Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson Williams (baseball)
[edit]
- Jackson Williams (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unreferenced article, poorly written, about a non notable individual. Previous afd led to a merge but he is no longer with the Giants. Spanneraol (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aparently the article was moved since previous afds, which are here and here.Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Has played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in the Dominican Republic, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dominican Professional Baseball League is a winter league for (mostly) low level minor leaguers, and should not be considered a top-level competition. If it does fit under BASEBALL/N, then I say delete per WP:IAR. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I have said and proven, the DPBL is not only for low-level minor leaguers, instead a large percentage, if not a majority, of its participants are players with major league experience, high-level minor league experience and top prospects. The same reasoning I have used to defend the articles of these players has been used by others to defend keeping pages of those who played in the Mexican League (and other relatively weak national leagues), which I would argue is a much less competitive league than the DPBL. I would highly suggest a discussion on changing the wording of WP:BASEBALL/N at the appropriate talk page, because I would likely vote delete if the stipulation I'm citing wasn't there. But as it is written now, I cannot with a clear conscience vote delete. Alex (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Same reason as Muboshgu.--Yankees10 17:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – per Muboshgu's argument. Winter leagues are almost never considered elite pro leagues – they wouldn't be playing in winter if they were. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ron Kubesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Can't find any trace of him playing pro ball. ...William 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions....William 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions....William 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*New information appears to pass WP:NGRIDIRON having played professionally in the CFL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I stand corrected.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The same article that claims he played for the Colts and was a little all-american also says he was drafted by the Colts in 1954. He wasn't. Check out 1954 NFL Draft or 1955 NFL Draft. We know from many sources that Kubesh never played in the NFL. I'd safely say based on all that it fails WP:RS. The subject of an article lying to a reporter about easily verifiable facts is hardly unknown. Ian Bannen claimed here[1] that he won an Academy Award for best supporting actor....William 18:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting and insightful! I don't think we should be using other Wikipedia articles for reference on another Wikipedia article when it comes to notability or even accuracy. I did check the NFL.com pages and did not find the individual in question for those seasons, but it appears that their records are incomplete. However, for the purposes of this AFD, I would be willing to concede that the subject never played professionally. That leaves us with the "Little all-American" award. Is it reliable or not? I will argue that if it is true then the subject passes WP:NCOLLATH (see below). If it is not true, then I see no reason to keep this article. The question then becomes: did the reference article author make a mistake on this issue, or is it accurate? I would ask that we extend this AFD for an additional relisting period (what, 7 days?) to find an alternate source to confirm (or possibly deny) the information. If a second independent source is not found for this award, then it should be deleted because the source has come in to question. However, I'm not ready at this point to say that if one part of the source is incorrect, then the whole source is incorrect. Also, I would change my completely if we can find evidence that the source in question is not a relable source. But I don't think that potentially one mistake crosses that threshhold. Thoughts?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair there is another issue: Does being named a "little all-American" pass the threshhold of notability. I maintain that it has in the past and does here. If the subject never was named to such an award or if consensus decides that if he did it doesn't matter, then the result would be to delete the article. I think that sums it up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to nfl.com/players he never played in the NFL and the source cited for him playing in the CFL is about fullback Don Kubesh from Winnipeg, not Ron Kubesh an American linebacker/guard. The article also says he was a small college all-American. Even then there was a difference between playing for Notre Dame and North Dakota. Papaursa (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. Being a "Little All-American" is not enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're claiming that being a division 2 or division 3 or NAIA all-American is grounds for automatic notability? I think that's a stretch. Don't forget many of these teams have first, second, and third teams as well as "honorable mentions"--all of whom can claim to be "all American". Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see above: there were no divisions in 1955. The NAIA did exist but this program competed in the NCAA. Plus, it isn't "my claim" but WP:NCOLLATH.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But he wasn't an "All American", he was a "Little All American" which means the award was for people competing at what was then referred to as "small colleges", so there was a distinction even then. There were even small college ratings back then. Regardless of whether the NCAA had divisions or not, there was still a recognized difference between different levels. If you look at http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2001football_finest.pdf which lists "all 2868 players (from 156 colleges) over 112 years who made at least one first team on the selections used by the NCAA" you'll not find Kubesh's name listed. Papaursa (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline calls for any college athlete that has "won a national award..." and does not specify all-American, little all-American, or Heisman. As for the document you provided, please read it first. It does not contain all athletes that played over 112 years as you imply. The information itself states on page 4 "we have assembled a collection of some of the finest college football players" indicating that other quality players were excluded. On page 5 the document states, "Some wartime figures are missing."
