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 - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. This article's creator is an SPA, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2014 (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 award does not appear to be notable; the only references are from the FSF itself and blogs of people who claim to have won the award. Not finding any third-party references to indicate notability. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and Merge into Free Software Foundation - current sourcing is not sufficient to establish notability independent of the foundation. Greenman's sources are at most a few sentences of coverage of the awards, more incidental mention than significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None, really, so I've gone ahead and struck my vote. My gut says it should be either merged or moved to "list of FSF Award recipients", but this just seems like something Wikipedia would have an article on. Eddymason (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These awards are regularly covered by mainstream press each year (additional examples include Network World, The Age) and are also the subject of opinion pieces (for example, in iTWire). Given that there is plenty of sources to support a non-shortened version of the article, I don't see much reason to consider merging it with Free Software Foundation. --ragesoss (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2014 (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. User:Nishidani's evaluation of the sources pretty much makes the (very weak) keep arguments moot, and there was no proper counterargument offered. Clear consensus that this fails WP:EVENT. This is how sources should be evaluated in every potentially controversial AFD. Secretaccount23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not a shadow of a doubt the author is abusing wiki pages to make a point. I suggest outside editors look at the page as it was first created by Shulmaven, who has been engaged recently in a crusade to make one-off articles on every Israeli death in pursuit of his thesis that there is a Silent intifada underway, the Jewish people are victims of a massive terror campaign by Palestinians, and the world should be tipped off via Wikipedia. I feel responsible because I wrote this ignored case up in the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 today at 13:10, and two hours later Shulmaven (re)created this article. I say 'recreated' because I didn't know, not following people around, that a similar article had been deleted earlier this month. So it's not as if, in deleting this, I am trying to rid the encyclopedia of knowledge of the case: to the contrary, I wrote a sketch of the essential details of the case there, which this article doesn't essentially add to:-
'On 16 September construction worker Netaniel Arami (27) fell from the 11th storey of a building where he was working, closing vents using a rappeller's cables. His family, as well as Israeli politician Moshe Feiglin and some websites, suggested he had been murdered by Arab co-workers. The police initially insisted his death was accidental. In late November, it emerged that Shin Bet had arrested three suspects on suspicion it was a nationalistically-motivated crime. They were subsequently released for lack of evidence. The investigation is now treating it as a terror crime, and his family have been recognized as victims of terror.[55][56].'
So my suggestion to delete is not 'ideologically motivated' or an example of some 'activist' censorship.
Correcting Huldra. The only three Palestinians on the tower were arrested on suspicion, detained and interrogated and then released for lack of evidence. We just don't know anything at the moment, other than a fact and some suspicion. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'likely to inflame tensions, already used in inflammatory ways, and all the more notable for that.' Oh, good-oh! It was designed for incitement, using wiki pages. I guess I'll just have to lull myself to sleep singing Amir Benayoun's recent song, which has gone viral in Israel for the same reasons. G'nite.Nishidanitalk) 22:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the previous AfD and just compared the two versions; I suppose they're different enough so deletion via WP:G4 is not warranted, but I'd like it if another admin would look at it. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue The three suspects were arrested after "police investigators noticed that the cable he was tied to had been deliberately cut and decided to open a murder investigation."[1]. It is now confirmed as murder and as an act of terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I've also compared the two versions just now, and while they are not identical, I feel like the differences are somewhat superficial. The sources are different, but come from the same time period. Some claims have simply been moved to different sections; for instance, claims about about comparisons to other incidents now appear in the Death and controversy and Political fallout sections instead of just in a single section. The section about this topic in the context of criticism of the government (Repercussions) is even less specific than before. I don't see a lot of new information that addresses the "lasting consequences" concern of the last AfD. I, JethroBTdrop me a line23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now substantially different because within the last 24 hours the victim's family have been officially declared victims of terrorism, i.e., a deliberately committed murder committed for ethno-political reasons.ShulMaven (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I did ask you to un-delete article before I wrote a new article, but received notice that my request was deleted form your talk page.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation is ongoing. Just noting that this is still an evolving story, there may be more arrests, more evidence. Certainly there will be more coverage.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep facts of the case changed today. It was known to have been murder during the first AFD. There was a gag order put in place by security services at the time of the AFD, so that although some editors suggested that a decision be deferred until a gag order was lifted, others argued for deletion. Now the gag order has been lifted and this murder has been confirmed as an act of ethno-political terrorism. More to the point, the death gained notoriety because of the political support and public demonstrations demanding that the police investigate. Not an unfamiliar scenario in any country, but certainly the sort of thing that makes a murder GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were only 3 Arabs on the site. They were taken into detention on suspicion of murder, for nationalistic motives (ergo terror). Following 'an extensive interrogation', and following a review of the case by the State Attorney's Office, it was determined that "there was no legal justification to keep them in custody.(Israel Hayom) What we have been seeing is a massive campaign by the family, and far right wing politicians like Moshe Feiglin running parallel with the investigation, that has now endorsed the view that this was an act of terror, with no evidence against the only suspects in the case. Shulmaven is, nolens volens, actively using Wikipedia to promote that view here. For all I know, it may be terror/murder. But the only fact in the public arena is that the ropes were 'cut'. If that obvious state of the ropes was known by the police since the 16th of September, why did they keep insisting for some weeks it was an accident? This is a very weird story. If the 3 suspects were thoroughly interviewed and nothing emerged that could pin a viable charge of murder on them, or even keep them in provisory detention for a longer time, how can their intentions be defined (since no other Arabs were on the site) as terroristic? The handling of this in the news has been intensely 'political' and makes no sense to any attentive reader. There would be a case for the article if, once the hysterical replication of the few facts is dropped, a case is actually made, with real evidence, leading to detailed coverage, analysis of the suspects/culprits and trial. We have at the moment, zero, posing as a certainty, and to use Wikipedia when the facts are so thin, while the gossip is immense, sets a parlous precedent (incitement). Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, there was a significant change. The assessment by the authorities changed from murder (more common) to terrorism (less common). Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article that was deleted also claimed it was terrorism. G4 isn't about whether factors external to Wikipedia changed, it's about whether the article that's recreated is substantially the same as the one that the community decided to delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances changes, as indicated -- the authorities' position changed. And that was in turn reflected by a change in the RSs -- new RS articles reflected that change. That's a significant change, along the lines that makes a call for speedy delete a hollow request. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as minimum according to thisDrmies's decision about prev. version's deletion
At any rate, that the GNG appears to be met is not that relevant (it was a noteworthy death, noteworthy for the news); what is relevant is that such a death needs to have lasting consequents of some kind or another, and this is not yet proven, obviously. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Seems noteworthy and sensational, and the event is likely to continue to inflame tensions, and already has been used in inflammatory ways, and is all the more notable for that. I don't have any view about the legitimacy of the accusations. But it is appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about this significant, notable event. Keeping the coverage balanced is a matter for editing and for Talk page discussion, not for AFD. There are numerous reliable sources including this Times of Israel coverage (that is already included in the article). --doncram20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'If a topic has received significant coverageinreliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
This is fascinating to me because (1) WP:EVENT says
Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
The article is trumped up, as any experienced editor can see at a glance. Perhaps those who vote 'delete' assume what they see should be obvious to eyes inexperienced with I/P sourcing guidelines. This may not be obvious to the very experienced outside admins whose judgement is very important for a neutral, policy based perspective. Seeing that this will be approved, for the record I will note down why it, like many other articles of its kind, is a fudge.
