The result was merge to Southern Premier Soccer League. J04n(talk page) 15:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Previous afd failed to reach consensus largely due to improper bundling. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to consist largely of the author's own synthesis of cited sources. Although the citations are good and solid, the author draws conclusions based on xyr own interpretation of the cited articles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the sources are from the con itself, a con directory, or the university that hosts it. The only non-primary sources are trivial mentions, saying that Famous Person X will be at the con. I feel that even with the new sources, it still fails WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (technically a G7, but the article was almost certainly a hoax as well). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced that this is a factual article. It is supposed to be about a soccer goalkeeper who played "professionally for several teams in the USL First Division". Yet Google finds absolutely no trace of this. Of course, media coverage of the USL is not all that good but it's still very unusual. There's a claim that he signed in 2011 with A.C. Perugia Calcio. Google never heard of that either. And the article claims that in 2010 "rumours swirled that Diego would move to the Spanish club Sporting de Gijón" but it seems like they didn't swirl very hard. In any case, the whole claim is dubious because 36 year old American goalkeepers who are not good enough for the MLS are unlikely to be of much interest for second division European clubs. The article provides a reference to this book but Google doesn't appear to find any occurrence of that name in the book. So basically, I think this is a hoax. Pichpich (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that this person is notable. There are no sources, and the previous AfD didn't find any, either. I found one, [1], but he is mentioned only in passing. Even if we take everything in the article to be "true", it appears that he was a devout Muslim and a teacher. Even the overly praising article contains no indication that he did anything that meets Wikipedia's sense of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned article does not meet general notability guideline MusikAnimal (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, run of the mill company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holder of a trivial record (youngest Indian with a student pilot license). The article mentions that the record is recognized by the India Book of Records and the Asia Book of Records. Wikipedia is not a book of records, especially for records so insignificant and so dependent on local regulation. The Asia book of records says that he got it at 16 when "the normal age is 18" which would suggest he got it through bending regulation. In fact that might not be the case since this page suggests that any 16 year old in India can apply for a private pilot license. Not so surprisingly, I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT , THE PERSON MENTIONED THAT NORMALLY THE AGE IS 18 YEARS BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO WORK HARD ENOUGH AT THE AGE OF 16 AS THEY ARE BUSY WITH THEIR STUDIES ETC , WHEREAS I DEVOTED TIME TO MY STUDIES AS WELL AS PILOT STUDIES AND ACHIEVED THIS FEAT. NO REGULATION WAS BENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag737 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC) — Ag737 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another spammy, promotional, non-notable software article. This software product does not meet our general notability guideline. Almost all sources are the company's website. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy, promotional, non-notable software article. Does not meet our general notability guideline. Almost all sources are the company's website. Promotional gems include: "Starting with JIRA 4, a 10-user starter license costs $10 with all proceeds benefiting Room to Read." Likely created by someone with a COI. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Scouting_in_South_West_England#Dorset_Scout_County. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
advertising The Banner talk 19:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Iododiphenhydramine" is an ambiguous name which could refer to any of several chemical compounds. The chemical name "iododiphenhydramine" does not appear in any major chemical database that I have searched. A search of medical databases turns up no drug with this name making it extremely dubious that it is marketed as an antihistamine in African countries as claimed (or anywhere else). A web search turns up no reliable sources (hits are mostly forum spam). In short, the content is vague, dubious, non-notable, unreferenced, and unverifiable. ChemNerd (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur footballer who has made a couple of appearances for a team which plays at the 16th level of the English football league system so fails WP:NFOOTY by an absolute mile. Chinese coverage included in the article does not seem significant or in-depth (judging from Google translated versions of articles) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. Graham is the daughter of a US Senator (but WP:NOTINHERITED), and has considered, but never actually undertaken, a political campaign of her own. She currently works as minor school district official. If she chooses to run, she may become notable (or perhaps, just become a footnote in the article about the particular election in which she participates). If she wins a set in the US House, she will be presumed notable. But until then, WP:TOOSOON. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sources have shown up, so notability has been shown. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a prod wouldn't suit because the article's major editor is the own article's subject, it would be contested without reason. The problem is not that the article is an autobiography, but the case here is the notability, this choreographer even though she has toured with artists such as Gossip (band), Arctic Monkeys, Nellyunclear to which Nelly, among others, one may know that notability isn't inherit, and thus even if she has toured with notable singers, it may not constitute the fact that she is solely notable, if she has contributed to any choreography which in fact became notable, or if she has enough media coverage, which she has not, the article should remain. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 15:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP non-admin closureconditional on the improvements suggested here being undertaken. Bold move to List of Game of the Year awards. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article fails WP:NOT#DIR as well as trying to conflate too many "game of the year" type ideas just to document them.
