The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:SALAT. This list is overly broad, and would include thousands of entries, even if it were to be restricted to the author's revised subject of only science fiction television shows cancelled after one season. Article's prose is just original research. Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree with your assertion that the original scope is too broad, I am actually trying to capture science fiction shows that were recently cancelled, post year 2000, or shows that certain networks such as NBC, ABC or FOX appear to have cut short where viewers numbered many millions. In many cases, the frequency and magnitude of these cancellations are unrecognized by the science fiction community due to the fragmentation of data. Wikipedia can address this subject with a single page. I agree that the list may prove large but I suspect that the article will provide clarity on whether certain networks cancel science fiction shows more frequently than others.
You need to think of a better list name/topic/definition. I can see your intention in a general sense but it isn't specific enough to be encyclopedic. I can remember creating a list like this myself. It didn't get deleted it got redirected away, same thing really! Szzuk (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a title "List of Popular Science Fiction Shows Cancelled" with a listing where viewing numbers where recorded at over five million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cams0ft (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article's title has since been changed to List of science fiction television programs canceled after one series. This title is still flawed, because most of the programs covered are American, yet the title uses British English (in the U.S., we would say that these programs were cancelled after one season, not one series -- we use series to refer to the entire run of a program, regardless of how many years it lasts). But that's a minor point and doesn't go to the substantive reason that this article should be deleted -- namely, that numerous television shows of all genres get canceled after a single season, not just SF shows. --Metropolitan90(talk)03:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this makes no sense. Most TV universes end after one series. Multi-series TV franchises are rare. Many TV series are cancelled to end their run. This would be an extremely large list otherwise. And the list is even WRONG, since Battlestar Galactica had a sequel series called Galactica 1980. Nightstalker and The Prisoner were both remade. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Do Not Delete If the Nationalist Community in Great Britain wish to remember an old war hero, who received a fatal injury at the hands of those who oppose them, then why on earth shouldn't they? The fact that there is no apparent press corroboration only strengthens the version of events that are remembered annually. So called minority groups murdering White people in the West are always kept as quiet as possible by the press and police, it was so much easier to cover things up back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrightonIron (talk • contribs) 04:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — BrightonIron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I suppose it was more or less inevitable that someone would play that card. Please add new remarks at the bottom, not the top, and please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core policies. We need verification from reliable sources. Any kind of website with an obvious social/political agenda, no matter what persuasion it may be, are not considered reliable. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a difficult one. There is no doubt that Albert Mariner is well known within a limited circle. But the claim that he died as a result of being hit on the head by a brick, which is the basis of that limited fame, is not supported by evidence. There is a press cutting on one site which refers to the matter, said to come from the East London Advertiser which is the relevant local paper. That explains that the medical opinion was that he died from a heart attack and it is clear that his fellow party members have had no success getting others to take the supposed martyrdom seriously. It may be that there is a bias there - the National Front membership did like to present itself as consisting of hard men, and there were frequesnt allegations, some proved, that members were involved in violent attacks on members of ethnic minorities. It is very different from the case of, say, Blair Peach where the medical cause of death and the broad circumstances in which it occurred are well attested. So I would delete for weak notability and one event. --AJHingston (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons stated above by AJHingston, Sjones23 and • Gene93k and, to take it further, if the account given is accurate, it is not a case of murder but manslaughter. Emeraude (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Emotive language in article and in this discussion does not help the case for retention (e.g. being in Second World War does not equate to "hero".) Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I posted the article in good faith, not completely understanding the "reliable sources" guideline I suppose. Although I am sure I have seen other articles on Wikipedia using sources such as Searchlight and US far right sources... If it's going to cause so much offence to left-wing users, then delete it. It was not my intention to cause offence. I do however take offence to the rather emotive, and personal, attack of Chris Neville-Smith above. For one thing, I am no right-wing martyrologist and have no interest in the NF/BNP. Quite the opposite in fact (I am a card carrying Labour Party activist who also happens to be a liberal Anabaptist Christian; I do relish the role of devil's advocate sometimes though). Despite Mariner's odious beliefs, he was still a human being. I found his death quite sad. That's all. I try and see things from all angles where possible. Jenniferhynes (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, the only reason I nominated this is because of the sourcing issue. Being offensive has nothing to do with it, we have biographies on war criminals, serial killers, child rapists, and so forth so long as there are reliable sources and some indication of notability. It doesn't seem that anyone outside of National Front/white power websites believes that he died of anything other than a heart attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. If there is a prejudice against using right wing sources purely for that reason, then there should not be. The problem with any source espousing a cause is that the facts may get in the way of the story. If there were really evidence that his death had arisen directly from the demonstration, that the press and establishment had conspired to cover it up, and reliable sources and independent coverage had backed that claim up, then things would be different. --AJHingston (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, this fails Wikipedia:GNG. The route is only relevant to a part of Toronto (Scarborough, actually), and there are no reliable sources that can be sourced to support it. PKT(alk)00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable about this bus route. In the interest of full disclosure, I have ridden on this bus route many times. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Copyvio --- see talk page. Additionally, the article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed by an editor who failed to mention why it did not meet the A7 deletion criteria. IN addition, I don't see sufficient RS coverage to meet wp's notablity criteria, though others are welcome to see if they can find it.Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of a merge/redirect. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable road. Was possibly created due to the same topic facing an AFD at Simple English Wikipedia. PROD declined by article's creator Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈22:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as precedent has determined time and time again that state or national highways are notable for coverage. In this case, let the article have a chance to be researched and developed beyond a single paragraph. Imzadi 1979→02:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A major route in New South Wales. Per convention as noted by Imzadi1979. Facing deletion in Simple English Wikipedia is not reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had you read the Simple English discussion, you might have come to the conclusion I did that this article was created solely to stave off deletion of the Simple English one, which is not acceptable. Also, none of you have addressed the problem that the article is still unsourced Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈05:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Like User:Purplebackpack89 said, it should be redirected to Bells Line of Road. Since you nominated the article, I think you should be able to just withdraw the nomination and do the redirect, but I'm not 100% positive on the procedure to redirect once an article has been AFD'd.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Even though the iPad 2 was released in early March the article still doesn't contain significant amounts of unique content that isn't already in iPad or in iPad accessories. Thus while the topic is notable this article seems to be redundant and efforts to improve coverage of the iPad would be better focused elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Read before voting: We do not contest that the subject is notable. However, we have been unable to write a suitable article and feel that the content is best merged into other articles, as most of it already is. This position is in line with the final bullet point of WP:GNG. HereToHelp(talk to me)20:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You will kill participation by spreading information on iPad instead of localizing it at iPad 2. iPad's release in Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia is exactly the kind of information that should go on iPad 2 and not on iPad. MarcusQwertyus21:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a whine about article quality, not subject notability. Nominator is perfectly at liberty to do something about that, instead of making listings at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's another article which contains all the content of iPad 2 because there doesn't appear to be anything further to write about it, then what is the point in having a second article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why not go and write the content? If you write a paragraph of content in iPad 2 which isn't present in iPad and wouldn't be suitable to be included there that would be a vast improvement on the current position so therefore if you can get people to write a referenced paragraph of unique content in iPad 2 before the end of the AfD I will withdraw it.
The only reason I have made this request is due to the lack of unique content in iPad 2 even several months after its release. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt as to the definition of a paragraph, I think the second paragraph in the lead of todays featured article - God Hates Us All is a good example of the minimum content required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re localization: How is separating the general idea of what an iPad is from the specific details pertaining to the second generation qualify as keeping information local? HereToHelp(talk to me)02:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This has probably received MORE verifiable, reliable media coverage in one month than the original iPad received in six months! If this isn't enough for an article then this place would be a whole lot smaller! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're concerned that after that condensing there wouldn't be an article left. However, I can't/shouldn't edit the article during these proceedings. HereToHelp(talk to me)02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent coverage about the iPad 2 itself (not in the context of the original iPad) to warrant a separate article. In fact, it was back in the news today: example. /ƒETCHCOMMS/00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the claim that the source given gives it its own context. Yes, it says that those are iPad 2s, but are they doing anything the original could not? HereToHelp(talk to me)02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see... there's the ability to render much more in real-time thanks to better graphics technology, there is the ability to have a unique cover which does not need any form of clip; only magnets, there is the ability to process more data at once thanks to the dual-core processor, there is the ability to shoot photos and HD video as well as make video calls through Apple's FaceTime due to the iPad 2 having 2 cameras and not just one (The original had none), there is the ability to output 720p HD video and 5.1 surround sound from the 40-pin dock (compared to VGA-standard 640x480 and plain stereo for the original), there is more portability thanks to longer battery life in a smaller and lighter device... I could go on about how they managed to sell out the initial shipment in one day for HOURS! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in iPad (except the sales, but that's easy to add). Moreover, a combined article allows these differences to be highlighted between models. This sort of discussion would be great for talk pages because it addresses whether not having a separate article is a good idea, rather than most voters who think that it's required, case closed. HereToHelp(talk to me)22:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually the full list of countries its been launched in in prose is probably excessive even here. And that's basically the only thing that isn't included in iPad at the moment. I actually put a lot of time carefully checking the article to make sure there wasn't sufficient content in it that wasn't best placed elsewhere. I was surprised to find so little. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the number of articles is directly related to the amount of content. In this case, there isn't enough content to justify an extra article, so we argue that we shouldn't have one. HereToHelp(talk to me)23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to make the jump from iPad to iPad 2 seem like the small step from iPod Touch to iPod Touch second generation wheras it's more like the huge jump between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4. This is why it warrants it's own article and just because you hate Apple and think that their products should all be covered in one sentence (Specifically "Apple's products are overpriced turds"), doesn't mean that you have to force everyone else to do that. And if you don't mean that then you will have to change your tone a bit and be less stubborn because that is certainly the attitude you are conveying now! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Whoa. That was way out of line. (And inaccurate: if I have any bias, it's pro-Apple.) I am not a deletionist but a mergist: I want these products to be covered in detail, but after seeing that the same information can be conveyed in iPad, I opine to remove duplicate content. (Less material is easier to maintain and update and does not leave the reader searching for further information among copies of what s/he has already read.) I base my opinion to merge on the content produced, not the product differences, and as I said in my previous post: there isn't enough content to justify a second article (and we've given it time to incubate, with no growth). To see how much is duplicated, please see Talk:iPad 2/sandbox. If you would like to be constructive, you can help write enough new, valuable, and well-written prose to justify keeping this article. HereToHelp(talk to me)01:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what; I'm not even going to bother anymore. I'm sure that the cluebat of consensus will straighten you out eventually. In the meantime; I have said all that I wanted to say and this will be my last comment in this thread. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and sandbox: I have prepared Talk:iPad 2/sandbox as a demonstration. Almost all the article is present in iPad or other articles. Please consider this when we say that we invoke the final bullet point of GNG, which states that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." HereToHelp(talk to me)03:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD and you'll see 41,800 results. This product gets ample coverage, they writing articles about it everywhere. DreamFocus14:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the nomination doesn't say the article isn't notable. The issue is that there doesn't seem to be enough content to write about to justify a separate article. The ipad 2 is covered by the ipad article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the right place for this merge discussion remains on the iPad/iPad2 talk pages. This is, as the nominator notes, quite notable and so deletion isn't called for. Further, looking at the coverage out there, I believe there is plenty of unique information about the iPad2 with which to write a good (if not great) article. Hobit (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We tried having that discussion there, but we had three editors in a 2/1 split, so we took it to AfD for transparency. And while it would seem there is sufficient information, a closer look shows that almost all of it is duplicated, usually in iPad. HereToHelp(talk to me)23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making an observation, and voting Merge to iPad. Having the iPad 2 on its own entry could be in line with other entries on Apple products on Wikipedia, particularly the iPod where each model line (Classic, mini, Touch) have their own. However, there is one difference between the iPod example and this debate: the iPad 2 is merely a revision of the original iPad, while the iPod entries are for each model line not for each revision. In my personal opinion, the key importance is that the iPad 2 is merely a revision of the original iPad, its not a new line of iPad especially since Apple discontinued the original iPad as soon as it was announced. --KeoniPhoenix (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I told you before: those articles exist because there is sufficient unique content to sustain them. This article should not exist because there is not. HereToHelp(talk to me)00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The iPhone is in that grey area between the two but it would not necessarily be detrimental to merge them together the iPhone page. --KeoniPhoenix (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there may not be a lot of coverage of this now that's entirely distinct from the older model, you can bet there are going to be tons of reviews of the new one. So, merging this to the old one is likely to be useless work given that it's likely to need to be split again in the future. Also, the average reader probably doesn't want to read about the old one if he's interested in the new one, so forcing him to read a longer an more complex article to figure out what's the deal with the new iPad, doesn't seem like a user-friendly approach. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Anandtech preview linked says (on p. 2) "We're still hard at work on our full iPad 2 review." It looks like they finished it two months ago, and it's rather beefy, but not mentioned in this article. So, it seems to me this article could use more content work and less pointless debate about its notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few points. a) The current content doesn't even meet the standard of being good. b) Expecting someone else to do work to save an article you want to keep is unrealistic. If you want to keep the article do the work yourself - that's how it always works in the real world. c) Reviews can be added to Reception of the iPad which was created to store the large number of reviews for the original iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we merge the reception of the iPad 2 (a clearly unique product) with the reception of the original iPad (A several-times-imitated and copied product) it would make it difficult for readers to tell which is which. The iPad 2 warrants it's own article REGARDLESS of duplicate content due to it's unique nature, design and the VERY unique company behind it! The only reason that the iPod Touch generations are all in one article is because the iPod Touch is not at the front-line of innovation; the iPhone and iPad are and as such each generation introduces new technologies, new hardware and new techniques for making and using what is already there. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't we already have a separate page for proposed merges? As far as I can tell, even the nominator doesn't think that this article title should be a redlink, nor has any reason been given why the article history should be deleted. Thus this should be speedy closed and the nominator advised to use the correct forum. *** Crotalus ***16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That page appears to be for non-controversial requests, and is not well-trafficked (the purpose of this nomination being to draw wider attention). I have asked for clarifications on deleting vs. merging (e.g. do protected redirects count as salting?) but have not heard anything definitive. HereToHelp(talk to me)17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, The merge discussion system is broken and entirely redundant to this process. Not even Requests for Comment seem to attract any eyes. Occasionally my merge discussions on AfD are occasionally nullified as out out of process but really the rules are ignorable. MarcusQwertyus17:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what the nominator is saying, but keep it is enough of a distinct device; duplicate content should be trimmed. jorgenev20:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that iPad will be a general article, covering both (all) generations to some extent but also focused on the original, which would not get its own article. iPad 2 would contain information specific to that model and duplicate as little prose as possible. This is my interpretation of this discussion and Eraserhead's recent edits. Is this accurate and acceptable to the other parties? HereToHelp(talk to me)17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but at this point there's no reason not to let the nomination run its course. Shouldn't be too hard for an admin to close :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - uncited, non-notable and quite possibly transitory. Whenever Harry Redknapp moves on, the rivalry disappears. This is nothing more than the "normal" reaction of one set of fans when a favourite player/manager moves to another club. NtheP (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the first sentence and its reference to "mere but growing rivalry". Come back if and when the rivalry sticks and gets so big that it gets sustained media coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no genuine rivalry exists between these clubs bar the fact that Spurs happen to be managed by a former Portsmouth manager and the Portsmouth fans don't like that. Nicky Forster always got lots of stick when he played against Gillingham because of the circumstances of his departure from Priestfield, but that didn't mean that we actually had a rivalry with the teams he happened to be playing for at the time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think you should delete it because it is an actual rivalry. It's not one I just made up. I'm a Portsmouth supporter, I do know about this rivalry (by the way, I'm the one who wrote the article). Wackslas
WP:ITEXISTS and WP:IKNOWIT are not useful arguments in a deletion discussion. The main issues are not whether it exists or whether you are aware of it (although its existence is still an important initial consideration). To have an article on Wikipedia, the subject must be notable and must have reliable sources to back up the claim of notability. Singularity42 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should this article be kept, it should be moved to Portsmouth F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. rivalry. Our other articles on rivalries use the full/correct club names, no reason for this one to be different and use nicknames..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much per User:Nthep. Yet to be shown as a real rivalry, any animosity between them is likely temporary on the Redknapp issue and as these clubs are unlikely to meet much over the next season or three. I don't see reliable sources making a deal of it.--ClubOranjeT10:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like NtheP has hit the nail on the head, a popular figure leaving one club for another isn't a basis for a rivalry and I very much doubt this would ever have the same intensity of the South Coast derby. —BETTIA—talk10:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ah, you've forgotten the fact that this is a RIVALRY, not a DERBY. Yes, maybe it would be quite a while until they actually meet again but you need to remember that I never mentioned that a Pompey v Spurs match was a derby, I only said that they are quite some rivals. Wackslas
Comment If there wasn't rivalry between any two sets of fans from any clubs then watching football would be a very boring impassionate affair. This is nothing more than that and is utterly non notable, and there are still no sources quoted to make any attempt at it being notable. NtheP (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the thing is that the fans ARE rivals with eachother. You don't know how it's like to be a true Pompey fan. And if you do, then you'll know the feirce rivalry between the FANS! You all think I made up this rivalry which is INCORRECT, I have you know. So if you wanna delete it then go ahead. Go and delete it. At least I know that I'm the one who's actually RIGHT. Wackslas—Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Oh, there is just ONE more thing. Before you delete the page, take a look at it once more. You might change your mind. --Wackslas :) (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an established rivalry, just something that has emerged in the last few years. Not noteworthy. – PeeJay15:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if it's not a rivalry, what is it then? Eh? yes, it has emerged in the last few years. Think about it though, the two teams dislike eachother quite badly. That kinda qualifies as a rivalry. I personally don't think you should start a debate on how big rivalries have to be to earn a Wikipedia article. And I'm not just gonna rename it to Pompey-Spurs thing that has just emerged over the years thank you very much. --Wackslas :) (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wackslas, you are right that we shouldn't have "a debate on how big rivalries have to be to earn a Wikipedia article" because that is not the criteria. As I have said since the beginning, the issue is whether this rivalry is notable. WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES are two cruicial guidelines for Wikipedia - they are probably two of the most important policies we have regarding article content. Please look at them and then tell us how they apply to this article. Singularity42 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to all negative posts Let me get this straight. You all obviously dislike this artice and are trying to find ways how it dosn't "cite the reference books" or whatever you wanna to call them. Just because you think this rivalry is a load of mumbo-jumbo (which it is NOT), your all trying to get rid of it. There are probably at least ten thousand articles on the English Wikipedia that dosn't have any notibility or reliable sources and all that lot. They just get marked as stubbs or get one of those "you can help Wikipedia by expanding it" messages at the top of the page! So why are you treating this one different? As I said, you can delete it if you want, don't bother posting any more comments or votes. You've clearly won. Now all you need to do is come to the desicion and close the discussion. Although I've lost this little contest, I'm still gonna REST MY CASE. --Wackslas :) (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is very simple: WP sums up thinks that have been previously written elsewhere, and the rules on notability are clearly written here. You are welcome to argue with this principle, or claim this wasn't made clear when you wrote the article (I personally think we don't make this clear enough to newcomers), but to claim that we're making this rule up in order to delete the article simply isn't true. You may notice that there is an article about the Old firm including its rivalry and sectarianism, but that is because it is so notorious there are many news articles that have been written about it. If Popmey-Spurs rivalry grows to get even a fraction of media coverage that the Old Firm gets, there should be an article. But without the media coverage, this article is just one person's opinion of the relationship between two football clubs, and one person's opinion, however insightful, is not for Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Simply listing lists does not an encyclopedia article make. Our policies for WP:GNG requires signfiifcant coverage from secondary sources. I found their as been no secondary coverage of "cult checklists" in general. This article as is actually misrepresents several scholars work in the topic area. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It seems like this could, theoretically, be doable. The image makes it seem like a credible article topic - it just needs major clean-up and inline references. I found secondary sources in both the Journal of Law and Religion and Sociological Analysis, but neither of them address the issue in the manner presented by this article as it stands and this article would need a complete rewrite to comply with policy. POV could be scrubbed and inline references added... but even if decision is to keep I'd say this article should be double-checked within the next few months and re-nominated if it hasn't been thoroughly rewritten. eldamorie (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking more closely at the talk page and realizing that this article has been in this state for something close to 7 years, changing to Deleteeldamorie (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this was originally a spin out from the article cult. So may be can it be merged back into cult? Like ResidentAnthropologist, I was unable to find sources that address the subject in general years ago. How does it misrepresent the work of several scholars? Andries (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that is too detailed, repetitive and/or idiosyncratic for inclusion in that article. What is really needed is a WP:SECONDARY source that synthesises them together into a single consensus checklist. HrafnTalkStalk(P)05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Questionable notability. Book series is long but I can only find a third party review of one book (her first) [1] and no third party interviews with the author. Fails WP:GNG. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Name is common, making searching difficult, and book reviews are notoriously difficult to Google because so many are online only in proprietary databases. Amazon pages show multiple books reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, a strong signal of notability. Appears to be covered in books on female mystery writers, eg [2]. Movie options covered in trade press [3]. Worldcat shows extensive library holdings [4][5][6] (sample results). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTHOR has clear guidelines on creative professionals, and the subject doesn't currently meet them. Not a groundbreaking figure, not known for creating a significant technique, and doesn't have significant critical attention. Library holdings don't factor into this—there are plenty of works that are widespread but remain non-notable. As Publisher's Weekly is a trade magazine that anonymously reviews over six thousand titles a year in two hundred words each, I can't take an assertion that it can confer notability seriously; it's rare that a genre novel that ships to bookstores nationally has not been reviewed by Publisher's Weekly or an equivalent trade media outlet. As far as the book mentions, looking at them for more than a few moments convinces me that they are trivial and mere list-style mentions. No prejudice on inclusion if significant critical attention can be found paid to the author's works, but so far everything that's been found is fairly run of the mill for a non-notable author of genre fiction. — Chromancertalk/cont21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She's not reviewed in that book. Her name is mentioned in a list of writers similar to the writer being reviewed, as I stated in my comments. — Chromancertalk/cont21:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching for her name and the name of her main character I found eight results straight away. [7]. I added a reception section to the article, quoting some of the praise the first news result gave her. DreamFocus20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:AUTHOR. A single lengthy, and a single abbreviated, review (and mere mentions elsewhere) adds up to neither "significant critical attention" nor "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The lack of third-party sources about this author though is concerning. If not a single one in a book can be found then I say Delete♦ Dr. Blofeld13:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The overall library holdings in worldCat are sufficient to show her as a notable author [8]. I would certainly not support articles on the individual books, as fans sometimes try to add to Wikipedia, but an general one on the author is appropriate. Additionally, there are quite a few more reviews The full list is as follows:
The Death of a Dancing Fool.: The Bookwatch March 1996 v17 p4 , Library Journal Dec 1995 v120 n20 p162,
The Death of a Difficult Woman. Kirkus Reviews Oct 15, 1994 v62 p1371 , Publishers Weekly Oct 24, 1994 v241 n43 p54
The Year of the Monkey Armchair Detective Winter 1989 v22 p78 , The Bookwatch March 1996 v17 p4 , Kirkus Reviews May 15, 1988 v56 p724, Publishers Weekly April 29, 1988 v233 n17 p68
The Letter of the Law: The Practical Lawyer July 1988 v34 n5 p89(7), Tribune Books (Chicago) Dec 27, 1987 p4,m Booklist Dec 1, 1987 v84 p605 Kirkus Reviews Dec 1, 1987 v55 p1650, Publishers Weekly Oct 30, 1987 v232 n18 p56
Good Night, Sweet Prince. Publishers Weekly Jan 12, 1990 v237 n2 p49, Kirkus Reviews Feb 1, 1990 v58 p140 , Booklist Feb 15, 1990 v86 p1142
Nightmare Point. Publishers Weekly Feb 8, 1993 v240 n6 p80, Kirkus Reviews Feb 1, 1993 v61 p99 , Library Journal Feb 1, 1993 v118 n2 p116(1)