The article seems to show extensive coverage over time. It has 27 citations. Examined these break down into
Arutz Sheva (9), actualite israel (1), Alya Express News (1); Jewish Pulse Radio (1)=Arutz Sheva; JNS.org (1); JerusalemOnline (1) (13 articles from sites that are not considered reliable for facts. Arutz Sheva being an extreme right wing settler organ, the rest being mainly obscure and derivative. Mainstream RS mention this over 2 months on about 9 occasions, concentrated in 3 days. The event was not reported in any general Western newspaper I know of.
Analysis by dates
12 February 2014 I article (WP:OR by Shulmaven) nothing to do with this article)
Sept 19. Three days after the event. 1 source non mainstream RS (The Jewish Press).
November 3 (WP:OR) nothing to do with this article.
November 20 Arutz Sheva: a political tirade about no Arab labourers being employed in the Knesset in a settler organ citing it en passant as an apparent murder, before the gag was lifted)
November 26, 9 articles, actually 8 articles. The mainstream picks up the story (6 articles mainstream, 2 are not RS:2 of them are one (Marissa Newman note 1, note 23).
In RS terms, the death was briefly noticed twice at the time on 19/23 September though not by mainstream Israeli newspapers was picked up 3 times Sept 30-Oct 1. On 25-26 November (Jerusalem Post, Ynet, Haaretz, The Times of IsraelThe ForwardJTA) all picked up the announcement of 1 item of news: that the reported death was now classified as terror.
All the rest is reportage from the ultra right wing margins of a dubious source with a notorious contempt for Arabs, namely Arutz Sheva, which represents the settler constituency and is the only rag which kept the fringe chat on the boil. Thus we have the report of the death(mid September) and 2 days reportage it may be a crime (25-26 Nov) in the mainstream. The sourcing is thus a Potemkin village act that falls to pieces in terms of WP:RS and WP:EVENT. Once the mainstream press made the gag order news, it has dropped interest, because there is nothing to report further. I appreciate admins are often overworked and cannot see the obvious in the details, but sometimes it goes to farcical lengths:) Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed your very long post. Assuming I didn't miss something by getting lost in it, I don't see your post as convincing. I still stand by what was said by editors DonCram and Bearian, as though I had said it myself, and I stand by it meeting GNG, which is the key to wp notability. I'm not sure that your POV (amply reflected in your choice of language, above) is reason to delete an article that meets GNG, which this one does. Plus, why there are a host of articles that you didn't mention. For example, look at all the (many more recent) articles here and here and here and here and here.
Since WP:GNG does not seem to apply, given the analysis above, I'd appreciate the courtesy of people actually responding to facts, rather than making quick atmospheric judgements. I may be wrong, but the mainstream newspapers in Israel have mentioned it on 2 days, over two months, and no (mainstream) newspaper across the globe, thought it worthwhile picking up or following. That suggests little national impact, and no international impact, which, per WP:EVENT means that this fails.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli media were all over it. Haaretz is one of Israel's smaller newspapers, circulation less than that of Yedioth Ahronoth by an order of magnitude. It was covered internationally by JTA and the Jewish newspapers of France, Britain, Spain, Argentina, the US, Australia, and Canada....ShulMaven (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fudging again. I do not list commenta, I list the type of articles that have been used to report the event by source, and date, including the papers you cite. Of 25 sources, a full half are unusable, and most of the details comes from Arutz Sheva, which hosts crackpot conspiracy theorists (Obama,'most contemptuous and hate-filled Apologist-in-Chief,' panders to Islamic terrorists and considers Israel a hostile power!!!!) and which has been the major vehicle for pushing this (so far) non-story and has yet to obtain a regular licence. And is being increasingly pushed into Wikipedia these last weeks, despite a general tacit agreement not to use that kind of disreputable sourcing. If this case is not media hype pushed by noted political extremists and this settler media outlet, but rests on evidence, as yet unknown, that leads to an indictment, I'll race you to write the appropriate article. So far we have sheer speculation and, unlike every terrorism story from Israel, it has been totally ignored by the international mainstream press.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion articles by MKs (members of Israeli Knesset) used to source MKs' opinion. Those by opinion columnists used to support sentence re: ongoing references to incident by opinion columnists.ShulMaven (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Ongoing'? The story as reported by the mainstream, emerged 25-26 November, and then died in its tracks. No one is mentioning it these last 4 days. It is a blip so far. This could change, but wiki doesn't (normatively do blips, especially those showcased byb marginal, and ferociously polemical inferior sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might note Shulmaven that you keep adding minor non RS (letters home from a PhD student in Melbourne mentioning his name en passant in a list, really! etc.) mainly sources for the same 3 unit time frame (Sept 19-22, 29-2 October, November 25-6, and not actually following them. One important source was added:
This where Ben Hartman talking to Larry Derfner on Tel Aviv radio on the 26 November, when the overwhelming bulk of reportage is located, blows up the whole reportage in the Israeli media as a misconstruction of what the court documents say: A rough paraphrase:
(Hefell to his death. It was described as an accident. The only people at the scene was a co-worker and a couple of Palestinian workers in the building. Speculation arose he’d been killed by cutting cables possibly because he was Jewish. Today the court partially lifted a gag order allowing it to be said that earlier after the incident happened, the Shin Bet arrested 3 men and held them and questioned them on suspicion of killing this man but then later released them when it determined that as there was no way to really to connect them to the crime or prove it. That’s the only thing that 100% confirmed today but from that it has been extrapolated in a lot of the Israeli media it has been presented that it has been 100% considered to be a terrorist crime. It's more accurate to say that they have been investigating it as a terror attack and they arrested people in connection with that but haven’t been able to prove that.
