that criteria. Instead of debating the reliability of a contributor's review, editors interested in keeping the article should be digging up additional sources instead. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 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.
Delete This album does not have any reliable sources to prove that this album has received the notability required WP:NALBUMS for it to be an independent article separate from the artist. Doing independent research, very little information was found to note this album as notable. --Rjhymel (talk) 16:31, 4 July 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 person. No coverage in independent reliable sources; gets a lot of Google hits, but that's in part due to her being quoted in a couple of human-interest pieces about something else (ie. not actually coverage of her that satisfies WP:BIO) and mostly due to the fact that she has dozens of websites. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm sorry, but did you even read the article? This is an obviously notable person. She has authored over 40 books, some sites quote 50. The publishers include McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall, New Falcon, Ronin, Random House, Brick House, Berkley, Kensington and other reputable publishers. She had a radio show with a million listeners. She has been featured on internationally-renown talk shows including Oprah Winfrey, O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and Montel Williams; THEY found her to be notable. After the first couple of hundred Google hits, you get dozens and dozens of book reviews. Barnes & Noble's website lists 114 hits; Borders gives her 79. I don't know what problem you have with her, but for this and other reasons stated in the article, she is obviously notable. Rosencomet (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Writing books doesn't make you notable - coverage in reliable sources makes you notable. (In passing, I also don't see any evidence that she was ever on these shows.) I don't know what book reviews you're referring to, because eight pages in, I'm still getting her own personal websites - she seems to have about fifty. She's clearly non-notable, and I'm starting to doubt again that you really are unaffiliated with her. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write books; getting over 40 books published DOES IMO make you notable, especially by reputable publishers. You have to go further than 8 pages to find the reviews, but they're there. Your prejudice about the number of professional - not personal - websites she has is inconsequential. And you'd better have some evidence to back up your accusation that I have lied about not being affiliated with her, or take it back. I wrote the article after reading Shamanism for Everyone; that's all the connection I have ever had. Here are a few reviews I found: [43][44][45][46] And here's a video showing brief clips from some of the shows she has appeared on. Do some research before making accusations. [47]Rosencomet (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you believe Typepad blogs and user-generated Goodreads reviews constitute reliable sources is yet further evidence that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, though this was evident enough when you claimed that sheer volume of books published made someone notable. "Anyone can write books" is exactly the point, and that doesn't change whether there are two, forty, or a hundred of them, if they're not notable. The video you linked, which is a promotional video from the subject of the article, includes clips of the shows that are less than a second long and include no sound. In what capacity did she appear? Was she actually featured, or did we get a five-second quote from her about the actual topic of the show? (Ie. she may have been on them, but a clip half a second long does nothing to establish notability, and it would still be better in any case to be able to link the actual episode instead of a promotional video by the subject with a clip that does nothing more than show her in a box next to Bill O'Reilly.) We just don't know, because we don't have any reliable, independent sources. This lack is exactly what makes her non-notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the tone of your response to be offensive, especially as you haven't supported your accusation that I am affiliated with the subject. I've been editing for several years, and understand the requirements. The article stated that Scott had appeared on those shows; she is obviously being interviewed on them, not sitting in the audience. I haven't the ability to post the entire episodes, and they should not be necessary to support the simple statement in the article. You are setting the bar way to high IMO. You are splitting hairs, and when presented with supportive data you reject it and demand the unnecessary. You also don't seem to understand the difference between notoriety and notability. Being in the news a lot need not make you notable in an encyclopedic sense; you might have been a victim of a sensational accident, which doesn't make you yourself notable. However, if you are an author, certainly getting multiple books published by non-vanity presses supports your notability just as NOT getting published in spite of writing books (which is what makes you an author in the first place) would contradict notability. You simply ignore the issue of the prestige of the publishers and claim I ascribed notability simply to number of books, just as you ignored the proof that Scott appeared on the shows she said she did and demanded to see the entire show. You seem to have a problem with Scott because of the number of websites she has, which should be irrelevant, and have not in THIS venue taken back your accusation that she was using Wikipedia to promote herself, even though there is NO EVIDENCE that she EVER inputted a single word to the article. Rosencomet (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that churning out books makes someone notable, why don't you try to have it added to the notability guidelines, instead of trying to apply your own personal notability criteria when existing criteria explicitly require coverage in reliable sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't clear at all. As I said in my deletion rationale, a quotation from Scott in an article on bad bosses is not coverage of Scott that attests notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really going to jump in after each editor who says KEEP and gives a reason and say "No, its not"? Can't we keep this civil? Rosencomet (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Misguided criticism of my conduct in daring to respond to another user is not a substitute for a demonstration of notability according to established guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a tough call. Some of her works have been published by major publishers. Yet the WP:Author guideline requires that her work be the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (that is the most germane qualification of several listed in WP:Author ) - and I don't think her works quite rise to that level. On the other hand, her name is mentioned in passing by several major sources including CNN, although few (none?) actually devote a full review to her individually. This could go either way. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 9 July 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.