I knew for certain that they would be there when i saw the library holdings: libraries buy books on the basis of such reviews. The only way to find all reviews is with Book Review Index & Book Review Digest--all other sources are inadequate. I know most people here do not have access to them unless they actually go to a college or large public library, which I have learned is too much to expect. Therefore, I will always check these on request, but I would prefer to do so by being asked BEFORE it gets taken to AfD. Needless to say, reviews are the ideal secondary sources for showing the notability of a writer or any creative artist. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A problem with finding RS for contemporary authors is that most print publications have cut back on their book sections. A couple of years ago, there was a flurry of coverage about the effect on authors. Blog reviews are now considered more important to mid-list authors who lack the social network to nab the few plum print spots. It's also the case that even the most short-lived, critically panned TV crime show is likely to generate more MSM coverage than will the books of a mid-lister with reliable sales, serial publication, and maybe even an Edgar nom. In this case, however, DGG has produced an ample list of standard sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per editors above. I found 7 reviews and mentions in context of others authors in a google news archive search with the terms "Carol Berry" and "novel" in the search, see my link, Sadads (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I previously deleted this article about a medical product as a copyvio, but Ticket:2011051810012889 does make clear that the text, taken from the manufacturer's website, has been properly licenced. I'm submitting it to a regular deletion discussion because nothing in the article, or in a Google search, establishes the notability of the product. The article creator, identified in the OTRS ticket as the "Senior Marketing Manager" of the manufacturer, is currently blocked by me as an advertising-only account. Even if the product is notable, the article should be deleted and rewritten from scratch by somebody who does not have a conflict of interest, since given its provenance we cannot assume that the current text is a neutral description of the product, and because the article concerns a complicated medical topic, most editors can't easily check it for neutrality. Sandstein 18:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. No evidence that this has been properly validated, and no WP:MEDRS-compatible sources supporting DNA-based screening for AMDm. JFW | T@lk19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional; also synthesis/original research. The term Macula Risk is trademarked and proprietary [9]; a search of PubMed for this phrase finds nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. No evidence anywhere of notability. Self-promotional article. I have restored the PRODBLP, which was removed without adding reliable sources. (Unlike a PROD, a PRODBLP cannot be removed without addressing the issue.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This article undoubtedly has significant problems dependent, as it is, in large part on sources written by the application's creator. There is a clear division of views between the deleters who regard the independent sourcing as clearly inadequate and the keepers who are of the opinion that there is enough there. The Oxford and Cambridge references, for example, have split opinion over their status. What is clear, however, is that there is no mandate for deletion and, though we don't count !votes, there is, in my view, a sufficient majority for 'keep' to tip the balance away from 'no consensus'. The best way forward is now to use normal editing methods; a 'merge' discussion could be opened on the talk page, for example, and those parts that are clearly inadequately sourced could be tagged or removed. I would, however, counsel that any large scale excisions should first go to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge Companion is not useful for establishing notability. I was able to find the relevant section online at Google books. It's titled, "A history of programming and music" and the author is GE Wang, the creator of ChucK. He does describe Chuck on pages 69 and 70, but again, that's his own description in his own words of his own work and completely useless for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Handbook does appear useful, but not strong. Google books has this one online as well and it looks like ChucK gets mentioned on 5 pages, not counting footnotes and references. On two of those pages, the mentions are completely incidental inclusions in lists but three of the pages are more meaningful. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Cambridge Companion is not useful for establishing notability". I disagree. He would not be invited to write that book chapter if his stuff wasn't notable. Anyway, there's a paper by Alan Blackwell and Nick Collins in the ref section now which compares ChucK with other music/sound languages, as well as some GUI products. This isn't a commercial product, so I don't expect it to get coverage in magazines that live from paid ads. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if anything should be done, is to merge this article with Ge Wang, who is clearly notable having an article in the New York Times ("From Pocket to Stage, Music in the Key of iPhone") as well as IEEE Spectrum (Ge Wang: The iPhone's Music Man) about his iPhone music software (Smule/Ocarina). FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wang's "Designing Smule's iPhone Ocarina" I see that Smule's Ocarina is basically an app in ChiP (ChucK on the iPhone). FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is about the invalid justification to keep something because other articles like it exist. That isn't what is being done here though. If a notable book says this is a popular computer music programming language, then that does count towards its notability. DreamFocus05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But those other articles may not have sources to establish notability, either. They look pretty questionable, too! It's not like the comparison is to C or FORTRAN, languages whose notability has been established beyond question by a bazillion independent secondary sources. Also, I note that in citing WP:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES, FuFoFuEd is citing an article he just wrote, just so he could cite it. (Look at the history.) This is ridiculous. Msnicki (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The Cambridge companion to electronic music" has to pass through CUP's quality control, including at least one external review, and has two editors who are not Ge Wang. It is fine as a secondary source. Francis Bond (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing WP:RELIABLE with WP:INDY. WP:GNG requires independent sources to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources can be used to establish other facts in the article. But no amount of reliability (e.g., because the article was peer-reviewed or published by an impressive imprimatur, etc.) can substitute for independence in establishing notability because notability is all about what other people say. Msnicki (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was a lot of books mention it. Different argument than saying how many hits something gets on Google in general. DreamFocus05:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is the same thing. Google hits are not useful in establishing notability no matter what sort of Google hits we're talking about. You're welcome to use Google if you think it'll help you find sources, but if you want them to count, you need to cite them in the article or at least specifically identify them here so that each source can be considered. Msnicki (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hard position for me, but with the exception of a very small passing reference in the "Practical Ruby" book, all the other book references are academic articles that are primarily written by the author of the language. At best the small reference to the language in the PLOrk demonstrates it's outside of the original campus, but still not enough to show it's independent notability. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fairly long paper about it in the 9th International Conference of Music Information Retrieval here. There are also numerous other results for it in Google Books, as Dream Focus noted above. There's this. This is a very highly cited paper about it. You can also find numerous other papers about it on Google Scholar. Thus, it meets the GNG and clearly refutes the nominator's rationale. SilverserenC05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ge Wang is one of the authors of the first and third sources you linked, meaning they're not independent and not useful for establishing notability. The second is only a minor mention on a single page. Msnicki (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Wang's papers don't count toward notability and neither do a lot of citations of Ge Wang's papers. To establish notability requires independent sources actually saying something about ChucK in their own voices. Msnicki (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way would citations, other than self-citations, not count towards establishing independent notability? Note that you only cite other papers in your own paper if you (usually briefly) discuss the work presented in the cited paper. —Ruud22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An argument there are lots of citations is not unlike an argument that there are lots of WP:GOOGLEHITS. It's possible that among them may be something that actually does contribute toward notability. But the guidelines don't allow us to simply hand-wave that it's a big enough pile that there's no need to look for anything specific. If you want a mere footnote to count, you need to identify it specifically — and it better be one hell of a footnote! See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:GNUM. Msnicki (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. "Google hits" is a flawed number because it includes duplicates, many false positives and a hit does not necessarily/usually not correspond to "coverage" and will include coverage by unreliable sources. The number of Google hits can and usually will differ by orders of magnitude from any reasonable metric for determining the amount of sources covering a subject. Citation analysis on the other hand is much more accurate and each "hit" will generally correspond to a unique reliable source covering the subject in question. Google hits overestimate, citation counts underestimate. —Ruud15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the sources offered is a PC Magazine article titled, "Laptop Orchestra Makes (Sound) Waves", that does little more repeat a bunch of quotes, including 6 sentences about ChucK, from a single source, Trueman. Surprisingly, no first name or association is given but it seems likely this is Dan Trueman, who supervised Ge Wang's work including, apparently, his work on ChucK. It would be nice to see better, more critical reporting. Msnicki (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: third-party coverage would appear to be limited to a paragraph, a sentence and a few bare mentions (The Oxford handbook of computer music) & a second paragraph (PC Magazine) -- does not "address the subject directly in detail". HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one notability-establishing cite (PC Magazine); others are passing mentions or first-party. Insufficient to meet GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how independent is that PC Magazine article anyway? It has a byline for the reporter but all she seems to be reporting is just whatever Trueman had to say about his own student's work. We really need some evidence that people who don't have a connection to ChucK actually care enough to talk about it. Msnicki (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've established that you and I don't agree on how hard citations should examined as to their pedigree. I take a more permissive stance not least because it significantly reduces the amount of arguing-on-the-internet work (well known to be the worst sort of work yet invented by the human race) that I sign up for or demand of other editors. Even from a permissive point of view, though, I still only see that one cite as being any use at all, so it comes out the same. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles by the author do not support notability assertions, and I'm not seeing coverage from independent sources. --Nuujinn (talk)00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or explore some type of merge solution with the article on Ge Wang. Between coverage of ChucK's designer and the platform itself, there seems to be sufficient notability for inclusion. The "Programming Language as a Musical Instrument" essay incorporates significant coverage of the platform which, taken in concert with other coverage (of varying degrees and quality, it must be said) of the platform itself, and coverage of its creator, suggests to me that notability exists. I mention merging as a possible outcome because the creator and his creation appear inextricably connected in much of the coverage. Interesting case here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...I might almost qualify the above as a "weak" keep vote. This really is pretty borderline, in my opinion. There's a great deal of verifiable content in the article, either way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peer reviewed and cited reliable sources available. The Oxford Handbook of Computer Music and The Cambridge companion to electronic music establish independent notability. Seems to pass WP:V and WP:N. —Ruud15:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge source was written by the Ge Wang, who created ChucK; there's no way that's independent. And the Oxford citation is little more than a mention spread across 3 pages scattered through the book, also not a strong source, certainly not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage. Msnicki (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Oxford source, I think we disagree on what constitutes "significant coverage". In my opinion (although I have to admit I have not actually checked the source) a simple mention would be sufficient to establish "ChucK" is serious academic project and not something invented in highschool on a afternoon. Regarding the Cambridge source, Ge Wang was not the editor of this companion. This model (editor + multiple authors) is quite common in academic literature: the editors make sure the work as a whole is accurate, but invite subject-experts to write the various chapters concerning the field they are an expert in and by extension their own work. This makes this source much more independent than a self-published book. —Ruud21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite anything in the guidelines to support your opinion that as long as Wang's article appears in a book edited by others that it is now suddenly independent? I don't see how. Nowhere do I see an exception to the requirement for independence just so long as a source was peer-reviewed or printed in a scholarly book. But maybe I missed it. A link to the appropriate section of the guidelines would be appreciated. Msnicki (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the answer is, no, there's absolutely nothing in the guidelines that supports your position. Thanks for clearing that up. Msnicki (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Msnicki. The question is not whether ChucK is a "serious academic project" or not, but whether it is notable. It is quite possible for it to be a "serious academic project", but obscure and non-notable (in fact it could be argued that most such projects are obscure). To demonstrate the it is a notable project you need "significant coverage" -- and mere mention does not cut it. HrafnTalkStalk(P)
We clearly have different interpretations of the subjective terms "notable" and "significant coverage". In my opinion an academic project which has been "noted" by peers is notable, while a toy programming language invented for Compiler Construction 101 would not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability defines notability as "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and significant coverage as "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" -- so I really don't give a damn about your idiosyncratic "interpretations" or "opinion" to the contrary -- nor do I give a damn about WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE arguments -- particularly when you offer no evidence whatsoever that the guideline in some way fails to anticipate the current situation, nor any evidence as to why "common sense" would overrule it. HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After all, if we allow idiosyncratic definitions of key terms, then we run into Humpty Dumpty territory: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” There's little point in arguing about whether a topic is notable if we aren't willing to accept (at least for the sake of the argument) the WP:CONSENSUS definition of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will run into this problem with any definition that has not been made mathematically precise. You always need to argue over it's interpretation in any concrete situation. —Ruud15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you were not "argu[ing] over it's interpretation in any concrete situation" -- you were attempting to substitute a DIFFERENT AND FAR WEAKER definition: "In my opinion an academic project which has been 'noted' by peers is notable" -- which is not an "interpretation" of "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail". HrafnTalkStalk(P)15:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruud has more experience here than most, so for him to take his "common sense" position contrary to the guidelines is surprising. In most other cases where people argue completely contrary to the guidelines, my suspicion is that they've just not read them and are unaware of the difference between the plain language notion of notability, that something is notable if it seems worthy of note, and the more technical definition used here, that something is notable if and only if others not connected to the subject have actually taken note and done so directly in detail in reliable secondary sources. Msnicki (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an introductory article in Linux Format, which seems to be authored by someone unrelated to Stanford or Princeton. I don't a have subscription to that magazine, so I've just added it to Further Reading. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A geeky subject but still notable. Gosh how irritating are those who reel off all the "policies" under the sun to argue their cause.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't appear that Ruud has read that part of WP:COMMONSENSE where it says, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." (emphasis added) Msnicki (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Common sense" is the more positively worded variant of "ignore all rules". I certainly made my argumentation based on relevant policies (WP:V and WP:N, although we differ on its interpretation) and interests of the encyclopedia (which benefits from an in-depth coverage of the current state of computer science). I can use my own common sense for my own vote. If everyone here does this the wisdom of the crowd will take care of the rest. —Ruud17:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no: your "argumentation" was based upon ignoring WP:N and substituting an idiosyncratic definition of notability ("In my opinion an academic project which has been 'noted' by peers is notable"). As far as I can see you have neither argued from any policy or guideline as written, nor given any substantiated argument why it would be "common sense" to "ignore" any specific rule. HrafnTalkStalk(P)17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable because there are references to it. Those who would reject articles because they don't quite meet the GNG but appear notable by some people's common sense have a considerable degree of difficulty when they want to reject articles that do meet it but which they do not think notable by other people's common sense. . This is usually handled by quibbling with the specific interpretation of the various words, such as "substantial" and "reliable". By quarreling about the references one can make any borderline article notable or non notable , whichever one wishes. Most !votes here on borderline articles are ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT disguised by the citation of policy, because if policy were clear there wouldn't be a serious argument about what side they fell on. The very fact of wanting to make an argument is a reflection of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT-- if someone does not personally think a subject notable though it meets the formal rules, they do not argue for it, but refrain from the discussion, and the opposite also. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"notable because there are references to it" = a special pleading to ignore WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage.