What Hartman says is that the court records gave no evidence indicating it was a nationalist crime rather than a work accident, but simply said an investigation of it as a terror act had been conducted and the suspects released since there was no evidence. What Hartman noted was a media inference not justified by the facts revealed, whatever your fringhe sources (Arutz Sheva shouts). There was a political judgement to call it 'terrorist', a classification which allows the debt-ridden amily compensation. You cite the source, then fail to alter the article in accordance with what the source says, because it conflicts with the thesis you are pushing, from Arutz Sheva etc., that this is a terror murder. Hartman says this is, so far, an illegitimate inference from media hype. (He may be wrong, but if you cite a source that contradicts what you wish to claim in the article, you are obliged to include everything, not just use the source as one more proof the incident is 'widely discussed' to pass WP:EVENT.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that explains why foreign reporters based in Israel have ignored the story: there's nothing to it (so far) except local political use of the event in terror discourse, and no facts to write about (so far), except that a thorough Shin Bet investigation of the 3 Palestinians at the site led to their release after a week, for lack of evidence. It may be a crime, but it may be what the police reported it as for some weeks, a work accident (spun out as a terror crime by the family and political friends). Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my opinion to userfy. My view is that once it is clear that there are important implications of his death, it will clearly be notable. I suspect that it will happen. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a death in region chock full of murders and revenge killings for those murders, and the cycle goes on and on. This is simple WP:NOTNEWS; while a tragedy, it is an abuse of this encyclopedia project to use it to catalog each and every casualty in the Israeli-Palestine war of aggression. I also note some of the same, Israeli POV-pushers here and in a recent DRV, ones that have been pushing this same sort of stuff for years on this project. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question of whether widely covered murders and revenge killings, with GNG coverage, should not be covered because there are many of them. If it's terrorism, this isn't notable? Terrorism is inherently non-notable? Actually, that's confusing real-world "notability" with wp notability. For us, notability doesn't mean "there aren't many" (or else we wouldn't cover all major league baseball players), but rather "does it attract GNG coverage?" Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything attracts some degree of coverage these days, but the simple "I saw it in a source so I must create an article about it" mentality no longer carries water, if it ever did at all. Matters that are routine news stories, local in scope, or one-event wonders, we exercise editorial discretion and separate thru truly newsworthy from the run-of-the-mill. As of 11/23/14, 286 people have been murdered in New York City. It is reasonably certain that there is some coverage to be found in some the newspapers for each of those 286. It's a big city, shit happens, and I doubt any of those 286 have an article here. In this case, it's just another Israeli killed by just another Palestinian in a region fraught with violence for decades. Shit happens, and not many of those individual deaths are encyclopedic, despite your personal best efforts to make them so in this project over the years. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no room for "I saw it in a source" articles. Then again -- that's not the case here.
That's the difference between "I saw it in a source" articles (and the maybe-one-article-covered-it murder in NYC ... which contrast sharply with the coverage here), and GNG articles. We go by what the RS refs cover. Not our personal views that "oh gosh -- there are loads of these all the time, and I personally don't want to see any more of them".
If there are loads of GNG-covered murders or suspected murders, we cover them. Just as if there are loads of major league baseball players that meet GNG, we cover them as well.
We don't say: "I don't want articles that meet GNG, but that are on a subject that I have seen covered quite enough for my taste." Forget the subject. Focus on the coverage. Though I realize that a number of editors in this discussion are doing quite the opposite. Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question of who is doing the terrorism or, as the Wife of Bath says, who paints the lion. If it's not terrorism this isn't notable? Terrorism has inherent notability? Drmies (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2014 (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.
Redirect I apologize for the reverts and edits on the page. The template mislead me. Instead of deleting, I would suggest a redirect. It was done before with this article and previous DWTS articles. The page will be created again anyways, so deleting it would be useless. Callmemirela (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2014 (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 only source for the existence of this "Jan Bogdan" is the purported "Memoirs of a Mercantilist" (Polish, Pamiętnik handlowca), which Barbour and Pula have shown to be most likely a hoax by Arthur L. Waldo.[1][2] From the discussion on the article's talk page, it appears that the OA is in agreement with this proposal. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^Pula, James S. (2008). "Fact vs. Fiction: What Do We Really Know About The Polish Presence In Early Jamestown?". The Polish Review. 53 (4): 477–493. JSTOR25779776.
Comment Looking at the history of the article, the !vote by User:Drbogdan above seems to make this a very strong candidate for WP:CSD G7. However, I would like one point answered before this is done - as I am not registered for JSTOR, I can't see the papers from which the nominator, and now the article creator, have concluded that all the sources on which the article is based seem to derive from a probable hoax (Pamiętnik handlowca) first known from 1947. GBooks does, however, produce one apparent source from 1944 - this onebyKarol Wachtl [pl]. This is, of course, certainly not inconsistent with Pamiętnik handlowca being a hoax - it might already have been in existence, and known to Wachtl, in 1944; or the hoaxer might actually have used Wachtl's book for historical background (or, indeed, just as a source of names - all the GBooks snippet shows is that Jamestown and Jan Bogdan are mentioned on the same page of the book). But does anyone know what Wachtl said and what sources (if any) he gave? PWilkinson (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson: - Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - new information(s) - and/or - new (and better?) ways of interpreting earlier materials are *always* welcome of course - if interested - seems the full text of "Jamestown pioneers from Poland", that seems to mention Jan Bogdan four times, and seems to refer to materials from the 1920s/1930s (and/or much earlier?), may be at the following url => http://archive.org/stream/jamestownpioneer00poli/jamestownpioneer00poli_djvu.txt - one instance in the text mentions Jan Bogdan as follows => "...[Dr. Karol] Wachtl, quoting Wiesci Polskie, published in London in 1831 [sic - "1631" instead?], lists the following Polish pioneers, who arrived in Jamestown in October, 1608: — Michal Lowicki, Zbigniew Stefanski, Jan Mata, Stanislaw Sadowski, Karol Zrenica and Jan Bogdan. The evidence, supporting this list, however, appears to be of a presumptive type and is not yet based on ascertained facts. More research in this field is needed." - there are three other instances in the same text mentioning Jan Bogdan - ALSO - the text mentions the following => "Dr. Karol Wachtl, well known journalist, poet and historian, who, in his "Polonia w Ameryce", gave the names and. places of origin of the first Polish pioneers in Jamestown." - ALSO - "Robertson's Book of Firsts: Who Did What for the First Time" mentions => "Karl Wachtl, in "Polonia w Ameryce" (1927), purports to give their full names, as Zbigniew Stafanski, Jan Mata, Stanislav Sadowski, Karol Zrenica, and Jan Bogdan citing as his source a broadside "Wiesci Polski" ("Polish News") he states was published in London in 1631, No trace of this fugitive document has been found." - RE: JSTOR => FREE ACCESS on a limited basis is available - after gaining such access, there are several relevant JSTOR refs as follows: 1) Barbour and 2) Pula - these refs are also noted in more detail in the References section of the Jan Bogdan article - hope this all helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION - would adding a new section/paragraph to the "Jan Bogdan" article describing the currently unclear historical basis for the existence of "Jan Bogdan", based on the claims made by Pula[1] and Barbour[2] as well as those made by Dr. Karol Wachtl,[3][4] be sufficient to rescue (so-to-speak) the Jan Bogdan article from deletion? - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^Pula, James S. (2008). "Fact vs. Fiction: What Do We Really Know About The Polish Presence In Early Jamestown?". The Polish Review. 53 (4): 477–493. JSTOR25779776.