(which covers the years of eligibility of the athlete in question) and the next sentence states, "A handful of consensus all-Americans are excluded because nearly all their career figures came in one season." We clearly need to have better information to make an informed decision. Without better information, I still maintain that we should assume good faith unless there is some other policy being violated.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I not only have looked at the document, I quoted from page 157 "All time All America roster". This document contains individual records, which is what your quote refers to, while my reference is specifically about All-Americans. According to the NCAA Kubesh wasn't named on any first team All America squad. If he wasn't an All-American then what national award did he win? If you admit it was as a small college All American player (akin to the current division 2) then you're claiming all division all-Americans are notable. You have no reliable sources to show whether. even for small colleges, he was anything other than honorable mention and I believe WP policy says the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Several points to respond: (1) Ignoring my comments doesn't make them false. Read page 4. Then read page 5. The document you provide admits that it is an incomplete source,
especially during "wartime" (presumably WWII or at least including it) which covers the entire college career of the dude in question. It's incomplete, therefore we cannot definitively determine if he received a national award or not from the document you provide. (2) The article states the award was for "Little All-American" which would imply a national award for a player at a smaller school. WP:NCOLLATH merely states a "national award" and does not exclude a "Little All-American" award or provide any specifics. It does offer a list of examples but specifies that the list is not restrictive. It's not "me" that is claiming that "all division All-Americans" are notable, but WP:NCOLLATH. (3) There is no violation in policy that I can find to assume good faith in the sources we have. We believe that the source in question made one mistake but I don't think we need to dismiss the entire article. I would prefer to find more, as I stated above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't respond to your comment about WW2 players because it was irrelevant--or do you really believe that war lasted until the mid 1950s when Kubesh played? Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap. Dislexia strikes again. I swapped 1945 and 1954. I struck the comments. But the document still admits that it is not all-inclusive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2013 (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 redirect to The Lox. v/r - TP 02:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- D-Block Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Record label fails WP:GNG, the notability is not inherited from the founders. The label has not released any albums by artists outside of the founders (The LOX). Not to mention the entire article is unsourced. STATic message me! 18:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with The Lox. Alex discussion ★ 20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Lox - Not really much to merge given that it seems their subsidiaries D-Block Europe and D-Block Latino haven't garned much substance and news coverage. My first Google News search found results as did my second and third. However, the record label is better known as the founders' label, using it for their work aside from one now-former client, J-Hood, who also received some news coverage for being signed to this record label but not significant. I don't quite understand "The Next Generation" sentence in the label's Wikipedia article but I found this which seems like a compilation album. Aside from that, there's really not much for an article even to improve it from its current status. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with a redirect, if the article was half decent I would support a merge, but there is really nothing significant and sourced for that matter, to merge.STATic message me! 00:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2013 (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. v/r - TP 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Q Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article lacks self consistency regarding the company, something indicating that it is bizarre already. The references are not all they are suggested to be either. One leads to a Q Mobile phones for sale site. Delete as disguised advertising and salt as repeatedly recreated. With the current paid editing scandal, is this an article that falls under that category? Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the above editor is a sockpuppeteer and paid editor. [5] It is unclear whether he has WP:COI on this article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he broke the rules in the past (and I blocked him for doing so). But following him around and leaving disclaimers after his edits is somewhat problematic, particularly if you don't have any evidence that he is currently breaking the rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- André Tete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