If we use films as the counter example, there are as many (if not more) sources that provide awards including Film of the Year but these include both sources like the Oscars and BAFTAs and Golden Globes (highly respected awards), and simply a notable reviewer's (like Roger Ebert)'s top films. We would track both in individual films, but the only ones that document the winners year by year on a single page are the articles on the awards themselves (eg Academy Award for Best Picture). The non-award type mentions do not have such articles.
The same would be true for video games. There's about 6-8 awards listed that are truely notable awards (eg BAFTA's VG, Spike VGA, etc.) and the rest are picked from gaming sites and user polls. As with films, we would document both on individual game articles, but the only ones that should be documented in the present manner should be the notable awards. If the Game of the Year aspect is important for a gaming journalism website (I don't believe this ever is) these can be listed on the website's page, ala what is done for Roger Ebert and his top film per year.
Moreso, the problem of making a mass page like this is that if we presume this would be kept, within a few years it would be far too long. Further, it conflates video and board games (the two board game lists are those that can be put onto separate pages); and the inclusion of user polls leaves much to be desired.
I don't see a way this page can be saved (redone, or merged or whatever) where the key information is not already repeated on appropriate pages. MASEM (t) 14:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation. Claims to fame include repeated listing in the top 100 list of Supply & Demand Chain Executive. While this source verifies at least one such listing, the magazine's website is in terrible shape and other appearances on the list cannot be verified. However, even if verified, the article listing provides only a cursory listing, not the in-depth coverage needed to build an article. A survey of the article's history will show a history ripe with COI editing. The article as written today is overtly promotional, and with insufficient sources with which to rewrite the article, the spam cannot be sufficiently mitigated. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An unpublished book by a little known author, with no evidence whatever of notability. There is a "reference" which simply says "History Press", which is the name of the publisher, and there is a link to Amazon, which tells us "This title has not yet been released", and nothing else remotely resembling a source is given. A PROD was removed by the author of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially unreferenced biography of a living person. References are links to Orji's About.me, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. The only claim of notability is a nomination for a Shorty Award but since anyone with a Twitter account can nominate anyone else, this nomination is meaningless. Note that if this isn't deleted, it will need to be cleaned up since it's clearly biased and in part copy-pasted from [17]. Pichpich (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Tom harrison, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, no reason given. So I'm AFDing the article with these reasons from the PROD. Seams to be an essay. Delete this page and merge any credible content into Midsummers Night Dream article. GAtechnical (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source, which was placed only after trying to PROD. There is no claim of notability. There is no notability that can be determined as per specific and general notability guidelines. Cerejota (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Melanie Amaro. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wal-mart the album is supposedly due March 31 (see here) but the reference actually says December 31, 2013. Seems highly unlikely that an album would be listed for sale so much before its release date and evidently the information available about the album is limited. Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List_of_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_characters#Philip_Swift. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines. atnair (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a scam created by two guys trying to bilk money from the gullible. It only achieved notice due to its supposed ties to the 2012 phenomenon; now that 2012 is over, it no longer needs to exist. Wikipedia is not a consumer advocate site, nor does it need to give free publicity to a scam Serendipodous 07:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources used are pre-2012. The question is, does this thing still have notability post-2012? Serendipodous 18:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to One Piece discography. The history will remain in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Declined PROD. pbp 04:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively new band, fails WP:BAND. Independent sources are unreliable, and main page is at Facebook. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SOFT DELETE. Because of low community participation in this discussion treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to have helped found a small museum and not much else, article also quotes *very* heavily from the main source SimonLyall (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will userfy the page to anyone who wants to transwiki it. J04n(talk page) 01:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I initially proposed this article for deletion, but it was declined without an explanation. This topic is essentially a violation of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Source searches are only providing tangential coverage (e.g. [21], [22]). Northamerica1000(talk) 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy article about a company that fails WP:CORP. Dewritech (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable WP:CORP. The main function of this article seems to be for spam links in the external links section. I am One of Many (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By doing a simple google search I currently get 58,800 news results for the company.