Delete, at least on current evidence, with thanks and (I suspect) apologies to User:Drbogdan. The quotation he gave from the Jamestown Pioneers from Poland reference certainly goes some way to answering my question about what Wachtl said, and would seem to be reliable on that point. However, all its other mentions of Jan Bogdan occur in articles reprinted from other sources, which are basically popular accounts whose level of fact-checking would almost certainly not have reached the point of questioning an authentic-looking (though apparently not actually authentic) source like Pamiętnik handlowca. And Robertson's Book of Firsts looks slightly less reliable still - the quote you give from it gives the publication date of Wachtl's Polonia w Ameryce as 1927 rather than (as both GScholar and the Polish Wikipedia article on Wachtl make clear) 1944, which Jamestown Pioneers from Poland gives as the date of a very similarly named publication by another author, two sentences away from a mention of Wachtl's book. Which leaves us with what we know of Wachtl and his source, Wiesci Polskie (for which 1831 to me looks like a more likely date than 1631 - let's just say that 1631 would a distinctly early date for a newsheet, and even more so for a Polish one published in London). Unfortunately, Google searches for Wiesci Polskie overwhelmingly produce results for a newspaper published between about 1940 and 1943, and even if I include one of the two earlier dates, the results show almost no evidence of an earlier publication of the same name (instead, one tends to end up with lists of publications which include both the 1940s newspaper and something from 1831 with quite a different title). And the only results which do clearly mention an 1831 or 1631 Wiesci Polskie are about Poles in early Virginia and, directly or indirectly, seem to refer back to Wachtl - and the only one of these that seems to add anything to this discussion is this one from a Polish museum. Unfortunately, what it does add is that the 1831 Wiesci Polskie "has eluded researchers", mention of a Polish scholar who produced a quite different (unsourced) list of names of Jamestown Poles, and a conclusion that "without having the original writings available, serious historians are unable to confirm that these were in fact the names of the Poles who came to Jamestown in 1608." With which I am regretfully forced to agree. (Having said all that, I would regard Pamiętnik handlowca as notable, even as a hoax, and would not disagree with having this title redirecting there.) PWilkinson (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson: - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and for your time and effort re the Jan Bogdan article - no problem whatsoever - yes - unless better historical evidence re the presently purported 1608 Jan Bogdan becomes available, your suggestion of redirecting the current Jan Bogdan article to the "Pamiętnik handlowca" article seems *entirely* ok with me at the moment as well - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@PWilkinson: and others without JSTOR subscriptions may be interested to know that they can get free access to the Pula and Barbour articles, simply by creating a free account on JSTOR and jumping through some easy hoops. Just click on the links provided by DrBogdan and follow the directions for free access. Meanwhile, as PWilkinson has discovered by another route, Wachtl's alleged source is doubtful at best, and is not in any case a primary source. Pula writes,
Wachtl, a Polish-born journalist, playwright, and chronicler, identified Wiesci Polskie as a periodical published in London in 1831. He claims that this source lists by name six initial Polish settlers in Jamestown,along with their cities of origin.[fn. omitted] To unravel the mystery, then, we should begin by looking at Wachtl's source. The first observation that can be made is that the publication date of 1831 is some 223 years after the events in question; thus, it is not a primary source at all. Nevertheless, finding it might at least lead to evidence of some earlier source. A consultation of Stanislaw Zielinski's Bibliografia czasopism polskich zagranica 1830-1943 [Bibliography of Polish Periodicals Abroad, 1830-1943], the authoritative reference source for periodicals published outside Poland, fails to reveal any such publication. Furthermore, Sigmund Uminski, who undertook research in various libraries and archives in England and Poland in search of a copy of Wachtl's source, was unable to locate any trace of the publication, nor even a single reference in any of the available bibliographies of early nineteenth century publications.[fn. om.] Similarly interested in the source for a biography of Captain John Smith that he was writing, in 1963 Philip L. Barbour contacted Mrs. M. L. Danilewicz, librarian at the Polish Library in London, who informed him that she and two Polish scholars had all looked for the source and were unable to find any mention of it. After being informed that Barbour had been unable to locate any reference to Wiesci Polskie, Wachtl asserted that it was really not a periodical publication but a special broadside (jednodniowka), thus explaining its absence from the standard bibliographies.[fn. om.] Whatever the truth of the matter regarding the mysterious Wiesci Polskie, if it did exist it was clearly not a primary source.
Pula 2008, pp. 480-81. Clearly, Wachtl had the opportunity to produce his source, when he heard of Barbour's inquiries, but for some reason he only offered an excuse for its absence from the standard bibliographies. I suspect that was because his source did not exist; but even giving Wachtl the benefit of the doubt, his Wiesci Polskie is not a reliable source, and neither, consequently, is Wachtl.
Because the Pamiętnik handlowca is probably a fraud, I would oppose any effort to rescue Jan Bogdan by redirecting to that article. The Pamiętnik handlowca article needs to be rewritten from the POV of the most current scholarship—i.e., as the story of a probable forgery or fraud—or else to be deleted. No Wikipedia article should lend the Pamiętnik handlowca credibility, as a redirect from this article would do. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk17:41, 1 December 2014 (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.