On notability grounds - no top tier fights or championships Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears he technically meets WP:NMMA since he fought for Rings Holland (which was top tier back then), although common sense says it's hard to say he's very notable with 2 lifetime wins in MMA. The article gives, and I could find, no good reliable sources supporting the claims of him being a notable boxer or kickboxer with many international titles and long winning streaks. This looks like a good candidate for WP:COMMONSENSE to override a technical meeting of a notability criteria since he seems to lack the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I agree with Papaursa's comment about using common sense for someone who only won 2 fights. Other claims are completely unsupported.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep via his kickboxing record.Tete is more known for being a kickboxer than a MMA fighter,ive personally seen many of tete's kickboxing matches on tv he fought top kickboxers such as Clyde van Dams and Errol Parris,play it safe on this one because of his kickboxing record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkoeman44 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not obtained by who he fought (that's WP:NOTINHERITED). The article has no independent sources so WP:GNG is not met. Do you have sources that show he meets WP:KICK? If so, please add them to the article. This isn't about "playing it safe", it's about meeting WP notability criteria. The burden of proof is on those who claim a topic is notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2013 (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 that the nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gobōnobō + c 23:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Susan Nycum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not even a stub of a biography - just a mention of one thing she wrote 25 years ago Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I started this article today during a training course. The subject was taken from a gender gap list as this was the point of the training - to encourage women to become more involved here. The nomination was made 65 minutes after the article was created and so provides a good illustration of the way that new users get bitten. I had to rush home to attend to a leaky roof but have now spent a bit more time expanding the topic further. I didn't know much about the subject when I started but she appears to have be a fairly prominent pioneer in the field of computer law. This topic is quite relevant to Wikipedia and so we should allow more time for article development and expansion, as laid out in our editing policy. Andrew Davidson (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has been expanded considerably since it was nominated. Nycum is a pioneering computer law scholar and was active in the field's early days, writing, for one, the first study to document and define computer crime. Many sources that could be used to further expand the article can be found at Google Scholar, books, and news; the sources demonstrate that Nycum easily passes WP:BIO through substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Gobōnobō + c 22:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have to agree with the others. A casual search on Google News turns up countless articles. Skimming through some of them, I see evidence that she is constantly referred to as an expert, and it should be very easy to create an article on her. The article itself still relies on many primary sources, but it will fill out eventually. I would suggest that Eggishorn withdraw this nomination, as it seems this nomination was premature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Nomination for reasons given above. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Timbre. v/r - TP 02:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tristimulus timbre model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable mathematics that do not show notability, usage or relevancy to a broader usage as to harmonics. It lacks context and if it can be used, should be merged to the harmonics page - but its stand alone or credibility is shaky. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also notice that this particular timbre model (an important concept in psychoacoustics, apparently) inspired a new design of synthesizer.[8] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I work in the research field where this kind of thing is relevant. As far as I know, not many people use these tristimulus values to represent timbre or harmonics, so I'd agree that there's no particular need for a standalone article. I don't feel particularly strongly either way. I created the article, a few years back, and a couple of systems provided tristimulus as an option so it seemed current, but now I'd say it's not particularly pertinent. --mcld (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks for the explanation. The fact it is a method and is used helps establish its need for Wikipedia, but I am concerned that as a stand alone article it will do next to nothing. Would you agree that the harmonics or any other page would be a suitable place to include such a short segment? I much rather keep this than delete it, but I know not where it can or should go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the section Timbre#Harmonics. GScholar produces 10 hits for "Tristimulus timbre" and among those papers are only a small number of researchers. There don't seem to be enough in-depth independent sources to pass notability thresholds. But the model is real and has been used as a convenient low-dimensional representation of the harmonic aspects of a timbre, as in SoniMime. Per WP:PRESERVE, we prefer to preserve verifiable information through merging rather than deletion. I'd recommend merging a short description and a ref verifying to Timbre#Harmonics, which seems the best target given that we have no general article on timbre theory or modeling. --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Timbre: per Mark's reasoning. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:20, 9 November 2013 (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. v/r - TP 21:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- City of Adelaide Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of independent citations to prove notability. Cannot find history on official site - likely unverifiable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to say yes, given that there is regular press coverage of the event, and it appears to be the premier national music competition in Australia for pipe bands. :) Certainly their win garnered coverage in the media, so I don;t think it is a trivial award. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John de Pont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Award is not major. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be confusing member with fellow. Membership is a question of paying a fee (and maybe an ethics signature). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. "You don’t need to be working (or have worked) in science, technology or humanities to become a Member – anyone can become a Member"[9] - WP:SCHOLAR refers to "elected" membership or fellowship. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hipertext.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Online journal, not indexed in any selective dayabases. Article creator de-PRODded and added several "independent sources". None of these is actually about the journal, these are simply articles, blogs, and a dissertation, which have cited an article published in this journal. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2013 (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 redirect to The Angry Video Game Nerd. v/r - TP 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NFF: " films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". AVGN is notable, some other names in the film are notable, but literally 100% of the sourcing is WP:PRIMARY. I could find absolutely zero secondary sourcing, or evidence that the film has yet achieved notability on its own. Maybe once things are actually wrapped up and it gets closer to release, but so far, I'm finding nothing reliable about it.
ETA: Last AFD closed in 2011 with consensus to redirect to the AVGN's main article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Redirect again to The Angry Video Game Nerd#Film. While the article in 2011 was indeed TOO SOON, the topic of this film-in-progress is just begining to receive some coverage, but not enough to be an "exception' to guideline. Per WP:NFF we can allow undeletion/recreation when we have confirmation of filming completion and release date. Okay also with Incubation for a few months. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubation or Redirect, but just don't delete it. The article doesn't need to be canned, it just needs more work. Besides, if you were going to delete it it should have been done months ago, because now it is on the verge of release it's soon going to become far more notable. Little Jimmy (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saphan Khwai BTS Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think there is enough evidence of WP:Notability for this single station to warrant its inclusion as a stand-alone article. I previously redirected individual BTS station articles to the articles for their respective lines, but they were restored by Mr.BuriramCN. (I haven't been able to engage in discussion with him.) I'm testing the water with this AfD, and may nominate the other related articles later. Paul_012 (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus made on prior AfDs has determined that train stations, no matter what size or in what country, are notable as long as sources confirm it exists (or existed for that matter). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks for clarifying. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Will userfy on request v/r - TP 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Giorgia Simonato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a women's footballer that hasn't represented the national team, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. There are some members of the women's football task force who believe that representing their country at youth international level or appearing in the UEFA Women's Champions League also confer notability, but this individual has not done any of those. The most important, however, is that the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, which means it fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - She has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - Unless article can be expanded with references to meet WP:GNG, userfy it. WP:FPL is incomplete and currently only contains two active women's professional leagues out of numerous top-tier leagues throughout the world so is pretty much irrelevant with regard to articles about women's professional footballers.Hmlarson (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Sputnik. FPL comment from @Hmlarson: is incorrect, this list and the consensus arising from it revolve around fully professional leagues being the required benchmark, not simply players or individual clubs being professional. Additionally whether it is incomplete or not, it reflects the current consensus. That consensus may change, but this is not the forum in which to do so. It is easy enough to resurrect stubs like this should consensus change. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm afraid it's you who is incorrect. By you I mean the four or five editors who police these discussions by following about GiantSnowman parroting "fail NFOOTBALL, fail GNG". If this article fails GNG, which I think it might, it should be deleted on that basis. The disingenuous nonsense you guys have created at WP:FPL is totally irrelevant to female players, thankfully. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely nothing incorrect about my statement. See WP:FPL to verify. For a list of top-tier women's leagues around the globe, see the main league competitions column here: Women's association football around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete and salt as unambiguous advertising. (To be explicit: I'm marking this as closed because it's already been speedy-deleted; the deletion was performed by Jimfbleak.) —me_and 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Magic Mirror Sync (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the general notability guideline after good-faith search for sources. —me_and 11:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly relevant, this page has previously been speedy-deleted as unambiguous advertising and unambiguous copyright infringement.[12] I don't think either of those apply this time. —me_and 11:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is article about a software. There is nothing about the company.
"Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvkozyrev (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Mvkozyrev (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Perlis FA season
[edit]
- 2013 Perlis FA season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per consensus at this recent AfD, which established that season articles should follow the same notability guidelines as the players, i.e. fully professional leagues only. C679 09:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 09:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages under the same criteria:
- 2013 Cebagoo F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kuala Lumpur FA season 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2013 Penang FA season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
C679 09:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk - Hi C. I wonder why you nominated 2013 Penang FA season for deletion. The article is full of information based on events happen to Penang Football Association in 2013. This below articles completely blank compared to 2013 Penang FA season but why it's still here? I completely disagree with your action :
- 2001 Kelantan FA season
- 2002 Kelantan FA season
- 2003 Kelantan FA season
- 2004 Kelantan FA season
- 2005 Kelantan FA season
- 2005-06 Kelantan FA season
- 2006-07 Kelantan FA season
- 2007-08 Kelantan FA season
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TorresChelsea96 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - WP:NSEASONS is quite clear that season articles should only be for clubs in top professional leagues. There is no consensus that the Malaysian Premier League is fully professional and so the articles should go. It would also appear that the Kelantan articles should also be deleted under the same rationale. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2013 (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. v/r - TP 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gascoigne Leather Furniture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: recreation of a previously deleted article. Although this makes claims to importance, no independent 3rd party sources have been suppled that assert notability per WP:ORG. Notability is not inherited from notable customers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't notice any qualifying sources on my first run-through when the article was created, but now I found two, in the New Zealand Herald and the Melville Times. Is two a sufficient number? Yes, having famous people among your customers doesn't confer notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the Melville times is local coverage and looks a bit advertorial, it even gives the company's phone number. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many more references are needed for it to be considered notable?Lucy4962 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Lucy4962 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It's not a question of the number of references. It depends on the depth of coverage in the references and whether the sources are reliable or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to clarify, it wouldn't be a question of how many more because right now there aren't any references to independent reliable sources. The company's own website isn't an independent source, and the other two references given are not sources because the company isn't mentioned at either location. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone's added a bunch of fresh references. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources:
- Comment - this is not a 'blog' but an extract from the Welcome Wall project prepared by the Western Australian State Government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- Comment - this is a copy of an article by the Australian Associated Press - Australia's national news agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- Agree with Dan arndt unless there's a reason to think the blog invents articles and attributes them to the AAP. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BN Not relevant. Does not add to notability.
- Comment - it is relevant to the issue that the facility was subject to a major fire - which alomost resulted in the closure of the business — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- Agree with Dan arndt The site's down for maintenance at the moment but what I recall seeing last night when I looked at it was that the write chose Gascoigne as an example to illustrate the point of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you read the reference citation correctly it indicates the exact page - which indicates that the Minister Gordon Hill considers Gascoigne Furniture to be a significant exporter of Western Australian furniture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- BN extremely fleeting mention
- Comment - clearly identifies that Gascoiyne Furtniture is the largest manufacturer of Chesterfield leather lounges in the Southern Hemisphere and exports to 14 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- Mildly agree with Dan arndt Again, the BN site is down for maintenance and I didn't check it out before, but this seems significant to me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a local newspaper is not a blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- Comment - The Age newspaper is a reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- Comment - reinforces the earlier reference that Gascoiyne Furtniture supplied furniture to Prince Charles from another reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
- Agree with Dan arndt on this one, this was a verification source, not a notability source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuart Henry transcript of an after dinner speech by a local MP. Very fleeting mention.