Claims that policy-based !votes are "ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT" is a GROSS violation of WP:AGF.
They are also WP:POT, given the fact that a far stronger case could be made that frequent and (pervasively) unsubstantiated claims of "common sense" as a reason for disregarding WP:GNG's requirements (pervasiely in favour of keeping articles) could far more easily be seen as WP:ILIKEIT.
I would point out that the main reason for having policies, the very policies that DGG denigrates, is to attempt to reduce the subjective ("ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT") components of these debates, and place them on an objective footing. Removing this (albeit flawed and frequently undermined) objectivity will simply turn AfDs into pure popularity contests.
Couldn't have said it better. I agree with Hrafn. DGG is welcome to argue that he believes the citations offered support notability, but it would be more helpful if he could identify which citations he's referring to and why he believes they meet the criteria. The problem is, they don't, which may be why he talks "common sense" rather than evidence. (As the lawyers say, "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither is on your side, bang the table.") Msnicki (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at an AfD from 6 years ago. Consensus can change WP:CCC and as regards notability, it certainly has, over time. Here's what the guidelines looked like in 2005 when that AfD was argued. If the Scavone article were renominated for deletion today, it's entirely possible the result could be different. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While an assertion of notability is sufficient to disallow a speedy deletion, it should hold no weight in this discussion--spammy articles, for example, pretty much always assert the notability of the subject. So far, I seem academic work from the creators and their circle of colleagues, and passing mention in a couple of academic books covering topics of much wider scope. Pretty much any work in computer science gets this. For me, it doesn't count as significant coverage in reliable sources. The best thing to do with this would be to reduce it in volume significantly and incorporate it in an article about the author. Right now, the article is a mess and relies almost entirely on the papers written by the author, and if it remains, it will need a lot of clean up. --Nuujinn (talk)10:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, the company seems to be a big player an important area of the internet (copyright policing), which will be historically relevant. There is an article about the companies activities in The Sunday Telegraph ([11]) and an interview with the companies president about his work in paidContent:UK ([12]), an article with some stuff on them in The Guardian ([13]). There is an article at FootballMedia.com ([14]), which does seem a bit sketchy reliable-sources wise but according to their about page authors are paid. And there are other dubious sources like court documents, and press releases, but they might be useful. jorgenev00:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Although there is a claim of being the largest distributor of musical instruments in the world, there is no independent verification of this. In later press coverage (and practically all I could find were Press Releases), the company is said to claim themselves that they are the largest distributor in the US. This was originally deleted as an expired PROD, and restored upon request. I found the one semi-decent reference and added that, but felt that this company does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as there is so little coverage - most of the news coverage is from either the company's press releases, or their (since 1999) parent company's press releases; there are minor mentions in books, but not the significant coverage required by the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guitar Center, of which it is a subsidiary. The claim of "world's largest" refers to the company that resulted from the merger of Musician's Friend with Guitar Center - not to Musician's Friend by itself. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WaitMergeI assert some notability based on found sources. Please allow me a few minutes to link these sources. Sources looked more promising than they turned out. 1200 employees isn't non-notable, but seeing as it's merely a brand now, best to merge (not disappear from) with Guitar Center. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Whether the content has merit with respect to sourcing etc. is a content question and even if I had an opinion about it, I would not be allowed to let it influence this closure. On this basis, we have no consensus about whether to delete the article because of its alleged content deficiencies. But this disagreement can be solved editorially through talk page discussion about whether (and to which extent) to merge or redirect the article to Islamization of Jerusalem. Sandstein 05:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete; agree with the nom that this is synth. I don't think it would be necessary for all the sources to use the word "Islamization," but they don't support the creator's argument that Jordanians tried to make Jerusalem an "Islamic" city. Ye'or's reliability or lack thereof is actually irrelevant, because we can't create an article in such a charged topic area based on the thesis of only one historian. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Islamization of Jerusalem during Jordanian occupation is a well known and well documented fact. The article is well sourced. The sources are reliable. The article should be kept. Broccolo (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable persons. Kollek is the former long-time mayor of the city. Hard to imagine a person who would be more notable to cite to on the subject, actually. Same as why Rudy Giuliani would be an appropriate person to quote in an article on 9/11.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "notable person" is a not inherently a reliable source. Kollek took over as mayor of East Jerusalem following the Israeli occupation. He can not be trusted to be unbiased regarding how his predecessors ran the city. He's neither reliable nor a reliable source by Wiki-standards. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was Islamization alright. Chesdovi (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]File:Wailing Wall Road, 1967.jpegKeep A callous instance of Jordan's islamization process while the Old City was void of its Jews. A road sign affixed to the ancient holy stones of the Wailing Wall calling it Al-Buraq.
Keep. No valid substantive grounds stated for deletion. GScholar and GBooks search shows that "Islamization of Jerusalem" is a recognized/reputably discussed phenomenon outside the immediate context of this article. In the absence of a suitable, historically broader, merge target, there's no basis for removing this content, which is more than adequately sourced by the books from academic presses. The article text has problems -- for example, I don't know whether "arrogated" is an appropriate term here -- but nothing that can't be addressed through ordinary editing processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frederico. Hullaballo Wolfowitz's !vote is highly misleading. Googling with Gscholar for "Islamization of Jerusalem" + JJordan generates very few hits all of which seem to be quotes referring to a 12th century dynasty that controlled land West of the River JJordan. His/her reasoning is therefore not policy compliant. This search also confirms Frederico's point that the article is synthesis/original research and therefore not policy compliant.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is completely inappropriate, misleading, and borders on being an unfounded personal attack. The user does not deny that "Islamization of Jerusalem" is a concept generally recognized as worthy of scholarly discussion. Instead, he ignores my carefully phrased limitations like "outside the immediate context of this article" and my suggestion that the content might be better placed in a "historically broader" discussion. The general concept is reputably recognized. The claims that the process occurred in some form during the relevant time period for the article are reliably sourced. It's a measure of how miserably polarized the field of discussion is that it takes barely an hour for my carefully phrased and relatively neutral comment to be met with a groundless implication of bad faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject itself appears non-notable (one related result between Google Books & Google Scholar; no results from the Google News archives). Clearly this article is a WP:POINTy response to the (nearly-as-bad) Judaization of Jerusalem article; two wrongs don't make a right. If editors want to write an article about the Islamization of (Christian) Jerusalem in the 7th century AD, which there are some sources for, they should feel free, but this would be a terrible starting point for such an article. ← Georgetalk06:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to clean up this article, but I can only do so much, and I still don't think the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. I've had to leave in some of the existing SYNTHesis, because if I remove it this subject of the article completely changes. ← Georgetalk03:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred, that kind of "question" does not require an answer at an AfD. But for starters, there is room for at least a succinct paragraph about the facts of "===Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation===" unless one wishes to deny that it ever happened. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here it that there is no reliable source in this article which refers to "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation". As far as I can tell, the subject was fabricated by the sock who made this article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. This article's content does not validate that this article should exist as there is no source referenced in the article qualifying as WP:RS which discribes this alleged islamization process by Jordan. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. After reading the sources it is clear that this is a notable and recognized history topic . Marokwitz (talk)
How did you reach the conclusion that "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation" is a "notable and recognized history topic"? What "sources" are you referring to? --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jordan, although mandated by the UN to let Israeli Jews visit their holy sites, refused access to them.
They also led a systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many ancient synagogues. [15]
Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites. (Martin Gilbert, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century (Pilmico 1996), p 254.)
The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with gravestones used to build latrines for Jordanian army barracks,[16], Oren, M, Six Days of War, ISBN0-345-46192-4, p 307 and
"After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated.
34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses.
Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures.[17] (Letter From The Permanent Representative Of Israel To The United Nations Addressed To The Secretary-General)
The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war.
In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area. (Doson, Nandita and Sabbah, Abdul Wahad (editors) Stories from our Mothers (2010). ISBN978 0 9956136 3 0 Parameter error in ((ISBN)): checksum. Pages 18/19.)
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. (Martin Gilbert, "Jerusalem: A Tale of One City", The New Republic, Nov. 14, 1994)
But the passing of discriminatory laws restricting the growth of the Christian community is:
From 1948-1967, when Jordan controlled EJ, Muslim & Christian holy places were protected, although Christian rights of access to them were limited. In 1953, Jordan passed laws restricting the right of Christian religious communities to own or purchase property near a holy place. In 1964, Jordan further limited Christian rights by prohibiting churches from purchasing real estate anywhere in Jerusalem. During the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem, synagogues, yeshivoth and cemeteries were damaged (intentionally) and sometimes destroyed….Jews were totally deprived of access to their holy places, in open violation of the cease-fire agreement. Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives By J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte.
Thus, for example, Christians in Jordan and abroad protested vigorously in 1953 when laws were enacted which gave the government strict control of Christian institutions, making them subject to Jordanian regulation and inspection and restricting their right to acquire real estate. There were also more general complaints about bureaucratic interference and discrimination in favor of Muslims. In the words of one Christian scholar, Monsignor John Oes- terreicher, "Petty restrictions were imposed on pilgrims institutions were prohibited from acquiring new property, Christian schools were subjected to control of the education they offered." In view of these considerations, many Christians left East Jerusalem after the establishment of Jordanian rule. The total population of the city increased from about 41000 in 1948 to approximately 50000 in the mid-1950s and then 70000 in 1967. Jerusalem's Christian population declined during this period, however, not only as a percentage of the total population but in absolute terms as well. It went from roughly 17,000 in the mid-1950s to about 12,000 in 1967. On the other hand, Christian holy places were consistently treated with respect, and no serious obstacles were placed in the way of their operation and maintenance. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict By Mark A. Tessler.
In 1964, incidentally, Jordan banned the activities of J. Witnesses on the grounds that their sect was over- friendly to Jews. The Christian communities were dwindling for other reasons than religious ones. There was discrimination against Christians over all sorts of appointments, especially in government services and the armed forces. Whose Jerusalem? Terence Prittie 1981
This also doesn't indicate "Islamization," and the argument that "discrimination against Christians" = "Islamization" is why the article is synth. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "indicate" it? What's your definition of Islamization then? If Judaization of Jerusalem means that "Israel sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with a vision of a united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty", any sources we find which correspond to Jordanian actions in the city can surely be termed Islamization aswell. We have "Settlements and house demolitions" by israel, and we have the demolition of the Jewish Quarter by Jordan. We then have whole chunks on "Residency rights" imposed by Israel - Jordan refused Jews residence in their sector. We have "Replacing Arabic place names with Hebrew names" and we have the renaming of Jewish locations to give prominence to Muslim associations. Then there's the "Demographic debate". Jordanian measures displaced thousands of christians from the city too. So now please explain to me why this page is not warranted, while the Judization one is. Chesdovi (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's lacking in the sources provided is any mention of making the area more Islamic as a motivating factor. None of these sources say that the the Jordanians were trying to make the area more Islamic, or intentionally shifting demographics in favor of a larger Muslim population, which would be my definition of Islamization. I'm not saying that that didn't happen, but so far no one has provided any sources making that claim. It's like pointing to a source that says "the ground as wet" as proof that it's raining, when the source itself never says so. ← Georgetalk00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The probelms you highlight above occur in the JoJ article too. It that page we have quoted: Justus Weiner - who has been accused of of dishonesty in reporting his research about Edward Said; Oren Yiftachel - who has described the settler-model ‘creeping apartheid’; Cheryl Rubenberg - on the board of advisors of "Deir Yassin Remembered"; Ian Lustick - who is on the advisory board of FFIPP-USA: working for an end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Why should we not be able to use Raphael Israeli, Bat Ye'or and Kolleck on this page? When the facts are clear, we may not need to sources to spell it out. What else can we call it? Discimination in Jerusalem under Jordainian rule - or do we also need sources for "discrimination" too? Chesdovi (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, the major problem is that this is a response to the Judaization of Jerusalem article. If that article didn't exist, this article would have never been created. That alone should throw up red flags to any honest, independent editors that the notability of this subject is lacking, and the article is only meant to make a point. I haven't reviewed the JoJ article in depth, but the proper response isn't to create this article, it's to either fix or rename that article, or nominate it for deletion.