Our criteria for keeping crime stories is that the event needs to have some long term impact and ongoing coverage. This event didn't. It is very tragic, and even more tragic, is that the event just isn't that rare anymore. The article was Prod'd with two seconds and I want to quote the original prod justification: "Tragic event, but does not meet WP:EVENTorWP:CRIME due to lack of persistent coverage or long term impacts in the school industry, unlike Sandy Hook, Columbia, or Virginia Tech" (173.3.79.101) The article was originally an article on the school itself, and I probably should have just boldly merged its contents on the shooting to the school district's article when I moved it to its current title, but I would not oppose redirecting it to the appropriate school district article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NOTTEMPORARY I believe that Nom misinterprets WP:EVENT, which does not require that "have significant impact over a wide region" but, rather, merely states that notable events "usually" have such impact. (although, cumulatively, school shootings have had such impact, and this one may have had it regionally or in some other, as yet unknown way.) What it does require is that the event "must receive significant or in-depth coverage" This incident clearly did. Notability, moreover is WP:NOTTEMPORARY :"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". But beyond the black letter law test, which this article passes, there is this quesiton: What use is Wikipedia except in exactly situations like this, a terrible murder/event that occurred some time ago but which, if someone wants to know about it, is summarized in a reliably-sourced article on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, national coverage did continue (just added a 2014USA Today article) I believe that editors should at least do a google search, and perhaps even attempt to improve articles before starting the AFD process.ShulMaven (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I had seconded the proposed deletion based on the apparent paucity of sources showing a lasting impact, and I thought it was (sadly) run of the mill. I stand corrected. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2014 (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 need to send to AFD ten hours after it being contributed. Being unsourced means WP:BEFOREtoencourage work, not deletion. This film article is not unsourcable. As this film is one of those of Kannada notable Vishnuvardhan, it certainly had coverage. I would expect Indian members familiar with Kannada language should be able to provide non-english sources, even if only scans of hardcopy sources unavailable online. WP:INDAFD tells us that pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source online. Not being sourcable online is not automatically non-notable.
Hello Schmidt, As with the other two articles I nominated, I did try to find WP:RS before nominating this article for deletion, I was not able to find any, the AfD process gives extra time to find valid sources, unfortunatelly, the citations added are just a one and a half line review and an article about the death of comedian Vadiraj (claimed in the article to be director of the film) the article makes no mention of the film. Neither one establish the needed notability for inclusion. WP:MOVIE shows ways that notability can be established for older films, but in my opinion, it is clear that this film does not meet those guidelines. If reliable sources in any language are found to meet the guidelines for inclusion I will be very happy to change my vote.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you were unsuccessful in WP:BEFORE, but your lack of success is not automatically that of others, and unless you are a Kannada-reading Wikipedian who understands WP:INDAFD, your being "clear" is a subjective opinion. I would hope this gets re-listed several times, as seven days is not always best for the project. I urge you to consider suggested alternatives and use a little restraint before nominating more new stubs about Kannada films after such short waiting periods. WP:WIP instructs that immediate perfection is not required. AFD is not intended to force cleanup, specially considering the difficulties inherent in sourcing pre-1990s Indian film articles within a seven-day period. I appreciate your concern with the author giving us only basic information, but such may lead to more with the right eyes.
The involvement of major Kannada film notables allows a consideration of notability under WP:OEN, and a very reasonable expectation that these films did receive some non-English coverage not available online. As the film is at least verifiable, we do not have a policy violation... just an issue that requires Kannada eyes. Tagging for issues and perhaps notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Karnataka for assistance might have been reasonable. Not saying you did anything wrong, but WP:JNN is no reason to toss away possibly improvable stubs over difficulties in finding non-English sources for non-English pre-internet films. I loked at the author's talk page, and wonder if he has been chased away yet, or not. I hope he remains and adds the required souring. Schmidt, Michael Q.05:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you, I don´t know about Kannada films and I do hope that if the films are indeed notable they remain and get improved. I will copy below my answer to the other AfD to satisfy WP:JNN for other editors as the reasons apply for the 3 articles:
I have much less experience than you and I am learning every day, so I sincerely thank you for the information you sent me. Let me try to explain to you in more detail why I nominated the films and try to show you that it was not just a frivolous WP:JNN. I do agree with you that WP:Verifiability is not an issue here, especially after the new sources you found which clearly establish it. My only concern is with WP:Notability. The guidelines and recommendations you cited all seem to assume that the content is or is claimed to be notable (even if it is not properly sourced). WP:YFA stresses in point 4 that the subject must be notable, and that it should be sourced, after reading WP:INDAFD, I can understand the difficulty on finding reliable sources, and if there would have been an unsourced claim of notability in the articles, I would have tag them instead of nominating them, but in my opinion there is no such claim.
My assumption here is that a film is not automatically notable for having a notable actor like Vishnuvardhan in its cast, or for been a Kannada film.
Since I could not find substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG I looked at WP:MOVIE
The articles do not make any of the included notability claims, I could see no indication that:
it is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
If I made a mistake in the interpretation of this policies I do apologize, my intention is to help, not hinder the project, so I will thankfully accept any guidance you can give me.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for national archives and awards, the jury is still out. I am still looking to verify if "the film was selected for preservation in a national archive" or received "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... but that OEN list contains more considerations. There is also "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," which is a consideration when giving thought to the involvement of the many Indian notables. I find it hard to believe that such films "never" received attention in the Kannada language. So since it had not yet been done, I've asked for assistance in sourcing from WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, Cinema of Karnataka and WikiProject Karnataka. Schmidt, Michael Q.15:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, if it is notable they should be able to show it, and if it so happens that any of those criteria you mention are met then I fully agree with you that it should be kept.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep. We have a couple of sources, and the film stars and was directed by notable people - it needs expanding rather than deleting. I'd say tag it to say it needs better sourcing and give it a bit more time - there's no rush. Squinge (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a suitable stub which has gone from thistoTHIS. The article is not a policy violation and it serves the project and its readers to have it remain and be improved over time and through regular editing as Kannada editors are able. Schmidt, Michael Q.21:23, 30 November 2014 (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 - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no independent significant coverage. This article's creator is an SPA, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2014 (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 It appears from the history that this was AfD'd in 2006, with a decision of keep. I don't know how to find a record of the discussion... ? Meanwhile, this company mas merged and unmerged with other companies, some of which are listed on the Indian stock market. That's all the information I can find. LaMona (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and information I provided above: normal mentions in business press, but mainly about acquisitions and virtually nothing about the company itself. LaMona (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2014 (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.
Merge per Dylanfromthenorth. DGG is right that there might be some useful info here, but it would be most useful within the parent company's article. Ivanvector (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2014 (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 can't find anything to show that this (or any of the books) pass notability guidelines. I wish the author well, but Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:53, 20 November 2014 (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. I just can't see where these books are ultimately notable as a whole. I've left a note on the author's page letting him know about Wikia, which would be a far more appropriate page for this sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:56, 20 November 2014 (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.