Delete, "largest xiny" is a very weak claim of importance, and I see no evidence in reliable sources that this particular structure has notability outside of that. --Kinut/c15:16, 7 July 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.
There is no evidence of notability. The only reference is to the subject's own webpage which has now been suspended by his webhost. I also tripped the edit filter for removing about 8k or lorem ipsum. The fact that that sat there unnoticed for over a year shows that nobody's reading the page. Google search doesn't turn up anything resembling a reliable source, mostly Wikipedia mirrors and Facebook.99.164.32.24 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable third-party mentions. *begin sarcasm* Wow, he's going to heal the world? Then hands down he needs a Wikipedia page!*end sarcasm* SwisterTwistertalk21:11, 7 July 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.
Delete. I agree in that this article is insubstantial to exist on its own. The topic presented could potentially serve as some trivial information in another article but cannot act as an entire article on its own. The information is extremely brief and lacks a purpose, so it has no reason to exist on Wikipedia. --Patrick750 (talk) 04:39, 5 July 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.
Delete - The article fails to explain why this never made TV series is notable. I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 5 July 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.
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Also looked at the external links, none are significant coverage, just lists of songs, one is a broken link. J04n(talk page)02:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put on hold - Is there anyway for someone who is familiar with the subject to provide some information. She would be culturally significant within the Iranian or Persian communities and it could be that the lack of notability is one confined to languages outside that of Farsi. DeusImperator (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring additional sources found. Persian appears to be سیما مافی ها, there's apparently non-reliable results (e.g.., [53]) for that name but nothing I could find that meets GNG. No prejudice against recreation if sources are presented. --joe deckertalk to me05:04, 4 July 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. 8 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "MTV Azerbaijan" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of time passed since this news and I am sure plans for MTV Azerbaijan is scrapped. Which means this topic was only rumour. So I request deletion as an author of this topic NovaSkola (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can place a db-author tag on the article and have an admin speedy delete it as an uncontroversial action. Nate•(chatter)09:37, 2 July 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 no evidence that the article's subject, which appears to be (the article lacks context) an open-source distributed hash table implementation, is notable. WP:N requires the subject to have non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party reliable secondary sources. The article presently has an external link to the subject's official site. As a primary source, this link does not evidence notability. There does not appear to be any coverage of the subject in sources that can indicate notability. Searching for "Distributed Ensemble of Pages that is Outage tolerant" on Google Web returns 42 "unique" results, all of which appear to be mirrors of this article. Including omitted results, the number of results increases to 110, but the nature of the results is the same as before. Searching Google News, Books, and Scholar returns no results with the exception of an book that is an index to IEEE publications that cannot be previewed. Searching Google Web for +DEPOT "distributed hash table" returned a huge number of irrelevant results (262 deemed unique), so +Bombay was added to the query, as the subject is an IIT Bombay project. 32 results were returned, all of which are irrelevant. Without +Bombay, Google News and Books did not return any results, while Google Scholar returned eight irrelevant ones. Rilak (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as "per nom" is discouraged, the nomination is so thorough I have nothing more to add. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 5 July 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.