FWIW, "Discimination in Jerusalem under Jordainian rule" may indeed be a valid subject, but I haven't look at its notability. I've only looked at this article's notability, which definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia's bar. ← Georgetalk23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJust to make it clear, this article is the creation of one of the socks of User:Historicist who is indefinitely blocked for repeatedly using socks to circumvent his topic ban from the Israel-Palestine area. The content of the article is symptomatic of the aggressive POV-pushing which led to the ban. This article still contains substantial similarities to the sock's last contribution. [19]--Peter cohen (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:SYNTH, which is a part of WP:OR, one of the core Wikipedia policies, says that we should "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". The conclusion in this context is the assertion that Jordan tried to Islamize Jerusalem while occupying the city. The words "explicitly stated" in the policy are important. They mean that the sources actually has to talk about "islamization" (or use words which are truly synonymous). Perceived implications based on sources 1,2,3,4 and 5, such as "synagogues being demolished[1], Israelis being barred from entry[2], Jewish graves being destroyed[3], Jordan endeavour to emphasise the significance of Jerusalem in Islam[4] and requiring the schools to close on Fridays and on all Muslim holidays[5] implies islamization" does not cut it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I find it difficult to understand how the referenced statement "Jordan undertook to Islamize the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem by laws forbidding Christians to buy land and houses and by establishing strict controls over their social and educational institutions.'" is not sufficiently explicitly stated to meet the requirements of WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH does not state, after all, that the conclusion be set out expressly in all of the cited sources; by its terms, a single source would be sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the source of the claim is Teddy Kollek. Second, you've put a gloss on WP:SYNTH that isn't consistent with that policy. Littman may be a controversial figure, but a book published through a highly reputable university press is presumed to be a reliable source. Even if it were to considered a partisan source, that wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate its factual content was unreliable. There's a big difference between, say, Ann Coulter and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apology, I cut and pasted the wrong quote. The Kollek quote (which seems to have been removed from the article during this discussion reads "Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek charged Jordan with 'Islamizing and Arabizing the part of Jerusalem they occupied, a policy which gravely affected the national freedom and privileges of the Christian communities.' This appears to be a slight misquotation of the published source, which turns out to be trivial; the source reads "Arabizing and Islamizing" rather than "Islamizing and Arabizing."[20]Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am partly responsible for this AfD (see this exchange on my talk page after I declined a speedy deletion of the article. While I have no opinion on the merits of this AfD at this time, I'd like to comment that the creator of the article is not the issue here. I know policy does allow deletion of articles created by banned users in violation of their ban, but it does not require it. This article was created six months ago. Yes, it appears to be pushing a particular POV, but even that doesn't mean the article merits deletion on its face. Any decision in this matter should rest on the merits of the article itself. I see valid arguments above for deletion and may submit my own opinion (for what it's worth) but as the one who declined the speedy and more or less forced this AfD, I just want to focus the discussion on the article itself, where it should be. Frank | talk 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and supported by sources. This is just another article about a controversial subject. Nothing special. Also agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What would help me decide one way or the other would be scholarly sources in Hebrew on the topic. Google doesn't turn up anything noteworthy for "אסלום ירושלים" or "איסלום ירושלים."—Biosketch (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, unsurprisingly, the partisan keep votes come rolling in after the canvasing. Hopefully someone actually reviews the subject's notability among sources, instead of just counting up the "it's notable because I say so" !votes. ← Georgetalk17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not fair. People who have commented since I left my note have been long-time contributors to the subject, and characterizing their !votes that way is no more accurate than describing opposing !votes as "it's not notable because I don't like it". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk17:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize an editors level of experience was a factor in determining whether or not they could be canvased. Hopefully some editor will provide a source that actually mentions Jordan "Islamizing" Jerusalem so I can change my delete vote. ← Georgetalk17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article on notable topic. Do not merge on a topic as complex as the history of Jerusalem, it is mecessary to have discrete articles on each period of the city's history, the changed with the shift from British Mandate government to Jordanian rule are sharply defined and would inevitably be lost in an article that attempted to cover all of history. Merging to Islamization of Jerusalem would ma~\ke that article overly long, and lose the detail this article includes.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the fat and merge to Islamization of Jerusalem. The subject is notable, but the article is riddled with SYNTH and COATRACK jabs at Jordan. I think the material belongs in an article that puts it in historical context. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk17:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment by filer: Still after one week not a single WP:RS has been presented which explicitly talks about the alleged islamization. Bat Ye'Or (who does use the term "islamization") is referred to as a historian in the article, which would make her a WP:RS. However, she is not as she doesn't have the academic credentials. Her Wikipedia entry should also make it clear that she is far from unbiased. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Kollek charge remains, and uses the term "Islamize," as I mention above. I inadvertently copied the wrong quote when responding to this argument earlier. Malik Shabazz's suggestion is quite sensible, although it might be better to keep the content in the target he suggests as more of a summary and move more detailed content into Occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem_by_Jordan, rather than doing a simple merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that it merits more detailed consideration.Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borussia M'Gladbach is certainly fully pro, but he has only played for the reserves who play in the non-fully pro regionalliga. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we can exercise some common sense, yes he played one match for Borussia Mönchengladbach in 2009 but that's all, it appears he was dropped. hardly worth keeping an article on the basis of no established top grade career. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is where you're wrong. He's had an APPEARANCE for a proffesional team, which basically means it should be kept. I made an article on this player called Sam Magri. It was actually pretty decent but it got deleted. You wanna know why? It got deleted purely because he hasn't made a pro appearance for a team. This guy has. --Wackslas :) (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
STUBBED: Participants please note, I have stubbed the article for the duration of this discussion due to BLP concerns. Please see this revision for pre-stub version which is the subject of discussion. - FT222:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like an essay, and the references are not convincing. Some are not third-person, some are books written by the subject, and the others are mostly news bits quoting Wenzel in his employment capacity. Doesn't seem to satisfy the GNG. MacMedtalkstalk16:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now "Reads like an essay" doesn't bother me (if it's poorly written we can fix it). Quality of evidence of notability is more the issue. Tentatively there seems to be a fair bit of evidence the subject could be appropriate to cover - even in the tabloid world his role was not insignificant, also a tournament poker player, also an editor (and possibly from the write-up founder) of a poker magazine, also an author. I'd like to see a careful review of the evidence of notability and quality of coverage but for now I'm keeping an open mind both ways. It wouldn't be the first time we've had notability badly written up, nor the first time we've had non-notability covered by "puff" and promotionalism. A careful look at the sources and their significance is crucial as this could be clearly or borderline either way right now. Hopefully cleanup on the tone and style will help others here to better examine the concerns. FT2(Talk | email)16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Writer This is Mary Fletcher. The entry on John Wenzel was a project of mine. I am a research librarian. I have noticed in recent years that books on poker have been among our most requested and used materials. Poker has become a significant cultural phenomenon in the last decade and is now mainstream. Mr. Wenzel is the editor-in-chief of respected poker magazines in the U.S., Canada and Europe. There is no other editor who supervises more than one magazine. As such, Mr. Wenzel is one of the most powerful men in poker, a pasttime and vocation that is still showing major growth worldwide. He is a well-known individual, and his editorials are respected in the poker world. He is often interviewed on the radio, and his books were published by a major publishing house and have all had multiple printings. This is not conjecture or puff. This is fact. This is one reason i chose him for inclusion. I believe there are 18 sources for this article, and they are credible. This is far more than most Wiki entries that i have seen. For example, thehendonmob.com and pokerpages.com are considered very reputable third-party poker-related sites, and these are two of the 18 sources i used. I tried to make the entry as interesting as possible, as he is quite an interesting character, as are many poker players. I hope i succeeded and it was not as dry as most entries i have seen; however, nothing was made up and i did not engage in hyperbole. I see that some of the attributions may now be dated or not working. I will try to find out how to update these so they will link to the proper sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherml (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are numerous problems with this article, of which the main ones are lack of sufficient reliable neutral sources, which is fatal to a Wikipedia article on anybody, and (failing that) notability.
The article is about a professional poker player, poker magazine chief editor, poker author, and past journalist/editor. Arguably he may have a high enough profile in the poker world or elsewhere to support an article. I have considered whether this is a "notable but poorly written" biography (a common problem). However before keeping, there must be sufficient high quality independent sources to demonstrate notabilityand alsosufficient high quality independent sources to write a balanced high quality neutral article. Without those, no article can exist.
The necessary kinds of sources or evidence are not visible online—or anywhere else I can find. I have examined Google / news / books / scholar, and also checked all cites in the article (analyzed below), none are good evidence to support an article. There are other concerns too - primarily that the article contains numerous BLP worries such as negative or positive sounding claims and I can't see any signs of being able to verify these from independent high quality sources either. For this reason I cannot really clean up the article while it's at AFD, and have stubbed it in line with our BLP policy. The lack of reliable coverage means we only have sources for a stub at best, and the lack of sources suggests that notability isn't achieved either and we should probably delete it at this time.
Even if high quality sources exist, then there's a concern over notability:
The subject appears to be a consistently profitable poker player (on a modest scale of a few thousands or a couple of times tens of thousands of dollars annually per websites which I can't judge) and his online poker player profiles state this is "rare". If these statements were untrue then he would probably be discredited. So he may be unusual or noted in the poker world for this. But non-evidence is fatal to this line of inquiry.
The subject is editor in chief of "Poker Pro" publications. This is an employed role so he isn't also the founder. By itself this would not make him notable but it's "a string to the bow".
The subject is an author on poker books. There are many poker books, we have no evidence that these particular books gained special notice or are other than routine books on a popular topic.
Taken together is there evidence of notability? How much attention does a poker player need before they are considered "notable"? Is poker-world attention enough or should we expect significant external attention too? I can't judge these but they are also an issue.
Analysis of article citations
thehendonmob (website) - sole source is his own profile[21], not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Shows modest career winnings in a number of years.
"Eat Professional Poker Players Alive" (Frank Wiese, 2009) - unable to check what if anything this says
"The Everything Poker Strategy Book" (2004) - subject is an author, not reliable independent evidence
University of Wisconsin-Madison, student records and yearbook - unclear what this shows, not viewable anyway
"The Everything Hold’em Book" (2006) - subject is an author, not reliable independent evidence
www.PokerPages.com (website) [22] - user profile. Text also suggests self-writen. Unlikely to be a reliable independent source. Site search doesn't show more [23]
Palm Beach Kennel Club poker room manager - not specific what this is supposed to show - no idea what this is
Audit Bureau of Circulation - not salient to Wenzel as an individual
www.pokerpromagazine.com - not independent (subject is its editor in chief)
Cherokee Casino in Tulsa - not clear what its relevance is
Bnet Business Network [24] (2006) - sole reliable independent coverage I can find of him - but only a short summary and more telling, on the occasion of being appointed editor-in-chief to Poker Pro magazine. Gives some background. A quoted comment is from his new employer hence not independent.
Poker Pro Magazine staff - not independent (subject is its editor in chief)
Letters & Science Today magazine, 2007 - unclear what this shows, not viewable anyway
The Wisconsin Journalist, 2007 - unclear what this shows, not viewable anyway
PokerProEurope.co.uk - employer's website where he is editor in chief
Urban Dictionary [25] - not evidence of anything for our purposes
Wenzel does charity work with other big-name pros [26] - list of names in a charity game, not salient
Wenzel at World Poker Tour’s Champions Boot Camp in Las Vegas [27] - published by employer where he is editor in chief
Wenzel at the Aruba Poker Classic [28] - employer's website where he is editor in chief
Wenzel poker editorial quoted [29] - forum, not a reliable source for anything.