Where to begin? This article is a mess. Its been noted as such on the talk page, and that was months ago. I see no action being made on the page, and its a biography page, so that means that there are some special provisions for the article. Since its a mess, and according to the deletion log its been axed before on blatant advertising grounds, and because I have copyright concerns for the article, I'm listing it here for deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Subject definitely meets the notability requirements for authors/academics (and probably also business people), but the article is promotional and a close paraphrase of http://www.ichakadizes.com/. I would suggest it should be deleted as a copyright violation with no prejudice against recreation as a proper article. (There is nothing salvageable, otherwise I'd say stubbify.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2014 (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 closed as an invalid deletion rationale. No prejudice against the initiation of a new discussion at another time if somebody can come up with a substantive reason why we should consider deletion, but that's not what this reason is. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove this page as previously entered information is not sufficient. Also, a lot of the information from third-party resources has been deleted and I am not understanding why. I have tried multiple times to add the information I have and would just like this page to be deleted as the information I enter ends up being deleted shortly after I hit "save." There is ample information that was published in regards to the magazine on the page's inception that has since been deleted. Thank you. MarinFan14 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for deletion. And you need to learn the difference between a reliable source and a primary one if you think the information you've been trying to add has been deleted for no reason. And you don't get to claim ownership rights over the article just because you're its original creator, either — once you've ceased to be the only person who has ever edited the article, you don't get to claim any special veto over whether it continues to exist or not. It belongs to the Wikipedia community, not to you, and will be kept or deleted based on our content rules. Keep — in fact, speaking as an administrator I'm acting to immediately close this as an invalid nomination. Any content issues can be discussed on the article's talk page, and a new discussion can always be initiated at a later date if somebody else can come up with a substantive reason for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (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 article's subject is presented as a real person, but appears to be a hoax. None of the cited sources indicate that the subject is a real person.
One reference, spoof news, does indicate that the subject is a pseudonym for a "Tim Bailey" (Set up as recently as March 2008 by comedy duo Dave Morris and Tim Bailey aka Peter Musgrove and Steve Pritchard, the site has...), but I can find no evidence that "Tim Bailey" is real, either.
And it's worth noting that author of this spoof news article is named "Kent Pete," the same name as the user who created this Peter Musgrove 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.
This is rather untraditional behaviour to send my own article to AfD... but I'm doing it. An IP PROD'd it stating the subject was not notable. I disagree, but he may not be notable beyond the single event of hacking Facebook to make all the profiles look like MySpace, which subsequently got him a job there. Through my own research I wasn't able to find much more about this person. Given this I think the subject may fail WP:CRIME and what little info we have here could probably be merged into Facebook or a subarticle thereof. Sometimes AfD discussions yield drastic improvement to the article, which in turn results in a keep. My hope was this would be the case with Putnam. — MusikAnimaltalk18:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Well, I agree that this subject could be merged with a Facebook article, but as I've mentioned on the Putnam page already, I don't think the person 'deserves' a separate article in an encyclopedia. As you state here, this article (probably) fails wikipedia guidelines, so the article should at least be checked upon by others as well. 82.217.116.224 (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an odd and unreferenced article that consists of very short descriptions of five minor / non-notable incidents of civil unrest in Tampa over the years.
Delete. If the useful information has been merged, then I don't see what purpose this small article now serves. It certainly isn't long enough to make merging impractical. Howicus(Did I mess up?)21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're right; the listed events are totally out of context and not notable by themselves. The concert incident is mentioned in at Tampa Stadium and the others might be included in an expanded "Civil Rights Movement in Tampa" section at History of Tampa. Not sure they'd all merit individual mention even there, honestly. So it wouldn't be a cut-and-paste merge in any case. --Zeng8r (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2014 (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 As per VMS Mosaic. I ran the same google search, added 1 article to page. This sort of thing is a waste of time. Editors who list articles without doing a good-faith google should be sanctioned. I believe that the proper sanction would be for the editor to find 3 notable poorly written or poorly sourced articles and bring them up to snuff. Honestly, too many AFDs are a total wast of time. Current case in point: David D. Cole Well sourced article filled with obvious claims to notability, but someone posted it at AFD yesterday. End of rant.ShulMaven (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2014 (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 With one voice role and a television appearance I don't think he meets the notability criteria for entertainers, and, given that his acting career ended 14 years ago and consisted of a total of two roles across all media, I don't see how the sourcing and notability issues could be improved with time. If you have to include finishing third on an episode of Weakest Link to bolster notability then you're in trouble. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Change to keep given the references provided in the expanded article.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots00:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be fair, he starred in two series of a notable series aired on both BBC and the Disney Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoap. He also was the main character in a pretty famous live action Disney film James and the Giant Peach. That to me suggests "multiple appearances" as per the notability criteria. [comment was unsigned by 92.30.148.47]
Delete per my original PROD rationale, namely that one film, a few episodes of a TV show, and one episode of game show do not meet the notability guideline for actors at WP:NACTOR. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes down to the film role. If he'd played more roles at that level, we wouldn't be questioning this. I can't speak for Microsoap, but Weakest Link is obviously not going to swing notability.
So what do we do about child actors? There's clearly a group who play one significant role, then stop. Any number of these actors - and many of them covered here, many of them not. So what does WP:ACTOR say? For music, the idea of a one hit wonder is very clearly seen as conveying notability, if that one hit is adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A starring role in 26 episodes of a television series and the title character in a major feature film meets the criteria for WP:NACTOR. However, I would like to see some independent reliable sources added, rather than just an IMDb link. Because of fan blogs like this, I am assuming there are some decent sources in magazines and newspapers which can meet WP:BLP. — CactusWriter (talk)18:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, if he doesn't mention on his school bio that he was in this film, then maybe he's not trying to publicise it and we should leave him be? Not everyone wants a biog in this place. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. James and the Giant Peach (the book) is a hugely important and hugely popular and hugely well-known children's book, especially in the UK. Terry was nominated for an award for his starring role in that film. I think it is also important to keep the article so the important JATGP film article has a link to its star, so it's neither a redlink nor a cipher (after all it's a common name, and it's good for investigators to be able to tell who exactly the star was and what became of him after the role). Also worth noting that WP:Notability is not temporary. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point -- wiki article says it's live-action for the first 20 minutes, then stop-motion animation within the peach, then live-action again. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only being in one (or a couple) of film(s) still brings notability. There is also a possibility of article expansion as happened with Danny Lloyd when he was interviewed for various documentaries about the making of The Shining. MarnetteD|Talk00:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has now been significantly expanded, upgraded, and sourced since prod and AfD nom. Softlavender (talk)
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 neither fails WP:NFOOTBALL nor WP:NSPORT in fact qualifies on account of English Championship as fully professional or Argentine leagues as fully professional. BBC Sport and Sky Sport obviously have a higher opinion as Wikipedia editors as coverage especially on account of a $1m (£800,000) transfer to a British club with substantial interest by FC Barcelona and FC Roma. Notability is therefore unquestionable. GinEgWu (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. @GinEgWu: NFOOTY clearly states the needs to play in order to be notable not simply be a member of a squad. Additionally, routine transfer talk is, by long standing consensus, not sufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep U-20 international for Argentina, and signed by a professional club in a professional league this summer. At worst that's wp:TOOSOON - and I don't have enough Spanish to go through the Argentinian press. Neonchameleon (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2014 (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 Right now the city article says "Yuma area", and I'm not sure how that compares to "Yuma County". Are there sources specifically listing birds in Yuma (city) or the "Yuma area"? I'm mainly concerned about original research in the city article, particularly given the notes on the talk page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2014 (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.