Now considering the fact that you wildly delete relevant additions to articles because you think that adult related links are somehow invalid information and then, when challenged, you nominate the whole company article for deletion, let me extend a hand and educate you a little bit about Utherverse and it's virtual world - obviously you did not bother by yourself.
The Utherverse virtual world "Red Light Center" is currently home to more than 10 million people that created an account in it. At any given time more than 2000 people are online within their virtual home and live their life there - many of them disabled or so sick that they can't leave their home, or (god forbid) enjoy passionate encounters with other human beings in real life. Within this virtual world they can still dance, explore, make new friends and meet friends they've already made and enjoy time with them, yes even "that" kind of time if they wish.
You're probably sitting at home, comfortable at your computer before you leave the house to do your daily chores or do whatever you feel like. Well many people don't have that luxury anymore and therefore are home-bound, some even bed-bound.
So before you go on one of your deletion sprees that you obviously enjoy - maybe consider the facts, educate yourself and get some perspective for the rest of the people out there. I added relevant links and last time I checked Wikipedia says Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing.
I hope you are able to take a step back and take a look from these persons perspective.
Thank you JOKEREMPIRE (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No notability WP:PEOPLE. I did some Google searches and found no independent reliable sources. I am One of Many (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freshly self-published original research - Altenmann >t 07:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I previously speedily deleted this article under WP:CSD#A7; discussions with the article's creator lead me to feel that the issue is borderline enough that it should go through AfD. I still believe the article should be deleted. There is no coverage of the person outside of blogs and other SPS. The rapper has one album that charted, but only on the "Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Catalog Albums". That's a minor chart, and doesn't indicate any airplay whatsoever. The purpose of using charting as a substitute for GNG (see WP:BAND) is that there's a presumption that charting artists must have had some coverage somewhere, even if we can't find it. However, since this chart doesn't include airplay, there's no reason to just assume that coverage exists. Unless some evidence can be found (and I couldn't find any myself), I think this fails WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW - this is an obvious hoax. I note that the account which created the article has been blocked as a sockpuppet account. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SOLDIER The references given make no mention of him. The link http://www.454-459squadrons.org.au/454members/murrayc.html is for a guy who served in WW2, not the person in the article Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
bio articles about non-notable people used as a vehicle for spam. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Federated States of Micronesia–United States relations. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. the only coverage i could find for this one was an ex employee being indicted for stealing passports. [29]. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Skitszo. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 22:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD discussion back in 2007 was closed as no consensus. Today, the situation is quite clear: Kiwijet is a proposed company which never came into being, and as such I cannot find any reason why the article should be kept in an encyclopedia. The page content is pure WP:CRYSTAL: just a series of product announcements. Further, the subject fails WP:CORP: All references that can be found are either self-published press releases, or mere rephrasings of these press releases by other media. Hardly enough to speak of significant, independent coverage. FoxyOrange (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails all notability guidelines. samrolken (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wayland (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wayland (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate discussion of off-Wiki activity; borderline NPA/OUTING; please discuss the merits of the content, not the editors who created it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I discovered that the user who initiated this Articles for deletion (Afd) action, samrolken -- is actually a close personal friend of the subject of the article, Steve Cottle. Mr. Cottle was interviewed extensively and the two of them have been friends for over 15 years. In fact, samrolken's only connection with Mr. Cottle is his personal friendship. samrolken apparently has no interest in comics and no appreciation of them as an artform. Mr. Cottle and samrolken engaged in a text chat on Facebook on the evening of Feb. 25th, during which time samrolken decided to initiate the Afd and told his friend that he was going to see to it that it would be deleted and would be gone in seven days. "You should not create or edit articles about ... your close friends. ... You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Extensive interviewing of Mr. Cottle, as well as a detailed review of the chat transcipt confirm that not only was samrolken a close friend, but there was clearly antagonism during the chat, which timestamp records from Facebook and Wikipedia show that samrolken initiated the Afd while chatting with the subject. "Wikipedia:Vandalism "Abuse of tags "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd} ... or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Inasmuch as samrolken's sole nexus related to this article was his friendship with the subject, and the Conflict of Interest (CoI) is clearcut and blatant, yet hidden in this Afd page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cottle a reasonable conclusion would be that this is simply an act of vandalism, which should be prohibited, rejected, and rapidly withdrawn. |