Wenzel involved with launch of Poker Pro Europe magazine [30] - press release by employer on launch of new magazine, not evidence salient to the subject
Online Poker Pro Scandinavia partners with Poker Channel, Wenzel quoted [31] - press release by employer on launch of new magazine, not evidence salient to the subject
Poker Pro Europe expands distribution, Wenzel described [32] - dead domain, also appears to be press release by employer on launch of new magazine, not evidence salient to the subject
Poker Author Challenge [33] - flier for poker competition, not evidence of anything salient to article.
book review [34] - short review of a poker book by the subject, doesn't add to evidence for our purposes
Wenzel mentioned on business wire [35] - dead or inaccessible domain
book review [36] - short review of a poker book by the subject, doesn't add to evidence for our purposes
In summary, of all these, just one item is verifiable salient coverage—and that is brief coverage on BusinessWire related to a specific event, his appointment as editor in chief of a magazine.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
As it was in the previous discussion, the website is still non-notable. None of the sources cited in the article is reliable or independent. They do not even provide the information for the website, they just contain the name of it. And the article is quite like an adversitement. Seems like a part of the crosswiki ads of this website, on Turkish, Azeri and English Wikipedias. Seksen (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This school is trying to use Wikipedia as its own website. Everything is unreferenced, does not conform to Wikipedia standards, is choppy, needs major copy editing, and is not written from a neutral point of view. I.e. "The school is a great place for learning Age 4-11 Gender entry Mixed." Copy editing could be done, but the article still doesn't establish notability. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established consensus that the vast majority of primary schools are not notable. I would support a redirect to a school district or group of schools if appropriate. Current article is a complete mess. Cullen328 (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard procedure for non notable primary schools. I am staggered by the lack of sensitivity by Asnac and Ryan Vesey - it is blatantly obvious that this article has been created by an enthusiastic, very young editor. An article being 'in a mess' is no criteria for deviating from standard process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kudpung ... except for the lack of sourcing, there are no valid reasons given above for deletion. However, that doesn't mean it should stay. I agree in principle with Asnac that these schools generally are not kept. In the absence of third party reliable sources, the article should be deleted (because I don't think that anything can be kept, absent sourcing), and then redirected as per Deor, without prejudice against the article being recreated, should proper sourcing be found. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we usually just blank the page to turn it into a redirect, keeping the history intact - a sort of 'soft' deletion if you will. If the school later asserts notability, the redirect can simply be reverted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than redirect - the name of the school must be shared by a number of others within the country. It would seem to be dubious to redirect in that circumstance without a dab. Not a terrible idea to take anything helpful and whack it in the locality article though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Blue Square Thing, there is no need to retain a badly named article as a redirect - there are at least 10 institutions in England alone named Christ Church Primary School and even more when you include "Junior" or "Infant". In the meantime I have deleted the obvious COPYVIO content - just because it is under AfD is not a reason to keep it in place. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can confirm that, as Blue Square Thing suggests, there are other schools with this name, and redirecting to an article relevant to only one of them would not be helpful. There is nothing in the history worth keeping, and so no good reason not to do a straight deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Primary schools are rarely considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so unless there are grounds for thinking this one is an exception there is no basis for doing that. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. A one-book author can certainly be notable if there is substantial WP:RS about the book. Margaret Mitchell published only one book, but there are, uhm, tons of articles about it. Unfortunately, there is nothing to indicated that Melinda Anderson or her book satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK through WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Multiple problems— unreferenced, uncategorized, section written in language other than English, rest poorly written, include section for some biographical introduction, etc. — Bill william comptonTalk12:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing listed is a normal reason for deletion. This appears to be a settlement, which is usually a suitable topic for an article. The rest of the problems can be dealt with by normal editing, such as providing a category, removing inappropriate material, translating non-English parts, etc. --Jayron3212:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is verifiable, which means "able to be verified". It does not mean that it currently has references. See WP:BEFORE. Typing the name of the village into google takes less time than filing an AFD does, and if you do that you get plenty of sources. Presumably, there are even more non-English sources. Also, it doesn't matter who makes the "suitable changes". Not being able to find someone to fix an article isn't the reason an article is deleted. We're in no rush, someone will come along to fix things. Since it seems you, Bill william compton, are wholly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's deletion policies, you may want to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy before nominating something else for deletion. Especially relevent there is the sentence which says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --Jayron3213:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I may not be much familiar with the deletion policies, but I know what I'm doing, my first action was to Google this name and check for any reliable source, but unfortunately I didn't find any that could be a reliable one and second, your presumption of having more non-English sources is also unfounded as the topic is related to India and in this country it is much easier to find English sources rather than any local language and I certainly presume that you must be familiar with the status of English in India. If I found any reliable source than I might solve the problem by myself. — Bill william comptonTalk13:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage indicating the subject's notability. Same for John Chris Sacedor, a duplicate of the article. Moray An Par (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was re-created after nomination with a cut and paste move as John Chris Sacedor, redirected back to original pending resolution, deletion or move. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. (Wikipedia cannot be used as a source...) BLP prod would have worked here as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable autobiography or coi promotion about a BLP who happens to be a minor. No RS, no assertion of WP:ACTOR. Nothing to keep. Page contains personal information about a 16 year-old who hasn't established enough of a fan base to draw a fan club or fan website (at least one findable on English language search engines), clearly COI. As a comment, if half of what the pagecreator has asserted is true, this is an incredibly hard-working kid who apparently will be studying at Harvard this fall. I'll bet this page is recreated at some point, and maybe even kept one day... BusterD (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no evidence Mr. Sacedor actually was on any of those TV shows (he is not listed in any of the articles about them) and I did a search of the Harvard student directory for his name and there were zero results. It appears as if the article is nothing but lies. --Yetisyny (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, under the title Bangs (rapper) was deleted back in January 2011 (and once before in February 2010) as a non-notable artist with no independent references (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangs (rapper) (2nd nomination)). This recreation in January 2011 is an attempt to subvert the deletion process; had it been noticed then it would have been speedily deleted. I see no substantial improvements to the article to change the previous deletion discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the re-creator is a different account; it may even be an independent person who legitimately thought "Hey, there's no Wikipedia article on this rapper I like." However, if an admin could check the deleted article and see if the current article creator (User:Found A Dojo) edited the previous article, then, yes, there may be a disruptive editing problem (although, I note that xe hasn't edited at all in over a month). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the xxl and ninemsn sources as references; the billboard is really just notice of a single release, so doesn't seem particularly worthwhile, and the others are too minor to be included (in my opinion). I'm still leaning towards delete, because this seems like just barely enough to meet WP:GNG (and nothing yet to meet WP:MUSIC), but it's a little better. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Chubbles. It is sufficient for it to meet GNG -- if it does, it need not meet wp:music. Meeting either criterion is sufficient; a band need not meet both.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not certain it meets GNG. Two detailed articles is really the bare minimum, and only leads to a "presumption" of notability. But, I could be convinced otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification -- I had understood your prior post to suggest that it just barely met GNG. But my point is just to clarify that it need not meet wp:music, if it meets GNG. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Jarowskij is really known in sweden almost shown everyday in the ending credits of television shows.In my opinion this article only needs some sourcing, not deletion and in my opinion it does pass WP:COMPANY.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If this article gets more sources and enough coverage, i have no problem with it remaining but as for how it is now, i would suggest a weak delete. I do not want to rush things. Jivesh • Talk2Me16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That this company has "produced many of Sweden's most popular soap operas, reality, and other TV series" over the last several years appears to be absolutely correct. Unsurprisingly, it is possible to find quite a few sources for this company ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], just for a start), but I'll leave it to someone else to research and write the article. I don't find the subject particularly interesting. (For the record, in case it does get deleted and someone looks at this discussion afterwards, it is my belief that it wouldn't be any more difficult to start from scratch than to start from the current content.) --Hegvald (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hegvald's sources 2, 3 and 5 in particular do show notability; according to this source the company has won awards for some of their shows. I've never heard of them nor am I familiar with any of the shows they have produced, and am not sufficiently interested to read up on them in order to expand the article. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be a lot of sources in English, so some rudimentary Swedish knowledge is probably necessary to work on it. --bonadeacontributionstalk07:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I think, too, and I'd be reluctant to !vote either way unless some solid information referenced by solid sources - in any language - is in fact added to the article. As Hegvald says, if the article is deleted it would be easy to write a better one from scratch. --bonadeacontributionstalk06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There do appear to be sources, and I am prepared to defer to the Swedish Wikipedia--even though their article is not sourced--I assume if the company were not important there it would have been challenged. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge the first two sections (places with Wendy's and formerly with Wendy's) as well as the map to Wendy's, assuming the main article stays within size limits. Not notable enough for its own article, but certainly notable enough for a mention in Wendy's. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & source - the list is notable, and can be sufficiently sourced. The related McDonald's and Burger King lists have sufficient sources that meet the appropriate inclusionary guidelines and this one should be easy enough to find. I killed the regions and countries without locations as original research. Give me about fourteen days and I will get it looking good and sourced up. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)16:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The article is, of course, total baloney, but part of the charm of Wikipedia is that that being based on a nonsense is no bar to having a page. However, it is well sourced baloney and there is no mandate to delete with the consensus being that it meets our notability guidelines. A sound way forward might be to take the 'merge' suggestion to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a trivial local dispute about the building of a driveway, leading to the self-styled serene family perpetrating a hoax on us and others Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly a hoax, and agreed, there is some coverage in sources e.g. the Daily Telegraph. But just because they've picked up on this oddity doesn't mean it's notable. The phrase 'micronation' is contrived and meaningless. Incidentally it's telling that the article was created by an SPA, and includes links that could be regarded as promotional. Asnac (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as a side note, "micronations" are a reported-upon phenomenon, their being arguably meaningless legally has no bearing on the fact they are notable. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just about notable from coverage in reliable sources. 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Cribb (talk • contribs)
Comment (by nominator) Now that the Principality of Wy has seceded from the whole known universe, would it be impertinent to ask who is collecting the garbage generated by The Serene Inhabitants of Wy ?? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment (by author) I find it odd that this particular page has been flagged for deletion when there are several articles relating to specific micronations and the concept as a whole. The Principality of Wy seems just as notable as the Empire of Atlantium or the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands (the former of which has almost no references outside of its own website, and the latter of which cites some of the same sources as my article). I therefore take it as a criticism of the amount of information I'd initially written for the article, and am doing my upmost to improve the information provided. Purpleorb (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was pertinent to determine who is collecting the garbage from Wy which would be a significant indicator of the existence of the Principality of Wy. It may be that the Principality has claimed offshore territory and dumps its rubbish into Sydney Harbour. Or maybe, the Serene Family just likes to play dressups on quiet news days in the backyard of the property inherited from hardworking Daddy Guillaume Daniel Delprat. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Mosman council collect the garbage (trash) then the article is based on a false premise (premiss) in that secession means a unilateral moving away from and if the subject of the article can be shown thereby to be not cut off from the object of their secession, then such entity has no logical existence within its categories, and hence has a logical existence only within the minds of those who may, for whatever reason or purpose, believe or claim that is an entity worthy of our continued indulgence Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What we, that is, you, me and the rest of the community, believe about the validity or motivation for this "secession" is beside the point. We go by what, and whether, reliable independent sources say about the subject. We are not being called on to decide on the validity of the Principality, but on the notability as a subject for an article. We have articles on many things with no objective existence: it's called fiction. IT only has to be notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated (by author) I have made changes to the page to improve the information relating to the notability of the principality and have added more relevant links to reliable sources directly referencing the principality Purpleorb (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment (by nominator) Now Their Serenenesses of Wy (a smaller than average household block in the suburb) are claiming via Their Most Eminent Emissary to Wikipedia (recipient of the Purple Orb etc. etc. etc.) to lay claim to 170 acres of land (or water?). Would the recipient of the Purple Orb be so kind to as to notify us of the areas of Mosman that have been claimed so that the residents therein may flee before being slaughtered in their beds by the Sacred Army of Wy, chanting the terrible anthem of the Principality? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further to my Delete note above - this article has since then been puffed up a bit but the COI is blatant and I believe that at root it's a publicity stunt largely intended to promote a commercial enterprise. Yes, there are news articles - but this is all from the same publicity drive engineered by the author. A wiki article is part of the publicity drive and will confer respectability on this enterprise - let's discourage such self-promotion by deleting. Asnac (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am either a member of the principality or their PR agent. I feel as though I am being unfairly targeted for simply wishing to provide information about a topic I felt was notable.Purpleorb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I was restating (in my bombastic way) the governing principle from the first of the five pillars: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press...Asnac (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From a personal perspective I would agrue that most pop singers have no validity as musicians, but I'm not about to suggest their pages should all be deleted.Purpleorb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why has this discussion misplaced the address of the alleged thingo, ie [Suppressed]. If the alleged thingo is permitted by our rational community, it will need Geocoords Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not put it back in, but if the alleged Principality is to be be taken seriously it will need Geocoords to place it a suburban allotment which has been censored above, in a suburb which may or not be Mosman. According to the current state of the article it has shrunk from 170 acres to a bit less than a little bit of an acre; which would now put it within the suppressed suburban block; if the article is deleted there would no need to mention the address and would preserve the privacy of Mr Delprat, whose address (which would appear to match that of Wy) is listed in the Sydney White Pages (deliberately not linked) Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and it so happens I agree with Crusoe8181 on this, but what does this have to do with the deletion or otherwise of the article? Surely this content discussion belongs on the article talk page? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly, absolutely nothing whatsoever; just that if you or I declare our little suburban block something ridiculous like the Grand Duchy of Crusoe we can hardly complain if we are told where we live Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a concrete, reliable source linking the address you have mentioned and the Principality of Wy? If not, it could be that you are publishing the address of someone completely uninvolved in this discussion. Incidentally, I thank you for picking up on my mistake with regards to the size of the principality.Purpleorb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability shown by significant coverage in reliable mainstream news sources. We aren't endorsing the existence of these baloney micronations as actual countries by having articles on ones that have attained individual notability.[45][46][47][48].--Milowent • talkblp-r17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Question. Are CD reviews enough? Both SPIN write-ups are seem to be CD reviews, and the Stylus article seems to be focused on the CD as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a machine translation of de:Lapierre (Fahrradhersteller). No attempt has been made to correct errors generated by the google translation and no credit has been given to the original German article. As a copyright infringement this really should be speedy deleted, especially given the points made at Wikipedia:Translation about machine translations and copyright infringement. Biker Biker (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a machine translation of de:Winora. No attempt has been made to correct errors generated by the google translation and no credit has been given to the original German article. As a copyright infringement this really should be speedy deleted, especially given the points made at Wikipedia:Translation about machine translations and copyright infringement. Biker Biker (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Search confirms that he is the author of one book, but no significant coverage found about that book or about him. Google News finds only a press release. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The term is apparently manufactured by the article author; I cannot find any examples of it being used for that purpose. Furthermore, this article was created in the wake of the author's proposed changes to the template Template:Canadian mobile phone companies being rejected. It serves no real purpose that cannot be accomplished in the existing articles about the companies in question. Ckatzchatspy05:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because 1. Telus itself uses this exact terminology in its brochures (see scan), 2. Bell partners with Telus, so that implies that Bell too is coast to coast and 3. while Rogers does not use this terminology word-for-word, its coverage is very similar to Bell/Telus, and, as such, can also be considered coast to coast. Now, to answer all your concerns:
Ckatz, it is untrue that "The term is apparently manufactured by the article author; I cannot find any examples of it being used for that purpose." Now that Telus uses this terminology, there cannot be any more arguments about it being made up. As for "this article was created [because] the author's proposed changes to the template Template:Canadian mobile phone companies [were] being rejected", the article itself is a good stub, perhaps a start. The purpose of this article is to explain a certain, unique class of mobile network in Canada. Not one single article does that.