Keep per Oshwah, who correctly points out that the first AfD discussion discussion brought forth some reliable sources that show notability per WP:CORP. Velella, that suffices...reliable sources are available, and they don't have to be in the article already. --doncram14:25, 1 December 2014 (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 - nothing I could find suggests the subject would meet our inclusion criteria. Happy to consider anything anyone else can find but there's no justification for keeping this non-article at the moment. St★lwart11104:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a url which was included in the article but not visible (spotted it while stub-sorting) so I tweaked it ... but on following the link, can't find any mention of this person. PamD08:38, 12 November 2014 (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.
Weak Delete - I'm not convinced that the sources about the company's 25th anniversary are anything other than republished PR pieces (and even if they aren't, they're all covering just one event); beyond that, I'm not seeing many reliable source discussing this, due to the majorly generic name. However, if ChannelWorld.in is both independent and a reliable source, then [2] goes someway to establishing notability. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete No suggestion of notability, even locally in India (and, given it is a very generic name, I bet there will be businesses named "PC Solutions" in about every country in the world). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Seeing as companies everywhere use PC Solutions it's virtually impossible to find anything, Even searching "PC Solutions India" brings up different companies there... –Davey2010 • (talk)20:18, 26 November 2014 (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.
One-line stub article that has remained unsourced since its creation 6 years ago. A Google search turns up only Wikipedia mirrors or other unreliable user-edited sites, so there is no reliable evidence that this person even existed, let alone is actually notable. --DAJF (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2014 (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 have my suspicion that this article may have copyright issues, and in point of fact the deletion log for the page says that the article was axed on copyright grounds a while back. As its written now I have my concerns, in its current state with the maintenance tag I feel that an afd is warranted to determine the best course of action for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Established community college, part of a template for coverage of all the institutions in a United States' state system, just rewrite the thing if you have suspicions.--Milowent • hasspoken13:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few minutes whacking out the baloney from the article and added two sources. It needs more work, but no reason it shouldn't survive now.--Milowent • hasspoken14:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks Milowent for making revisions. Thanks, i guess, User:TomStar81 for calling attention to the article and its possible plagiarism/copyviow, though I am not quite sure that opening an AFD is the most efficient way to do that. Anyhow, seems like it should be kept now, per Davey2010 and others. Tomstar81, if you are willing now to withdraw the nomination (and you or someone else could close it, as there are no other Delete votes i think), that would reduce the amount of community attention that must be applied. No problem if this continues and is to be closed at end of 7 days as usual for AFDs, instead. --doncram22:48, 29 November 2014 (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. Meets GNG. I found and added a segment of a Deutsche Welle series and a profile in a German business magazine, and also a previous Der Spiegel article that had more about him. The article now covers his career more completely, and I have yet to even look for newspaper coverage of the huge settlement he and another AOL Europe exec received from Bertelsmann. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2014 (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 As per nom, clearly fails WP:NGOLF. Likely COI`/self-promotion as creator of article has made no other wiki contriburion. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG with continuing coverage in most national media. Has played at international level, is a current rep player for Canterbury. Article a bit dated and needs updating. NealeFamily (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It fails WP:GNG: refs 1 and 4 are from his school so aren't "Independent of the subject", refs 3 and 5 are routine sports coverage and not "Significant coverage", that leaves ref 2. That is hardly the basis for an article. (BTW, he is not even ranked in the top 3000 in the amateur rankings [3]). Tewapack (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (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.
Does not meet WP:GNG. Searching the Indian English newspapers per WP:INDAFD returns a few mentions of the name; all such mentions are as a crew in the films. No independent coverage of the person or his works. Sources in other languages may be available. Bringing this to AfD for community consensus. Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2014 (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 - list of transfers are normally considered notable, this is just a particualrly poor example - no sources, mis-use of flags etc. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman14:43, 27 November 2014 (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 significance; perhaps the article would be better as "Prejudice against Afro-American religions" with proper sources. However, it seems this article was copy-pasted from the Portuguese Wikipedia (October 2014) by a user who only has one contribution to the English Wikipedia. Also, the article is not written in a formal tone one would expect reading a Wikipedia article. Omo Obatalá(talk)04:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This isn't an encyclopaedic topic written about in an encyclopaedic way. It has massive weight issues, focused on one or two locations and ideas in ignorance of other, more prominent, ideas. St★lwart11104:44, 26 November 2014 (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.
WP:BLP (likely WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username) of a person "notable" only as a municipal councillor in a village of 6K. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL — municipal councillors are only "entitled" to Wikipedia articles in internationally famous world cities on the order of New York City, TorontoorLondon — and the amount of reliable source coverage here doesn't even approach the volume necessary to claim a WP:GNG pass instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2014 (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.
One of the poorer articles (and that's saying something) created by a paid editor, supported largely by a blog and some Kung Fu websites. The fleeting mentions in two newspapers aren't enough to meet WP:GNG, in my view. With a name like this, any substantial coverage should be easy to find - and I can't find any! DeleteSionk (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Sionk (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is so much wrong with this article that if I had been paid for it I would hurry to refund. Only source to 3x world champion kickboxer is a gym advert which does not mention the organization. The major Kickboxing titles are all extensively covered on Wikipedia but I can't find anything there either. So subject fails WP:KICK, WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no supporting evidence to show he meets the notability criteria at WP:KICK. He also doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR or have the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. He's not even mentioned at some of the sourced links and the rest are either passing mentions or not from reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2014 (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.