Drhankh (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sangorshop) (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Drhankh (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) samrolken (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended and apparently irrelevant content by User:Drhankh... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, Starblind, you wrote "advertising, self-promotion." Only three people who have commented here (in this Afd) actually either know Steve Cottle or about him. The others apparently only from this article. The three are samrolken, who initiated this Afd, myself, and Sangorshop. samrolken is a close personal friend of Steve Cottle. samrolken has no expertise or interest in comics. (Source, recent letter he posted and appended at dailydose, second source, interview of Steve Cottle, transcript kept). Sangorshop and I have expertise in comics. His expertise far exceeds mine. We have both known of Steve Cottle for years. Sangorshop and I have both been to Mr. Cottle's archive and understand its value. I have been acquainted with Sangorshop for several years, and what he says is extremely reliable. I conducted an extensive interview of Mr. Cottle plus have further written documentation. According to him, he did NOT write this article about him. He was not at all involved in the writing of it, nor was he contacted or interviewed for it. As far as I can ascertain, this is the truth. So there is no "self-promotion." As to "advertising" there's none of that, because the archive is not for the purpose of making money, and access is for free. I hope these comments are helpful. I do not claim it is the best article that could be written, but an article is better than no article. As to the notability issue, I will address that soon. -- Drhankh (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Drhankh has been canvassed to this discussion. samrolken 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)" "Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sangorshop) has been canvassed to this discussion. samrolken 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)" According to my records, the first of these was inserted by samrolken about myself, Drhankh, the second about Sangorshop. As far as I can tell, when samrolken refers to "An editor" he is referring to himself in third-person. There is absolutely no merit to these charges. As to Sangorshop, he was aware of the situation pertaining to the Steve Cottle, inasmuch as Sangorshop is a member of a Yahoo group called dailydose (that samrolken joined on March 2nd, the same date as his comments, and posted his message using his real name, and appended a copy of his private email letter that he'd sent to Mr. Cottle, a letter that Mr. Cottle and samrolken both told me had been sent). dailydose shares old newspaper comics strip scans. Mr. Cottle had posted a message to Scanarama and dailydose about the situation regarding the article, its proposed deletion, and it being initiated by his friend, e.g., samrolken. Mr. Cottle did not ask for any help, just comments, but was clearly distressed. Even though I had read many of his comments over the years, had come across the Cottle article on Jan. 9th and downloaded a copy and found it interesting and useful, I was one of the last persons at Scanarama to post a comment, which wasn't to Mr. Cottle's original message, but to another member's, though I did respond to some of Mr. Cottle's questions in my reply message. Sangorshop replied to a member at dailydose, who wanted to post a Keep comment here (this Afd) but didn't know how. Sangorshop did reply and explained briefly how to do it. I later responded as well and shared the instructions MrX gave me (at his Talk page). Sangorshop never told anyone he was going to post any Keep comments, nor that he had done so afterwards. It was a complete surprise to me. I only discovered them here. Mr. Cottle never asked me to help him. I reached out to him initially for further information, doing so with a short personal email letter. Something seemed clearly amiss, because it seemed odd to all of us (all the members from the two groups who bothered to comment) that a friend of Mr. Cottle's would propose to delete the article about him. It also struck me as a likely conflict of interest for samrolken, as both an editor and a close personal friend of the subject of the article, to be the person who recommends it's deletion. I asked some questions via email, Mr. Cottle requested use of a text chat program. Once I was convinced that it maintained a written transcript, I agreed to participate, and I interviewed him for several hours and developed a fully documented record, not to share here, but in case there are any questions about truthfulness and accuracy. Steve Cottle never canvassed or recruited me in the least. Rather, there seemed to be an injustice occurring, there didn't seem to be anyone else either able, available or willing, and as a long-standing Wikipedia editor (since 2009), as someone who knew his work, and his notability, felt that I was the only person available to attempt to rectify this injustice. So I simply assigned the task to myself. I am not working for anyone and am a free agent, but I hope my efforts help ensure both a correct outcome, and help other editors understand the pertinent issues. More dealing with notability soon. -- Drhankh (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, is Steve Cottle notable? His friend and the editor who initiated this Afd, has consistently said no, but he admits he's not interested in comics. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition .... Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." "Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written ..." "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: - Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources. - Place a ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors. - If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." Unfortunately, samrolken, the editor who initiated this Afd, hasn't paid attention to ALL the pertinent guidelines. As far as I can tell, no attempt was made to contact the creator of the article, which I would have done. No tags were added to seek out editors with any expertise, which was sorely needed here. If the editors, such as samrolken, have no expertise regarding a presumed leader is a specialized field, and no attempt is made to solicit expertise, you have 'editing' (to delete) by a committee with no expertise and not sufficient to render a proper judgment. Steve Cottle has expertise in newspaper comics an comic strips and in the preservation of them. Only Sangorshop and I have any expertise in these areas, of the editors involved so far. Sangorshop's comments are entirely correct. From my detailed interview of Mr. Cottle, his expertise was very well demonstrated. From samrolken's letter, he admits lacking any interest in comics, and has no expertise. More to follow. -- Drhankh (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Cottle is notable for two basic interrelated ideas and achievements. Newspaper comics, because of where they are published, tended to be discarded. There was no generalized attempt to save them and to make them available for future audiences. It is similiar to the situations of DuMont's TV shows being trashed, and the BBC wiping many early Doctor Who shows, making them something of just somewhat distant memories of the people who saw those shows. A similar fate could have occurred to newspaper comics. Mr. Cottle developed a strong appreciation for them as a true art form, and newspaper comics do have a very devoted following, and all of them agree that it's an art form worth preserving. Some libraries archived local newspapers onto microfilm and microfiche, and some newspapers, such as England's Daily Mirror, maintained records of the comics they locally published, such as Giles, which are reprinted in books. And while libraries have the microfilm, these are not too accessible to the public at large. There are some archives for some things, and there are some collectors with collections of certain strips, like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. But there are far too many strips that were orphaned. The strip ended, wasn't as widely circulated, and with the material being dated, was considered to no longer have any value and not worthwhile to the syndicate who created and marketed it, to bother with preservation. Even if a company was interested in preservation of the original artwork and stories, over time companies cease to exist, change hands, office space changes, and the material tends to get discards. To them, it was a business. They didn't consider it their responsibility to save the material. Steve Cottle got the big, brilliant idea, an idea that NO ONE else had, to collect and preserve all newspaper comics. Not only did he get the idea, he started implementing it. More to come. -- Drhankh (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Cottle persisted with his vision, remarkable and far ahead of anyone else, and gained followers, those who understood and appreciate his vision. They helped him gather and scan newspaper comic strips. Steve Cottle developed one of the largest and best independent newspaper comics archive anywhere, ilovecomix, with a renowned reputation within the comics community. He is well-known, well- regarded, and well-appreciated. Articles, like those here, for Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, are certainly good, but every article is based up memories and the original source material. There's always a first article on any subject. Unfortunately, it's hard to write articles when the source material no longer exists and the people who remember it (from reading or watching it) are all dead. What Steve Cottle is doing is preserving original source material, and that is invaluable to researchers, which I will shortly demonstrate. -- Drhankh (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several years ago, I obtained a copy of a document written by Arthur Lortie. Mr. Lortie is an engineer who is also interested in science fiction, including comic books and comic strips. In particular, he is fan of Flash Gordon, and has written an article about this rather well-known SF character, who first appeared in a newspaper strip, and later in three movie serials, a TV series, a radio show, a movie and other media. From Mr. Lortie I discovered Connie, a newspaper comic strip that eventially delved into science fiction plotlines that were quite interesting. From Mr. Lortie, I also learned that there was a science fiction comic strip named Chris Welkin, Planeteer, starting in the early 1950s. Mr. Lortie apparently didn't have much information it but was seeking more. The only images we had were from scans of three covers of Australian comic books that had apparently