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Before arguing that he meets MUSICBIO because he has been in two notable bands, take a close look at the bands, because none of the bands he has been in meet NBAND. J04n(talk page)01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exists, one solo album is listed (on a list, without a review, noting the lack of chart listings) at Billboard verifies that, but I didn't see evidence that would go towards demonstrating notability under GNG or MUSICBIO. --joe deckertalk to me04:55, 4 July 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 don't know what you mean when you say that the guideline fails to address this type of band. Why do you say that? Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article in the Johannesburg Business Day referred to them as "the well- known Johannesburg Youth Orchestra Company". That makes me suspect that I'd find plenty of sources if I were in South Africa. Cloveapple (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't have to "suspect" that there are sources and you don't have to be in South Africa to search. Google news finds half a dozen articles from four different independent reliable sources. This article from the Mail and Guardian, for example, gives extended significant coverage to the group. Somebody needs to add these references to the article, but simply finding them demonstrates notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete You cite one article with significant coverage, not enough to satisfy WP:NorWP:ORGorWP:Music. Most of the 6 Google news results are passing references, press releases, or directory listings. A "youth orchestra" is not any more inherently notable than a recreational bowling league or a softball team. It is just a recreational and educational activity. Edison (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody is claiming that youth orchestras are inherently notable. The question is whether THIS youth orchestra is notable, based on WP:GNG. In my opinion, the available sourcing is sufficient and the group is notable. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been improved considerably since my nomination however only one of the added references was I able to verify as a solid reliable source with significant coverage. I would say the article still does not meet our notability criteria ('multiple') however if it were in the state it is now I probably would not have nominated it in the first place. Dlabtot (talk) 22:18, 16 July 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.
lack of notability, article largely unreferenced, circulation figures false, likely a vanity page by the publisher or his surrogates Bustter (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing the article's deletion because it's pretty clearly a vanity creation by the editor and publisher, Brynn Hammond. Hammond's imdb biography was written by one of his employees, and something similar seems to have happened here.
The magazine stopped appearing on newsstands several months ago; there's been no official announcement of its demise, and no news coverage either. Certainly a magazine selling over 200,000 copies per month would create some stir with its disappearance -- however, this circulation figure is certainly a lie that originated with the publisher, elsewise it's unlikely it would have ceased publication.
Most telling of all, the official Gorezone Facebook pages (there's a couple of them) have only a couple of hundred members -- how could this be for a 200,000+ circulation magazine that only recently ceased publication?
All of this supports my long-held feeling that the article was created by publisher Hammond as a form of advertising, and therefore qualifies for deletion. Bustter (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a neutral party can be found who considers the magazine noteworthy enough to merit a properly-sourced, neutral pov article, and this party is willing to put in the sweat -- great. But opinion of the magazine is generally very low, I doubt such a party will be found.
Bustter (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to argue to keep this based on these [54][55][56][57][58], but then I noticed that the magazine from the article was first published in 2005, so it can't be the same. There are couple of references out there that do refer to this magazine [59][60], but not enough to establish notability - frankie (talk) 19:55, 8 July 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 real notability shown for this band. no evidence of charting. claims a lot of press but none is shown. the bit hoasted by BBC is not independent. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and claims for notability are not referenced to reliable sources. Although the article has the appearance of referencing, it actually is an assemblage of non-reliable sources tagged into the article seemingly at random as the references don't verify assertions in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 5 July 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.
Does not pass WP:GNG. No indication of notability upon searching. Most references cited are unreliable (including references to English and Finnish Wikipedia articles on the same topic). The only reliable independent source found is [61].