Relisting for further consideration after a no consensus/NPASR close on my first nomination. The problem wasn't that there was any actual disagreement, because nobody voted to keep the first time — rather, there wasn't enough participation after two relists. The problem remains that this is effectively a public relations profile, verging into straight-up résumé territory, rather than a proper encyclopedia article — and for sourcing, it relies almost entirely on references where the subject is credited as the author of the reference, making them primary sources which cannot legitimately demonstrate her encyclopedic notability. I still believe it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created 30 September 2014 and everything substantive in it has been added by a single, new editor - although other editors have added categories, fixes, links. I know a little about "visionary" or "outsider " art. And it is unusual for an artist to claim to be an outsider artist, since the category describes artists who are unschooled, sometimes illiterate or semi-literate, certainly untrained in art and often mentally unstable, it is more usual for the art of these naive, often obsessive, solitary or otherwise eccentric but talented artists who often work in unusual media to be identified by others. I do know that lots of people who merit Wikipedia articles don't have them, and that it is not necessarily illegitimate for an artist or someone close to the artist to put up a new page. This article was almost certainly created either by the subject, or by someone who knows and/or admires her. What is unusual here is that the article's editor, who obviously knows a lot about the subject/artist, can find so little substantive coverage to put on the page. The references from a local paper, Coastal Times, are not about the artist, but merely include her name in a list of artists being shown locally. Links also lead to non-selective artist-listing websites. other references are to Raw Vision, a real, if small, magazine devoted to Outsider art. This may be true; a search for her name on the magazine's website search function produced nothing, but many magazine websites are inadequate. Googling produces no more than is on the page. What seems, for example, to be a launch party for a book of which she is the author [4] in an art gallery, is for a book published by "Lentis Books" which appears [5] to be a a self-publishing platform. There are some gallery listings, and this interview [6] but I can't find info in magazines or newspapers of any reputation.ShulMaven (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2014 (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.
Article about an album which just asserts its existence, and makes no substantive or properly sourced claim that it actually passes WP:NALBUMS in any substantive way — the only real evidence of notability here is "one of the musicians involved in it has a Wikipedia article", but that isn't enough to make an album independently notable. Albums get over on sales chart positions, award nominations, reliable source coverage that's actually about the album itself, and on and so forth — they do not get a free notability pass just because they exist. Delete unless proper sourcing, supporting a substantive claim of notability, can be added. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence this meets WP:GNG, all sources are either unreliable, like OurSportsCentral, passing mentions, or press releases. No significant news coverage from mainstream media sources Delete. Secretaccount21:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In response to the concerns previously mentioned I added several additional sources to the page, which include FL based newpapers that meet the qualifications of an RS. There are many articles all over wikipedia about independent sports leagues. They might not get national news coverage, however they are covered by RSs. As far as I know it doesn't state what level of notability it must have to meet WP:GNG. - Galatz (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - VERY low level minor league. When I do a search I find no evidence of continuing significant coverage from RS's. The vast majority are self-published (including Word Press and Facebook). Rikster2 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete all sources are not third party, Our Sports Central is self-published that all minor sports leagues use as a team website, nothing else on Google that I found that makes this organization meet WP:GNG. 166.172.185.40 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is written for the local "community" portion of the newspaper (this one is for the Aventura, Florida portion and is only published in that specific area, not the entire metro area) and it isn't subjected to strict editorial review. I got first-hand experience on how the publishing for the Miami Herald, having written pieces before on the community section of the Herald. The "community" portion is literally the only thing the Miami Herald doesn't check with scrutiny as its way too localized. So not reliable at all, and the other two newspapers are very localized news stories in the local "community" page as well, only published in the specific neighborhood (not metro area/city) where the basketball tourney was held, and was of limited release. All three sources listed doesn't help it meet WP:GNG as its routine coverage with questionable oversight. If there is proof that there are sources that isn't the local community zine page, I might reconsider. Secretaccount03:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per comments above by Rikster, Jrcla and Secret. Non-notable low-level minor league basketball conference fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2014 (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.
Poorly written and poorly sourced essay about a pop psychology neologism. We can certainly all attest to the phenomenon that it describes — John gets mad at Lisa, who gets mad at Mike, who gets mad at Eleanor, who goes home and kicks the cat — but there's no properly sourced evidence that this is commonly accepted as a name for it. The main study cited here to support the thesis gives a date of 2014, but no indication whatsoever of which peer-reviewed academic journal might have published it — and purportedly, the study in question has been going on for 20 years despite being conducted entirely on Facebook. And furthermore, if I google the phrase "kick the cat effect" for independent verification, the phrase appears to exist exclusively in strings of search engine optimization keyword salad or on non-notable blogs that don't count as reliable sourcing for anything. Finally, there's the quality of writing tone: for one thing, the introduction actually, literally does describe the phenomenon by means of an anecdote about John and Lisa and Mike and a cat (arrayed, no less, under the section heading "Captivating opening") rather than in encyclopedic terms; for another sample of the quality on display here, ponder "On of my personal opinion is we needs more improvement to develop a more reliable experiment for emotional contagion, a experiment not base social network, social network is a place were people can hid their real identity and real emotion, what we say online can be all fake." What we have here, in other words, is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't really find anything to suggest that this specific term is in high enough use to where it'd merit its own article. I'd support a speedy deletion as something someone came up with WP:ONEDAY, as this is ultimately a neologism and a ton of WP:OR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way that this is laid out kind of gives off the impression that this was either cut and pasted from somewhere or it is a class assignment. I can't find anything to support copyvio via a search, so I'm leaning towards a school assignment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article in its original state wasn't suitable for an encyclopedia, but the concept of "kicking the cat" as a metaphor is acceptable. I've rewritten the article from scratch using proper sources - have a look now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was possible, but you've actually salvaged this as a keepable article. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Anecdotally, I always heard it as "kicking the dog" as a psychological act of misplaced anger. We don't even have an article on that; except as a mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame#Blame_shifting. Here on Wikipedia we are currently attempting to address gender differences in humans. Please no kicking cats, if we are not kicking dogs. Improved or not: delete! Fylbecatuloustalk16:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that the article now has a source from The Guardian and it states, verbatim, "Hugh Robertson of the TUC points out that there is well-known (my emphasis) "kick the cat" effect".[7] If a national newspaper reports an article topic is well-known, it is worth further investigation and research. I am sympathetic to the arguments that the article can have a better name, and that the phrase appears in a lot of unreliable sources, understand that, but if you dig deeper I think you can find enough evidence to make the idiom meet WP:GNG. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:39, 26 November 2014 (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.