- Comment - this is an extract from the Hansard Report from the Western Australian State Parliment - not a transcript of an after dinner speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
This looks like the typical result of scouring the internet for anything that contains the word Gascoigne and pasting it to the article. I'll leave it to the community to decide if these sources add to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about if i add photos from the company's relationship with Lady Diana and John Howard? I tried to upload when the article was created but was told the account wasn't old enough etc? Lucy4962 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not valid, unfortunately. As previously mentioned, notability is not inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy4962, do you have a connection to the company? LibStar (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucy, the issue being discussed here is the notability of the company much more than the verifiability of the claims. Even photos of Kim Gascoigne sharing a pizza with Lady Diana and John Howard at a table set up in front of the company's headquarters wouldn't help with the notability question. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification User:Dan arndt, FYI, factors taken into consideration in assessing notability for a company don't include the quality of its goods, the fame of its customers, or whether it's one of the largest manufacturers of a particular type of product in a particular political subdivision. Factors that are taken into consideration all have to do with whether the topic has attracted note as shown through significant coverage in independent reliable source. The factors you mention may have led to such significant coverage having occurred, in which case the article is includable on account of that coverage, but those factors don't directly establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In a nutshell: "verifiability, not truth" is the basic deciding factor for notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed which is why the references I have added are all from independently verifable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yrs, Dan, but not even all verifiable sources are ones that confer notability. They must have in-depth coverage, and notability is not inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to say that I believe Gascoigne Furniture has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - therefore confering notability. Significant coverage does mean that it has to be the main topic of the source material. Dan arndt (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you meant "does not mean", yes? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for the grammar correction, I did mean 'does not mean' Dan arndt (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eyeprint Verification
[edit]
- Eyeprint Verification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May not meet WP:NSOFT.
Note, article was contributed by someone whose username is the same as the company's name, but has been rewritten by me. —rybec 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, It does follow WP:NSOFT, it is being tried as an alternative to passports.JDgeek1729 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- JDgeek1729's version of the article was about iris recognition, which is is a widely-used technique that is distinct from Eyeprint Verification. As explained in the original version of the article, the latter is "exclusive" to one company, Eyeverify, and is based on scanning the whites of the eyes, not the irises. —rybec 03:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2013 (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. v/r - TP 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![Not a vote](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Emblem-WikiVote.svg/50px-Emblem-WikiVote.svg.png) | 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.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
- Usage share of operating systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOT Information is by definition constantly out of date. Not an encyclopedic topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might make sense to move info to pages on individual OSes/topics - e.g. it's reasonable in Windows 7 to discuss its comparable market share; same for Android, etc. But I think historical data on OS share would be an encyclopedic topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even when not up to the minute current, the article can show long term trends, and changes over history. The topic is by itself covered well enough to have its own article, and is an important aspect of our coverage of the topic of operating systems. — daranz [ t ] 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article seems much more up to date and better sourced than average in this project, although that is not sufficient reason by itself. As above, historical data seems fine, and the OS-specific articles seem to get unwieldy pretty quickly. Although with the divergence in platforms over the past few years, there is a bit of subject creep in this one. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. W Nowicki (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is the least out of date for Web clients and Summary (I maintained it for years each month). I agree that we should complete with historical data and not only *spot* data. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. 20:44, 8 November 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.24.147 (talk)