Delete complete lack of reliable sources to establish notability for this chapter. a lot of the sources used are not reliable. nor is quoting other WP articles actually a real source. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up or userfy - It certainly has somereliable sources, but it is buried in a loss of mess. I think a rescue is possible. This is not a single chapter, but rather a national organization. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uses only primary sources. The seemingly independent reliable sources verify incidental information (i.e. they are not about the subject). I would have also suggested a limited merge with the main article, except that Independent Order of Odd Fellows doesn't have a section where it might fit in.-- Obsidi♠nSoul20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not aimed for promotion but for historical documentation. I, Louie S. Sarmiento, did an academic research on the history of Odd Fellowship in the Philippines and I am one of its primary historians in the 21st Century. The sources are not mainly based on my own research and writings. Its history in the 19th Century such as in 1872 can be found in the book, History and Geography of the Philippine Islands, written by Major O.W. Coursey and published in 1903. The historical statements about the history in 1898 can be found in the book, History of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows in the City of San Francisco, written by Peter Sellars and published in 2007. Historical statements about 1903 can be found in the book, Official History of Odd Fellowshhip: The Three Link Fraternity, published and updated by the Sovereign Grand Lodge yearly or every 50 years. The statement about 1926 can be found in a historical document, the Roster of Members of Manila Lodge no.1 that still exists now and in a museum. The modern history is an account of the modern happenings and an official Odd Fellows charter exists which can verify the existence of Kapatirang Watchdog Lodge no.1 and Kapatirang Mindanaon Lodge no.2, same as the encampment and Canton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louieblakesarmiento (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Louie's comment was refactored. Please place your comments/responses after the existing comments. Moray An Par (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The modern history was published in the California Odd Fellow and Rebekah Magazine, Volume 59, no.1, in March 2010. Cite: Odd Fellowship in the Philippines. (2010, March). California Odd Fellow and Rebekah, 59, 1, 8. Libstar has personal issues about the Odd Fellows and has tried many times destroying the reputation of the said fraternal organization by criticizing and making so many allegations. We should be scholarly and work towards peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louieblakesarmiento (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In order to justify inclusion in Wikipedia, you need to meet the criteria outlined in that page and more importantly, you need to prove it.
Primary sources (sources published by the subject itself like the two you just mentioned) also do not prove notability and are not considered reliable sources for most purposes. See WP:42.
Lastly, the tone of the article is promotional. As an editor with a conflict of interest (close to the subject matter), you probably can not see this. This is why COI editing is discouraged, because people closely connected to the subject are seldom able to maintain an objective tone. The entire article, honestly, reads like a pamphlet. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even if you were able to prove notability, huge parts of the article will still most likely be removed for being inappropriate.-- Obsidi♠nSoul15:31, 7 July 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.
Company received some coverage in the press but as can be seen from this posting by the company the service is unlikely to launch any time soon, if at all. The company fails notability for organisations. Given that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I don't see the point in keeping this article as it stands. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it matters that the business is failing. The fact that several sources have mentioned the proposed crossing route, I think it qualifies as notable. It may be worth mentioning in the article that the business is looking increasingly unlikely if there is a reliable source for it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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 indicating notability. Notable claim "first medical fraternity in the Philippines and in Asia." has a dead link source and therefore unverifiable. No Google News hits.
Weak keep: the first link works and supports the claim of being the first medical society, even though for such a strong claim a more reliable references would be welcome. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:35, 10 July 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 indicating notability. Cited references also do not establish notability as none makes mention of the organization. Moray An Par (talk) 09:12, 25 June 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.
Comment - No automation used here but maybe even worse — a mass nomination without the slightest indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed. "Same rationale for the following..." doesn't cut it. What are you finding for each specific listing in your research? Has each creating writer been notified? Why is there not a place for the consideration and debate of each nomination, which are "similar" only in the respect that they are fraternities or sororities from the Philippines. We should not be half-assing this, in my opinion. I urge a speedy close of all nominations except for the first-named, about the merit of which I have no opinion at this time. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've got some Philippines-based fraternities in my watchlist. (Sigma Lambda Phi is the one where I saw this AfD notice.) In my experience with these articles, there is a tendency to mirror the fraternities' official web pages and disregard (whether innocently or flagrantly I'm not sure) Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and formatting. If the nominator has noticed that pattern in the nominated articles, searched for independent sources and found none, and notified the major contributors, then I'd say the nomination is in good faith and proper. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, but it's a weak delete for Rho Delta Rho. All the articles are lacking in independent sources. Many of them could probably be speedy deleted for copying text from their respective fraternities' websites. RDR is probably the one in the best condition, but even it has issues. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that being in good or bad condition is out of the question. RDR may be the best written among them but that doesn't mean that it's the least deleteable too. Moray An Par (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure where the bar is on "significant notability", Googling on '"Gamma Phi Omicron" site:ph' gives a couple of mentions in a newspaper and inclusion in a bio of a former member of the Philippine Congress. "Sigma Lambda Phi" also gets one reasonable mention on an edu.ph site.Naraht (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain as to how these passing mentions could be considered WP:SIGCOV. Please provide actual sources which can be used to write the articles. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Moray An Par (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Second comment (but on a different enough topic to not be combined.... Google News is almost *useless* in regards to groups like this. Check out the Manila Bulletin (which I have for each of these, no real hits) and some of the other newspapers in Manila and if the group is primarily from Mindanao, the Davao city newspaper.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete all; Wikipedia is not a web host. I strongly suspect this information is copied over from internal files/webpages of the fraternities in question (at least, I've seen fraternities do that before). It doesn't belong here. I could support some sort of list of fraternities active in the Phillipines, although since we don't host lists of external links I'm not quite sure how it could work. -- stillnotelfis invisible20:19, 11 July 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 that indicate notability. Claimed awards cannot be found in independent sources. The awards themselves may not grant the topic notability since they are non-notable and very minor themselves. Moray An Par (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is as if you assume that those awards grant the organization notability. Those awards are not notable themselves, so why should its recipients be automatically notable? Assuming the list in the article is true, three of them are from the university, and two from the local city government. Searching "Ten Most Outstanding Organizations of Manila", "Ten Most Outstanding Organizations" Manila, and "Most Outstanding Organizations" Manila all give Beta Mu Sigma published sources. Moray An Par (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't necessarily saying the awards say it is notable. I was saying find some for the place itself being notable, and, but separately, find some for the award claims. Rcsprinter(talk)08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment When the nomination says "No significant coverage that indicate notability" and "Claimed awards cannot be found in independent sources", I think it's fair to assume that the nominator has already looked for sources that would demonstrate notability. The point of the discussion is to determine whether or not the topic is notable now, not just close it as keep because it might be notable and then open another discussion afterwards. If someone thinks an article should be kept, they are allowed to look for supporting sources themselves and add them to the article. In fact, it's quite a good idea. :) --BelovedFreak09:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. The burden of proof rests on him/her, not the others. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization. Nominator's statement is pretty accurate. Dissenting voice above demands people find a way to prove a negative, which is about as fallacious as it gets. Badger Drink (talk) 06:07, 17 July 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.
Non-notable product already covered adequately by caster board. This article has previously been redirected to caster board and I suggest that the article is deleted and the redirect established. I did this but as an editor reverted I am bringing it to AfD instead. Furthermore, little has changed since the original AfD, which resulted in deletion and redirect to caster board. Biker Biker (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If redirected, the target should be RazorUSA, which now has an article. Redirecting a brand name to a type of product should be avoided, as it implies that the target should contain a list of brands or manufacturers. Peter E. James (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The actress may well be notable based on the cited coverage, but right now we have a completely unsourced contested WP:BLP, which makes deletion mandatory under our current application of that policy. Can be userfied and, once sourced, restored. Sandstein 05:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of credits appears sufficient to satisfy WP:ENT, and even a cursory GNews search turns up NYTimes coverage, including a miniprofile and a film review [62][63]; plus lots of non-English language coverage. Lousy article, but the fact that its author cared only about family ties doesn't mean she's not otherwise notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Just because someone is a progeny of someone notable does not make you notable. There is also a threshold of notability required. This threshold is not met here. DeusImperator (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When googled she has no notable achievements. Also, just because someone has famous family members that does not make them famous themselves. --Rvanwinkle1 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ansermoz, Claude (25 June 2011), "Dolores Chaplin croque", 24 Heures (in French)
"Dolores Chaplin: son nom, sa vie et Astérix!", La Tribune de Genève (in French), 6 May 2011
Aust, Bettina (25 March 2007), "Dolores Chaplin - "Ich glaube an ein Happy End"", Welt am Sonntag (in German)
"The importance of being Chaplin", Hindustan Times, 29 November 2005
Souperbie, Bastien (28 December 2007), "Dolores Chaplin: son nom, sa vie et Astérix!", Sud Ouest (in French)
Barron, James (25 November 1999), "A Quick Talker, Unlike Grandfather", The New York Times
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.