contained material reprinted from this U.S. strip. I was really curious to what it was about, but I could find out very little information, including no article. For the longest time, besides what Mr. Lortie had written, I could find only two sources that verified the strip had indeed existed, but not what it was about. The article "Winterbotham, Russell (1904-1971)" pp.703-704 in The World Encyclopedia of Comics (Maurice Horn, ed., 1976), confirmed that established SF author R.R. Winterbotham had written the strip, but there was little description of it. List of newspaper comic strips A-F - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia confirmed too that the strip had existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspaper_comic_strips_A %E2%80%93F But there was no article in Wikipedia. What was the story line, what were the characters, what was the setting, where was it published? All mysteries. I could find out no futher information for a very long time. Until one day when I got an email Steve Cottle had sent to a Yahoo group, mentioning his archive, telling us he'd moved it and how to access it, for free. I reasoned that if anyone had information or scans of this strip, it would be Mr. Cottle. And sure enough, he had them. So for the very first time, I could actually see what the strip looked like, read it and see what it was about and truly appeciate the art form and the treasure that Mr. Cottle had rescued from oblivion, a resource that could be read and enjoyed, and also used for first hand research for anyone to write the first sorely missing Chris Welkin, Planeteer article. Without that archive, writing anything more was virtually impossible. Just recently, after interviewing Mr. Cottle, I was able to find and download scans of this strip in good quality for the years 1951-54. With the strips in hand, I was able to learn that the correct title of the strip was "Chris Welkin, Planeteer" NOT "Chris Welkin - Planeteer" as the List of newspaper comic strips A-F had previously stated for a long time, and I corrected it. I also learned that the strip was published by the NEA Service, which later become United Media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Media That article could use updating. I also saw that others were emulated Mr. Cottle, and when some years ago, only he had any material on Chris Welkin, Planeteer, sources have since branched out, information and scans are being shared. I found an article announcing the new strip, and a book by artist Art Sansom, mentioning working on the strip. There are those of us in the comics community that truly appeciate this material and recognize it as an art form, well worth preserving. Regarding the Steve Cottle article, it's part of a greater effort. "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia." "This article is supported by the Comic strips work group." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Cottle I have already pointed out how we need an article on Chris Welkin, Planeteer. Elsewhere I wrote how I edited the Buster Crabbe article to add that he starred in a TV series, Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion, nowhere mentioned in the article. I kept tabs on the article from time to tab, and others helped flesh out the Buster Crabbe article, and later someone wrote a Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion article. Just because the Steve Cottle article has some flaws, doesn't mean non-experts should be deciding to discard it, as Sangershop pointed out. Someone other than Mr. Cottle recognized his value and got the ball rolling. Real experts like Sangershop and I could probably improve it a great deal, if we were sufficiently motivated, but this artificial deadline that soon expires is unnecessary. The Afd should be withdrawn. I edited List of newspaper comic strips A-F; where is the footnote for Chris Welkin, Planeteer? Where do the years of publication come from? Are they accurate? I don't know, but I do know that someone most likely in good faith, believed the information was accurate. There as a mistake in the title of the strip, but the strip itself proved to be real. Why is there this suspicion that the information presented here from people with true expertise is discounted rather than accepted. We do know what we tell you, and the rest of you don't know this subject area. Experts should be solicited. Recently, samrolken had initiated an Afd on the article for Russell R. Winterbotham, author of the Welkin strip, an article that I had updated. I added useful information. I didn't bother adding footnotes. I don't come to Wikipedia to read footnotes, or to add them. I haven't written articles, I read them, I learn things, and I get value out of my time. Occasionally I make use of the footnotes. If someone else is interested in writing articles or adding footnotes, they can do so. I didn't write the Steve Cottle or Russell R. Winterbotham articles, but I do know about the subjects. After several of us shared our thoughts on the Afd for Russell R. Winterbotham, samrolken voluntarily chose to withdraw it. Not every subject is as well-documented as it should be, but then we don't all have an infinite amount of time. A flawed article is far superior to none, I submit that doing likewise for this article would be in everyone's best interest. -- Drhankh (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