- Keep. Even if the article is a bit heavy on statistics and somewhat out-of-date, it can still be fixed. This is a common topic in tech journals, and it would be easy to write an article that went more in-depth. I hate make an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but even out-of-date statistics with limited commentary is pretty useful. At the very least, I think the usage stats should probably be merged into the appropriate articles (Linux, Microsoft Windows, OS X, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Article is inherently too close to the topic. Wikipedia was never intended to be a news site always reporting the latest statistics Useerup (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it can be re-written to incorporate both long term trends and the most recent data it may prove useful and of interest, at the moment it looks as though large parts are just whatever was the most up-to-date info available at the time, and is now somewhat out of date. I would volunteer to comprehensively re-structure it myself, but I have not been able to find sufficient reliable statistics, not knowing where to look. Alternatively, if it is too small and unecyclopaedic a topic to warrant its own article, perhaps a section within Operating System? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Intersting and useful! --91.229.57.240 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All Wikipedia articles are potentially out of date - but not nearly as badly so as in a print encyclopedia. There are many people who work together keeping this information as clear and as up to date as possible. As time goes by, the article becomes more interesting and encyclopedic as older information is condensed and summarised to make way for new, developing a background level that provides more richness and de[pth for the reader. --Nigelj (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Helpful information, lots of of sources - no reason for deletion. 92.225.88.125 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. Kind of withdrawn by nominator. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elementary schools are rarely notable, and the districts which they are a part of are actually less notable, as they are just an office for coordination of the various schools. not every govt org gets an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although I agree with nominator's assessment of the lack of notability of run-of-the-mill primary schools, l disagree regarding school districts. As the linked Google News archive search shows, these are elected bodies, often with hotly contested races, and they also often place multi-million dollar bond measures on the ballot, often highly controversial. Elementary school and middle school articles are often redirected to school district articles, so these articles help with Wikipedia's function as a gazeteer, which is mentioned specifically in the Five Pillars, our founding principles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Governments are inherently notable. In the US, school districts are governments and this district has been included in the most recent US Census of Governments (2012). This government will be mentioned in various budgets, educational studies, comparative analyses, and real estate analyses just like every other school district in the US. The baseline coverage of all school districts in the US exceeds Wikipedia notability standards. That erroneous assertions of government non-notability keep coming up seems to be showing a weakness in the guidelines. TMLutas (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep . This does not fall within our practice of redirecting nn primary and middle schools. Besides which, we need somewhere to redirect them to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - these are effectively local government bodies that raise large sums of money. Positions are elected and school districts have a high community profile. These articles also are a convenient repository for information about their constituent schools which, if middle or elementary are likely separately nn. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Every school district in the U.S. is encyclopedic, as is every public school. WP:5 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of ... gazetteers."--Hjal (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - School district articles are the target for redirects when the inevitable (horrible) elementary school articles pop up. While no one of these schools is notable under our established consensus at AfD, the collective entity is. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Close as keep from nominator. i wasnt really sure what to do with elementary/middle school DISTRICTS, but it seems like they are keepers, esp. to redirect school articles to. I had thought only school districts which included high schools made the cut, but the snow consensus is i was wrong. im cool with that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Somebody please close this now as speedy keep. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember The 13th Hoax
[edit]
- Remember The 13th Hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising through the backdoor The Banner talk 01:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator....William 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. This article does not violate any Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. Since this article has very recently been approved, Perhaps it needs more time to develop. Juiceentertainment (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Juiceentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well... a promotional article can always be cleaned up. I'll go through and remove the worst of the promotional prose so we can judge it on whether or not it passes notability guidelines. As far as an article passing AfC, I'll have to warn you Juice that this isn't always a guarantee of passing notability guidelines. It's a little bit of a sore subject on Wikipedia that a lot of articles can pass AfC but not pass the main guidelines for