WeakKeep. Given that the list of when Mr Stone has been quoted appears to be genuine (I checked a couple), then it is my belief that the sorts of sources that could sufficiently establish notability are likely to be found, if having such a common name were not so impractical. I also found one book he was quoted in. I'd be surprised, therefore, if there weren't some significant mentions of him personally somewhere. However, these haven't be found yet. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But seeing as the article is clearly the best effort of a publicist, it is fairly safe to say that if such sources existed they would have been mentioned - they've tried to make him look as important as possible already, so there is almost certainly not anything else out there. ninety:one00:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't necessarily think so. Being quoted in the New York Times is more likely to be mentioned than a biographical piece in a industry newsletter. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closest I can get is this, which is not even really worth of being described as a "profile" of the company, let alone Stone. Possibly merge to The Beanstalk Group until proper sources can be found for Stone himself? ninety:one19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete: WP:Bio specifies that bios should not remain limited to a mere CV, but establish the notability and the impact of the person in its field. This, however, hasn't been done. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoThe Beanstalk Group, which is his company and his only claim to notability. That article also needs a massive rewrite since it is promotional in tone, but I think its notability is easier to defend than Mr. Stone's - see for example this mention in the New York Times. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 17 July 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.
The result was delete. Attention should be brought to MelanieN's commentary of this article, her points are dead-on and well taken. Courcelles23:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been unreferenced since its creation, in March 2011, and I'm not able to find coverage in independent sources (with Google searches such as this). —Tommyjb(talk)18:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no coverage in the mainstream press - just a couple of brief items in limited-circulation publications for the Greek-American community. I'd love to keep this due to the longevity of the program, but it just hasn't gotten the necessary coverage; maybe it's too local and too limited in its appeal. BTW Gun Powder Ma, the decision to keep or delete is NOT based on how good a job the initial editors did in establishing the notability of the topic; it's based on whether the topic actually IS notable, by objective Wikipedia criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 17 July 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 album was meant to be released in 2006. However it has been pushed back 17 times. The latest release date is August - The likleyhood would be this will never be released. So there already one big reason - It has no confirmed track listing etc.. which is a requirement. No coverage of the singles in widespread coverage. More so this article has multiple fansite sources, the only one that is not is MTV. Then you have billboard used as a source citing a song that isn't confirmed to be one this album. So really it has no sources and there is a lot of trivial info. Rain the 1BAM18:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--there are multiple independent sources listed in the article, and the album has already had 2 charting singles with guest appearances by unquestionably notable people like T-Pain and Lil Wayne. I'd say that this album passes the notability bar even if it ends up never being released. The other option would be to merge the material to Glasses Malone discography, but there's enough here to sustain an independent article per WP:MUSIC. Meelar(talk)17:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--as to your concern about sources, I'm not sure why you wouldn't accept the ones listed in the article. I'm not a hip-hop expert by any means, but they appear to be independent of the subject of the article, not user-generated content, and published by music journalists. It would be one thing if the facts in the article were seriously in question, and if the NY Times were to publish something directly contradicting Hip Hop DX I would go with the Times. But I can't see what part of WP:RS justifies simply ignoring the sources cited without any reason to do so. Meelar(talk)18:11, 10 July 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.
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. Likely satisfies WP:MUSICBIO #5, having released two albums under Smallroom, a major indie label with 10+ years. Also significant coverage here and here, although the latter is an online publication and may not satisfy WP:RS. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Delete - There is no doubt that a TV show is in the works, and has been mentioned here and there in entertainment reporting, but I can find so substantial coverage about the show tat would establish notability. Not surprising given the show is only a pilot in development. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete A pilot with no definite start date and no pre-launch publicity to speak of. Recreate when/if it is actually scheduled for broadcast. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 17 July 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.
Comment. I must point out that the article neither has "absolutely no references" nor "only holds a blogspot page for a reference". I don't know how it is invisible to the editors commenting above that it has a reference to Al-Arabiya. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete. There are no references and the article would take a lot to improve. I don't think its worth improving because there are no reliable resources and there are many style errors, even in the first sentence.--Sarah.Maretich (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why are you claiming that there are no references when there is very clearly a reference to Al-Arabiya? The subject may or may not be notable, but, at the very least, a decision on deletion should be based on an analysis of any sources presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 2 July 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.