The result was redirect to Skitszo. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Skitszo. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Skitszo. J04n(talk page) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Skitszo. J04n(talk page) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Notability proved by sources (non-admin closure) HueSatLum 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This biographical article seems more suited for a LinkedIn profile than an encyclopedia. Interesting project work, but I cannot find any sort of coverage of consequence about the individual. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There does not seem to be a big consensus -- this article is likely to remain controversial -- but it's enough. User:Carolmoredc made especially good arguments. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The information could be merged into the article on the second presidential debate. It doesn't seem to meet WP:N currently as lasting effect was not there. Casprings (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
significant coverage? A mention in a question by Jeopardy does not make continued significant coverage, nor does brief mention in reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of shopping malls in Toronto. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a future shopping centre and is written as an advertisement. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although a good article on a single act from Taming of the Shrew might conceivably be written, this is not that article, and it appears to have little to no salvagable content. It gives a detailed summary of the Act and a great deal of original research concerning the author's interpretation of the play, followed by a large number of mostly irrelevant links (e.g. to general information about Shakespeare. Converted from G11 because it's obviously doesn't "serve only to promote an entity, person or product". Could not find evidence that it's a copyvio. May be an essay affiliated with some kind of class. Note: A similar article on another act has been PRODed at The Taming of the Shrew: Act I. Dcoetzee 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources establishing notability. Having searches 50 pages of google, I cannot find a single thing about him other than the games he has worked on. He appears to have no individual encyclopedic notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, lacking any kind of references. Especially fails WP:CORP, as this corporate charter airline has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --FoxyOrange (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a young actor that had a very minor appearance in the last few minutes of a Harry Potter film. I can't see any proof he was in the BBC Horrible Histories series. As it is unsourced with only a very tenuous claim to notability, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTORS. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably I can find no substantive sources for this organisation. It feels as if it ought to have an article here, and the topic of Supported Fostering Services appears in search results, but the actual charitable trust that this article is written for only appears to be verified as existing, not as being notable. As it stands the article is about a non notable entity.
A valid outcome might be to broaden the article to deal with the concept rather than the charity itself, but this is unlikely to fly since all fostering is supported. I considered a redirect to or merge to Foster care but this is not appropriate either.
I'm forced to conclude that this charity is not yet notable, and thus an article is too soon. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company with little coverage in reliable sources. Most sources are located in small Pittsburg publications. I'm open to the idea that this company may one day be notable, but I do not believe that is the case today. Very run of the mill company. Article was created by a COI / PR editor, who's only edited a few articles that he or she has a direct relationship with. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 14:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5-year-old notability tag; lets decide one way or another CorporateM (Talk) 00:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 22:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable hicjacking.
...William 01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giant block of unsourced promotional text. Subject may be notable, but I didn't feel there was enough salvageable content to justify re-writing it to WP:NOT advert standards CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advert which relies exclusively on sources from the org's own website. The page does not have enough salvageable material to be worth cleaning up. CorporateM (Talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person--the few hits for this person (there's a bunch of others with the same name and more internet presence than this guy) indicate that he is "le chroniqueur aux médias sociaux" which, I propose, is not a very notable position in this case. The article consists almost exclusively of trivia, and that he has written a few pieces for a few online zines doesn't make him notable as a journalist, for instance. This used to be a redirect to Simple Plan but that's too much credit too, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 22:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relentlessly promotional article created by a persistent COI editor. No real notability here, though the company has received some passing mentions in a variety of unreliable sources. Company has not been the subject of coverage in multiple publications. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage of this organization from any independent reliable sources. The article's only sources and links are to its own web page or to youtube. I was also confused by the comment that is was not to be confused with an organization of the exact same name.Mdtemp (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]