notability. There does seem to be an assertion of notability, but the bigger problem here seems to be a depth of coverage since almost all of the coverage is from a very short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/userfy. This did get some coverage, yes, but overall the coverage is fairly light. It spans a very brief point in time and much of the article coverage is brief in nature. A lot of it just repeats the same thing over and over again, which doesn't really give a depth of coverage regardless of how many brief articles you have. For comparison's sake, I'll hold up the AfD for the Ikea Monkey, something which easily received about 2-3 times the coverage that this website has, yet it didn't pass AfD either. The coverage just isn't here. I have no problem with someone userfying this for the time being, but I honestly doubt that this will gain any further coverage. What we have on the article currently seems to be the extent of the coverage in reliable sources and that's really only from a period of about 7 days. The internet seems to have largely ignored this website for the most part. It got attention and some views, but it's nowhere near as big as it'd need to be to really pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest a merge somewhere, but I don't really know any specific article that would really be appropriate. Viral marketing should really only have mentions that are overwhelmingly notable (ie, an article) and I'm a little leery about automatically adding every internet thing to List of Internet phenomena, as that turns it into an unwieldy and unmanageable list. It's not really an internet meme, so it can't be added to that list either. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://popdust.com/2012/03/14/yasha-swag-go-go-go-viral-video/
http://www.dailydot.com/news/pickles-yasha-swag-cheating-youtube-views/
http://now.msn.com/will-yasha-swag-become-this-year%E2%80%99s-rebecca-black
http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-12-07/okay-what-is-this-yasha-swag-pickles-video-all-about/
http://newmediarockstars.com/2012/12/internet-nonsense-yasha-swags-pickles-is-the-best-and-also-the-worst/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Viral-of-the-Day-Yasha-Swag-Pickles-313398.shtml
http://planet1051.com/yasha-swags-pickles-video-has-over-8-million-views-in-7-days-why-video/
http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Forget-Ultan-Sherry-say-hello-to-Yasha-Swag/155488.htm
http://worldofwonder.net/terrible-viral-video-of-the-day-yasha-swags-pickles/
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/beta-digital-column-29698038.html
It looks like he botted on his old videos but this time around he hoaxed the nasa website to get viral attention once again. I don't know if you guys think this is significant enough to add as an article? Or link it somehow with Remember The 13th?
- 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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John Scott-Taggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially unreferenced, no real notability ES&L 01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A simple Google search returns quite a large number of hits, plus also two book mentions. The subject seems to be of historical value, as evidenced if nothing else on the single link provided in the article. Here is his bio entry/authority control in the Library of Congress. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, yes he doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but WP:SOLDIER is WP:BOLLOCKS anyway. OBE, MC, entry in Who's Who: [16], crashed his plane into the sea on Christmas Eve 1929 (as reported in the Times)... Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have only just undeleted this poor chap. I'll be referencing and updating the article progressively over the next couple of weeks (I have to dig out the published articles on him)+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherers (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If Asa Briggs and Brian Hennesey thought him notable, that should be enough for the rest of us. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant here - that is really for career soldiers and those whose only claim to notability is in the fighting arm; his notability is as a technical expert in which capacity he served in the forces for part of his career, which his entirely different. --AJHingston (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The article needs wikifying and more detail. I would like to read more about "father of the transistor radio". If true, that alone would make him notable; similarly oversight of radar in Britain in WWII.
- Sorry forgot to sign this. Peterkingiron (talk)
- Keep -- (A. Carty (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- ((trout)) nominator and keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The Hennesy and Brigs sources strongly suggest notability though they are not in depth and and only two. The article contained some serious WP:PUFF calling him a "father of wireless and radio" which no source even comes close to saying, and even if one source did it would not be enough to establish such a massive claim putting him alongside Marconi. In fact the sources seem to portray him as an authority in Britain on the "wireless valve" (whatever that is) and for his journalism work. The article should reflect what the sources say. Contrary to the wet trout, I think the nom was right to look at this one askew considering the condition it was in at the time and the incredulous claim "one of the fathers of wireless and transitor radios" completely unsourced. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - and continue to fix it. An old aphorism goes, "AfD is not for cleanup." Bearian (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2013 (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.