Pburka, the article can, should, and ought to be expanded. i've written an article as neutral and as good as i could, but i'm not perfect and i seek to improve it. Others on Wikipedia can also contribute, thankfully. The article right now serves as a way to describe and elaborate a bit about the coast to coast networks in Canada. It is certainly not an useless article or an advertisement. It's informative and teaches others about the three large networks. As for saying that it's a "short essay", well, it's neutral. See my comment to Dbrodbeck below.
ROUX, i've answered this question with Ckatz and Me-123567-Me. Telus uses the "coast to coast" terminology, and Bell and Rogers use similar, synonymous wording.
Dbrodbeck, as Wikipedia describes it, "An essay is a short piece of writing which is often written from an author's personal point of view". i've included many positive and many negative points about the coast to coast. Hence, i've made it as neutral as possible, and, as such, it's not an essay. "Coast to coast" is not a "point of view" expression. It is widely used by Telus, with the exact wording. Other providers use less accurate synonyms. To use "coast to coast" (east to west) is more accurate than to say "coast to coast to coast" or "nationwide".
So it's Telus who uses the exact terminology "coast to coast", albeit with dashes to separate the words. That also implies that Bell, whose coverage matches Telus, is also a coast to coast network. Rogers has very similar coverage. Because the expression is widely used, this article should be kept, expanded, and integrated into the "Canadian mobile phone companies" template. --LABcrabs (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Implied' is not acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Everything must be verifiable by reliable sources, without--this is the most relevant bit--being synthesised from any of them. 'Implies' is a judgement made by you, and is not supported by a reliable source. → ROUX₪11:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, these networks meets criteria that others do not. That is factual, and not implied. To say that "it's not valid because Telus uses it" doesn't make sense, because other providers use synonymous terminology such as "nationwide" (misleading) and "throughout the country" (also misleading). This is why i chose the Coast to coast terminology, before i was made aware that Telus already uses it. "Coast to coast" is widely used in Canada, derived from "A Mari Usque Ad Mare", which means "from sea to sea". That terminology comes from the Bible. It does not come from Telus or any of the providers.
Comment. Ok. Telus uses the term in their advertising. Can anyone provide a source (preferably a reliable one) to support the claim that "A coast to coast network in Canada is one that covers over 90% of the Canadian population without the need to use roaming of any sort"? Pburka (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
99% in provinces. The territories have under ⅓ of 1% of Canada's population. Largely inhabited, they receive little to no service from coast to coast providers. For some provinces, SaskTel, MTS Allstream, and DMTS Mobility provide a regionally-owned service. In these cases, coast to coast networks are perceived as "giants" and it is difficult for them to compete against the regional providers. (Another reason why the distinction is necessary.) All in all, there is a reduction or lack of service in all territories and in a few provinces. That being said, coast to coast providers serve all provinces, and over 90% of Canada's population.
Other than your original research, do you have any sources to support the claim that a network must service 90% of the Canadian population to be considered "coast-to-coast"? What I'm really asking is: where does this definition come from? Is it a formal concept defined by the CRTC or the industry, or is it a common sense definition which you've come up with by yourself? This terminology isn't specific to mobile providers. "Coast-to-coast" is just a common phrase in Canada (and the United States) to describe something which is national in scope. Pburka (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not just Telus. Note that the bold emphasis on "coast to coast" is added by me. Ken Campbell, the CEO of WIND Mobile, said "It has always been our intent to operate from coast to coast” as he plans to expand the network the Atlantic Canada. (Source: Mobile Syrup [54] ) In other words, WIND acknowledges that it is not yet a coast to coast provider. In regards to its HSPA+ Internet services, Rogers Wireless announced: "Rogers customers from coast to coast will now be able to access wireless download speeds of up to 21 Mbps." (Source: Rogers RedRoard [55] ) Moreover, many users' comments on the independant Mobile Syrup website use the terminology "coast to coast". (Source: MobileSyrup.com ) For this reason, the terminology is engraved in the minds of Canadians when referring to a mobile network servicing all provinces. It's not just the companies that use the expression "coast to coast". Canadians, growing up with technologies like VIA Rail, also use these words to describe mobile networks. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i am fairly new at Wikipedia, and "edit conflicts" delete my text, even if i click the "Back" button in Opera to try to copy my text. Regardless, Dbrodbeck, i find i've explained with my currently published comments why my article does not come in conflict with the WP:RSWP:SYN, WP:NOTE and WP:OWN you mentioned. Also, why are my sources unreliable? Mobile Syrup is independent, and use the expression "coast to coast" in quotes, user comments, and they use it themselves in their original articles. ("an exclusive roaming agreement that will guarantee nationwide cellular service coast to coast." See: Vidéotron article ) So now we have Telus, Rogers Wireless, WIND Mobile, Mobile Syrup, and the customers themselves. These are all reliable sources. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go read WP:RS again then. 'Many users comments' on a website is not a source. This is pure WP:OR. As a start, you might try typing 'coast to coast network' in quotes into a google news search, while it is not the be all and end all, it might be instructive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - where exactly is the definition (ie, "90% of the Canadian population without the need to use roaming") found, and why are the references for Telus and Rogers pointing to French language pages? PKT(alk)18:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any "Delete" arguments that claim "the article is an essay" or "the terminology is unused", such arguments are false. For one, Wikipedia's "Essay" article states that this form of writing is "an author's personal point of view". But the fact is that these networks serve all provinces, and the CDMA networks expand to the territories as well. As for the terminology, it's not only a self-description from those networks, but it's also used by their competitors, customers, and even Clara Hughes.(source) So the terminology article is not an essay, nor is the term made up. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you're making up is the idea that the fact of operating across Canada instead of regionally is, in and of itself, a uniquely notable concept that requires its own separate article. You're committing a logical fallacy here — reifying a simple descriptive phrase into some sort of uniquely encyclopedic real-world concept, which it simply isn't. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that this term exists at all in real world usage, it's not an article topic; it's merely a phrase that's used to describe the fact that Telus operates right across Canada, not an actual thing per se. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we don't need articles which serve merely to define marketing phrases. Absolutely any mobile provider in absolutely any country on earth that has ocean coastlines can legitimately call itself a "coast to coast network" if it operates throughout its entire country; there's no way on earth in which this is some sort of uniquely Canadian concept. And not only does it mean the same thing in the United States and Russia and France and the United Kingdom and Australia as it does in Canada, it also means the same thing when you apply it to a chain of hamburger joints — which hardly means that we need a separate article about "coast to coast fast food chain" as a distinct concept from "regional fast food chain", either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is another option, besides the "Keep" that i previously mentioned. For example, a handful of users at Template:Canadian mobile phone companies insist that there is no distinction between a coast to coast network and a regional one. But other users would prefer to see the template accurately and informatively divided.
In the very first edition of the template, there were only 8 providers listed, including an MVNO or two. It made sense that they were all listed together without category subdivisions. Only very recently, now there are over 30 networks listed : 16 as "networks", 14 as "virtual" and 1 as defunct. Some of the information is inaccurate, because BCE-owned networks (specifically Northerntel, NMI and Télébec) are listed as separate entities. Networks such as iDEN-based MiKE are missing, while some companies currently listed in the template are red links.
It's very frustrating that some Wikipedians insist that their way is right and that any changes to that are mostly wrong. For example, they let me add the defunctAmp'd Mobile, but not MiKE. They also do not let me split up the template according to the consensus that it should be done from a defined and neutral point of view. The information about coast to coast networks could be kept here or placed on a Canadian networks page. But to get my contributions frequently removed is what i find to be very insulting and counterproductive. --LABcrabs (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, counterproductive is allowing edits into the encyclopedia that fail a large handful of basic content policies. There's this old saying, ok? "There's a mark at every poker table. If you can't see him, it's you." This is applicable in a wide variety of contexts. In the Wikipedia context, it boils down to: if your contributions are frequently removed by a variety of other editors, it's pretty well certain that there is a problem with your edits. I'm honestly baffled as to why this is such a difficult concept for so many people to grasp. → ROUX₪10:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What i don't understand is why, for over three years, the "coast to coast" and "regional" operators were separate in the "Canadian mobile phone companies" were split. But now, to create a "better" template, we just put all 16 networks together. They are NOT the same types of networks and NOT the same category! Also, why are there Bell-owned "networks" and three red-link providers but no Mike?
Delete, the definition used in the article is WP:MADEUP, and the terminology "coast to coast" in Canada's cellphone market basically means just what it always means: from St. John's to Vancouver Island. PKT(alk)13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amigo, I'll consider reversing my position if there is a proper answer to my previous question, viz: "where exactly is the definition (ie, "90% of the Canadian population without the need to use roaming") found"? Did the CRTC publish the definition somewhere, perhaps?? PKT(alk)16:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merged where? And again: nobody said you're making up the basic existence of the phrase "coast to coast" — what you're making up is the idea that it somehow means something uniquely notable and encyclopedic specifically when applied to Canadian mobile phone networks. When, again, in reality it just means the same damn thing that it means when applied to Canadian hamburger restaurants or television networks or truck transportation companies, or Australian mobile phone networks, etc. It's not a notable thing or a useful article — it's just a phrase. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is an essay which lacks notability, with almost all of its content not covered by reliable sources, but instead combines a bit of material from the few sources provided with the blanks filled with a lot of content I considered blatant original research (see WP:Original research). The only notable content in the article can be summarized to "plug-in electric vehicles charged with energy generated from solar panels (off-board source) have no carbon footprint" which is not enough for a stand alone article not even a stub. In this case merging is not an option, since the closest article, solar vehicle, refers to vehicles powered by an on-board source that generates electricity from the sun (such possible merge lready was discussed here). The following are common sense examples of fictional article's also lacking notability that follow the same logic and content of the questioned article: wind-charged electric vehicles, coal-charged electric vehicles, solar-charged portable music players (solar-charged iPad?), etc. In summary, the article takes two notable subjects, solar energy and electric vehicle, and simply pasted them together. Also notice that the only relevant link to this article is the Spanish Wikipedia Vehículo con carga solar, which was created by User:Diamondland, who recently, and one more time, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet (see here) and not surprisingly is the second contributor to the English version.-- Mariordo (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable article per Mariordo's reasoning. Whether a plug-in electric car is powered by power generated from solar panels, wind, nuclear, coal, et cetera, makes absolutely no difference to how the vehicle operates. The article on solar power already describes the function of this energy form; its benefits (emissions) and disadvantages (price) are no different if the energy derived from solar cells is used to power a car, refrigerator, television or train. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. not all shopping malls are notable and this one appears to be very small one. also nothing on major Australian news site [56]. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Wyoming, New South Wales. This is a shopping centre with only one anchor on 7,200 square metres (78,000 sq ft) of land - it's tiny, and as Libstar notes, there is practically no independent coverage. The shopping centre does not even have its own website and the only independent info I can find is at an unrelated page by the local transport authority. Looking at past discussions of micro centres, merging/redirecting to the suburb name appears to be usual practice. Orderinchaos21:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's only a minor neighbouthood shopping centre, so it's not really notable enough to have it's own page. But I will add a section about it on the Wyoming, New South Wales article. However, Orderinchaos, where did you get the info about it's GLA? --Meluvseveryone (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I wasn't referencing it for the article, I got the stat from the transport link I provided above. It claims its source for 7,201m² is: "NSW/ACT Shopping Centre Directory – Property Council of Australia". The 2010 version of this publication (latest) is at SLNSW Reference; not sure where else would have it. Orderinchaos16:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:MUSICBIO. an overly promotional article that just uses one source, his own website. gnews contains no indepth coverage, merely lists him as a band member or confirms he's a a drummer. [57] but nothing to justify a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founding member of The State and Southern Sons per here, member of Cloud Nine/Taste/Texas per here. Drummer for Cloud Nine, Taste, Peter Cupples Band, The Cosy Connection, The Cutters, Linda Cable & The Local Heroes, Loose Change, The State, Hans Valen, Gnomes of Zurich, On The Virg, Theatre Of Dreams, Soul SirkUS per here. Allmusic has three albums, here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - The sources currently in the article are either primary or trivial mentions of him. I can not find any significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. GB fan (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This appears to be just advertising for a commercial product. The only source provided is a link to the company that markets the product. No evidence has been provided that this product is recognized as notable by independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90(talk)04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I half expected a YouTube video with an ad with a toll free number to pop up beneath the article. Definitely something your average numismatist would classify as "junk" and non-notable. Nate•(chatter)06:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to lack any coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage that would satisfy WP:NBOOK; this is unsurprising, because it's self-published. If you look at the creator's username, it's fairly obvious that he's trying to use Wikipedia to publicize his own book. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any indication of notability in the article, and can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. --BelovedFreak03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - There are sources, and some other than in the article. They are in Russian, but that isn't ever a reason to delete. They aren't the biggest thing since sliced bread, but they are getting coverage. Try using google translate if needed, and the band's name in their native Russian, Оптимальный Вариант. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable private K-5 school. Note: There's a related user (User:ISTucson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) with a major conflict of interest. He has resumed activity today after creating the article last month. Probably should be reported to UAA. Raymie (t • c) 04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun editing the page to make it more acceptable and will attempt to create a neutral article.
I believe the school is notable for their unique program and international recognition. Also, the University of Arizona is doing research of the school (methods, effectiveness, child language learning models, etc...), making the school notable via the University's upcoming research publications. I have created a successful school page for another local school in the past University High School (Tucson). --Qauz (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)qauz[reply]
Unless major notability can be demonstrated, Redirect to Tucson, Arizona#Education. This elementary school seems to get a fair amount of press from the Arizona Daily Star[60], which is a Reliable Source although strictly local. But don't we require multiple sources? IMO that requirement should be strictly enforced in a case like this, where elementary schools need unusual notability to be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge. This seems to be an (improperly constructed) AfD for two articles. They should obviously be merged, but the organisation (under the correct title) gets quite a few gbooks hits, and is clearly notable. -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC) — 202.124.73.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, and delete its companion article as well. This is not a notable organization. A search of Google News Archive finds nothing significant. A search of Google Books finds one passing mention, otherwise only directories. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know the niceties of AfD nominations, but I think it may be necessary to set up a separate AfD discussion for the companion article since it was nominated a day later than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I've checked, and cannot myself find sufficient evidence of notability to meet either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Even the TFC link and the PEP.ph article mentioned in most of the articles do not mention these alleged episode titles. The TFC link only mentions "Episode 1", "Episode 2" etc. I'm not really certain that there might be other ways (thus far) to verify these "titles", as the primetime broadcasts don't even have titles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject is potentially notable, but there are no references confirming that. Unless notability is demonstrated through reliable sources, this should be deleted. - BiruitorulTalk22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Satisfies none of the criteria of WP:NB: the closest is the first as it has a few reviews but all in specialist publications, no general coverage. No other indication of notability. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A widely cited, and respected, textbook on an infinitesimal approach to calculus. The book was the subject of a much-discussed field study by K. Sullivan a few years after the first edition came out, and went through two or three editions. To note is the fact that the nominator did not even bother to request improvements on the talkpage of the article. Tkuvho (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a requirement of AfD that an editor first discusses it on the talk page; such a discussion is not likely to attract enough editors. The place for the discussion is here. That it is a good textbook (but not good enough to keep in print), the number of editions or that someone wrote a paper mentioning it is not enough; it needs coverage outside of mathematics.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an academic book, so per WP:NB#Academic books the normal rules don't apply literally but must be interpreted using common sense: "For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions." I can't really say much about the book as I am not familiar with it. It is mostly of interest to non-standard analysis people, and that subject is off the mainstream of mathematics and logic. If it's among their two or three most important books, then it might be worth keeping it. The field study thing almost sounds as if it could alone be enough to make this book notable. There aren't many maths books that have studies made about them. Hans Adler01:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient attention by journals within the field, which are considered WP:RS, to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. The "coverage outside of mathematics" approach has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is not a generally accepted practice to find new and exciting reasons to delete articles. Chester Markel (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"coverage outside of mathematics" was my paraphrasing of the first criteria of WP:BK: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience" (my emphasis). If instead the academic criteria is used it is neither published by an academic press nor likely to be widely taught/required reading as it's out of print. The reference to Criticism of non-standard analysis is interesting. The article's a bit of a mess now but it started out as a summary of one of the reviews of this book: [63], which from the article now seems did not go down well. I'm not sure that a few letters in the same journal makes it a 'cause celebre'.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds02:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject matter of an article meets the requirements of WP:GNG, it is not necessary for it to also satisfy a specific notability guideline. The specific guidelines are intended to augment the general guideline, providing a basis for the notability of subjects that do not satisfy the general guideline but are nonetheless considered sufficiently important for inclusion. If non-compliance with subject-specific guidelines furnished an independent basis for deletion, then WP:GNG would be eviscerated, applying only to a few oddball subjects for which no specific guidance is provided. The general consensus of the community is that meeting WP:GNG ⇒ notability unless proven otherwise. Chester Markel (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book was published by Prindle, Weber and Schmidt. I have never heard of them, but it appears they were a publisher specialised on mathematics (especially undergraduate level) and closely related topics and went out of business in 1987. I guess they were an appropriate publisher for a book that was intended to revolutionise the way mathematics is taught. The section about academic books is not very detailed and explicitly insists on applying common sense. In this context it's absurd to interpret "suggested bases [...] include whether the book is published by an academic press" as ruling out a book that was published by a publisher specialised on academic teaching, that is now available online, and which, by the way, is being republished by Dover Publications although currently out of print. The second Dover edition is expected to come out in February 2012 and can be pre-ordered from Amazon. [64] The book is in extremely good company there, as many of the absolutely top mathematics books have been republished by Dover in recent years. In general, "at least some of these works serving a general audience" is clearly intended to keep out tiny specialist communities and fringe communities. This book seems to have been discussed widely in the entire mathematics community – which makes sense, as the mathematical community had to decide whether to switch to this new approach to teaching mathematics to undergraduates. While it is very likely that the discussion was covered by the Times Higher Education Supplement and in the higher education pages of a small number of top newspapers, I believe proving this is not really required in this situation, since the full mathematical community is much bigger than the various subcommunities that we normally use for establishing academic notability. Hans Adler08:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough research. I did not know the book is being re-published. Do you think it would be appropriate to mention this in the article? Tkuvho (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Between the various editions of the book and its companion volume for the instructor, one gets over 400 cites at google scholar. Note that the book is available online, so there is no problem using it in teaching. Tkuvho (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guidelines should be applied with common sense; applying NBOOK to insist that high-level scientific works cannot be notable if they are not reviewed for general audiences fails that test. I think that part of NBOOK was intended mostly to apply to things like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" books, which if covered only in sources aimed at fans of the series would not be treated as individually notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Hans Adler and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Notability is a tool for detecting and removing marketing spam. It wasn't originally meant to be used indiscriminately to cut out topics of genuine academic interest, and to use it in this way is to pervert its intent.—S MarshallT/C23:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In an area in which nearly all textbooks are copies of each other, this one is the first (and so far maybe the only one?) to bring to the first-year undergraduate level an approach to mathematical analysis that had been making waves in the mathematical community. It is famous. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishop's review of this book itself has multiple nontrivial published works that cite it: see e.g. [65], arXiv:1007.3018, or additional works by Dauben, Artigue, and Tall cited in footnote 16 of the arxiv paper. It seems clear that this book has indeed been quite controversial, and this controversy together with the field study cited in the article this goes well beyond the more basic "subject of multiple nontrivial published reviews" standard for books. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a famous book, which received widespread discussion when it appears, and now is re-issued. (The author is the logician for whom Wittgenstein had the greatest respect, because of his courage in thinking.) I would ask that people refrain from PRODing further articles associated with Tkuvho, given a recent escalation of irritation with Dr. William M. Connolley. These PRODs are interfering with the natural development of these articles, and sapping the time and energy of the WP mathematicians. Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why you're invoking me by name here (albeit incorrectly: I've corrected you). It wasn't my PROD. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your won role in this? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't quite see how the book fails WP:NB #1 and #4. Moreover one has to consider that the formulation of that guideline primarily targets fiction and popular literature, so applying it strictly to the letter in #1 by arguing this math book was not discussed in general interest publications seems a bit nonsensical to me. In any case #4 holds as far as I can tell, i.e. there are/have been university courses being taught based on that book.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it fails #1 as it needs coverage in "at least some ... works serving a general audience", precisely to exclude works that have only limited narrow coverage: nowhere does it indicate this only applies to fiction or popular literature. It fails #4 as is not the subject of study. The footnote makes this clear: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science." This relates to previous comments: a couple of editors have asserted it is "famous". If it were famous I would expect it satisfy #1 with ease, as there would be coverage outside of specialist journals: in the mainstream press for example, or at least in widely read journals such as Science.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I misread #4 overlooking the word "subject", thanks for pointing that out. However in that case it is similar to the #1 case, i.e. the application of the rules primarily geared towards fiction and popular nonfiction on purely academic books makes little sense (as pointed out by Adler further up already). So I stay with keep--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions.
@John Blackburne: When you write "If it were famous" you seem like a crackpot. To suggest that this book is not famous is to appear ignorant. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that we stick to discussing the article and not make assumptions or accusations about other editors' competence. But if it's famous then where is the coverage? A famous scientist is one with awards, with articles and interviews in the press etc. A famous poem is one that's known, often by heart, by generations. A famous book is usually one with cultural or historic significance, widely known if not widely read among a large number of the general public. By any normal definition of the word this book is not famous.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Wikipedia is going to have any coverage for non-standard analysis I think we should keep this article. One might argue that the idea of teaching elementary calculus with non-standard methods has not caught on, but removing articles about the attempts seems like missing the point. Will we next be deleting the article on Abraham Robinson? The author of this text, H. Jerome Keisler is a well-known mathematician in his own right, with 51 doctoral students. His textbook on Model Theory gets 2,900 citations on Google Scholar. It is fun that Errett Bishop denounced Keisler's approach; see Criticism of non-standard_analysis#Bishop's review. Including this kind of material in Wikipedia may help our readers understand this conceptually-interesting but not-very-popular corner of mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an obvious book to keep in the area of non-standard analysis, I can't see why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. Also I'm a sucker for pretty pictures :) Dmcq (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
*Comment That's interesting. This company is 50 years old and products you own likely includes technology created by this company. The fact that you can't find anything on it "online" means little. Jcline0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
*Comment Perhaps there's some confusion here relating to the legal entity. The URL is linearcorp.com and it is referred to as "Linear LLC", maybe due to subsidiary status. This company is different than "Linear Technology" and "MaxLinear". Jcline0 (talk)
Comment The first book you have listed does not show any reference to Linear Corporation in the link you provided. The second appears to only have a passing reference to it. Google Books does turn up dozens of listings for similar names of, "Linear Technology Corporation" and "Micro Linear Corporation." Are these the same organization? Or just similarly named? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing sources prove that the company existed. Existance is not the baseline for inclusion of an article at Wikipedia. There is no depth of coverage that I can find, nor have any extensive sources been provided by those who created the article, or who wish to see it kept. --Jayron3200:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Doing a google news search I found a couple hits for the company mentioned in LA Times and NY Times, both reliable sources. Two of the articles would, IMHO, talk about the company significantly enough to warrant it having significant coverage. That being said it is debateable if it has lasting notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Facepalm Read the article please; most of the information is ALREADY THERE Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)