![]() |
The result was delete. Consensus has changed. It appears the that passage of time has clarified the subject lacks notability for a standalone article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous deletion proposal ended in keep based on a single mention in a local/regional newspaper, with the hope that more sources could be found. More sources haven't been found. I looked around. There's basically this Wikipedia article, and a bunch of self-published websites and blogs. Fails to meet the WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources that could WP:verify notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a resume posting service. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about non-notable book. Prod removed by article creator, who just happens to have the same name as the book author. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list is a magnet for spam and red links. It is too large and unwieldy to be of encyclopaedic value, and in most cases is a duplicate of many country-specific lists or articles. Biker Biker (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cited independent sources in the page history do not confirm any of the claims which were in the article. [4] and [5] are announcements of book fairs in which this company gets less than a one-line mention as one of fifty or eighty exhibitors. [6] is a blog post which has no text other than a photo caption. The rest cites the company's own website or cites Wikipedia. The history is a WP:COI mess, with contributors including user:Aman Arora PR (there was an Aman Arora as "Manager Public Relations at Pustak Mahal" at the time that edit was made, in 2010, per [7]) and user:rrashmissingh (Rashmi Singh (author) has been attempting to promote her own books on Wikipedia, two WP:AFD's are already open on this). Some of the IP editors are also in the same 117.22x.xxx.xxx range used as IP WP:SOCKs to edit Rashmi Singh and her books (which may fail WP:AUTHOR as evidenced by repeated WP:AFD rejections as "Singh Rashmi", "Rashmi Singh Author" and each book title individually, including "Love's Journey"). The text being inserted is corporate advertising, pure and simple. Once the unsourced and promotional claims are removed (which other editors have done already) there's basically nothing left of the page. It would appear the company actually does exist, but with little more than a passing mention in the WP:IRS there's not enough verifiable info for an actual Wikipedia article. I'm not denying that any article on this topic could ever exist, only that one built only with these sources and this mess of WP:COI self-promotion cannot possibly be viable. K7L (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. I was responsible for stripping it back some months ago. I am still unable to find any acceptable sources that would suffice. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This autobiographical article does not establish notability with the 3 references given, and a search finds nothing usable. A news archive search returned nothing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no secondary sources of any significance to support this article. WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Thomas_&_Friends#Films.2C_specials.2C_and_miniseries . DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May be not notable per vlaid criteria nor WP:THOMAS and WP:EPISODE. It may be a non-notable HIT Entertainment product like Day of the Diesels. Petike (talk | contribs) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article that is clear fail of WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are weak, only shot at notability is having organized a one-off peace festival (there are Google News hits for that) but that is not enough. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. But refocus on software. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable company with a brand new piece of software. Notability has not been asserted for either the company or its product. Biker Biker (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to pass any criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Could not find any more coverage on Google News. Appears to be autobiographical. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As is normal, arguments with a basis in WP policy were given more weight. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be an infinitely-expanding list of...what? Works written in one language that are available in another language. Highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence for existence of any place or hill in Sussex called (the) Wormhill. Text appears to be based on the Bignor Hill entry in http://www.sussexarch.org.uk/saaf/dragon.html#main2, which says "Similar legends have been told of ridges around other hills, such as at Wormhill in Derbyshire." My CSD nomination as hoax was removed with comment "Not a hoax. Folklore", but without any comment on the above comment which I had made on the talk page. PamD 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded without comment. This is entirely an unsourced dicdef which amounts to nothing but "Aisle means X or Y". I couldn't find any sources explaining the term, nor anything that suggests this could ever be more than an OR-laden dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Allen Independent School District#Schools. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this article on grounds of WP:GNG. Content on page is standard "viatal statistics" of a elementary school. Already verified that there is no special citation/award for this individual school therefore this article can be deleted in favor of being merged to Allen Independent School District, of which this school is a part of. Standard sources on the web of rankings/location/news blotter that don't contribute to the notability of the article
Fair Dislosure: I grew up in Allen and can assert that this individual school is no more notable than any of the other 16+ elementary schools that don't have a individual article. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No prejudice to subsequent renomination or userficiation. I think that this discussion tilted slightly towards deletion, there were a number comments suggesting that while in general clubs of this level lack notability for a season article, this one might. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As agreed here and confirmed here, clubs lower than the Conference National are deemed below the notability threshold for season articles. Liamtaylor007 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this book, Rashmi Singh (user:rrashmissingh), has been engaging in self-promotion and has repeatedly attempted to create autobiography (as "Singh Rashmi" or "Rashmi Singh") and create promotional articles for each of the individual books. The notability of this person or the books has yet to be established. There have been complaints Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive122#Accusations of bias as these have been repeatedly submitted to (and declined in) WP:AFC and there appear to be multiple IP's and userid's in use. User:Love's Journey should likely be taken to WP:SOCK investigation as possibly being user:rrashmissingh; although the point may be moot as the userid is blocked, there's also a mess of IPs involved. Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for this user to promote her own books. K7L (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone poses as the President of America, will you believe it? And makes used id BbrackkObamma? Then why you are deviated to believe that this user is the author herself? It is so because it is easy for you to believe the same. When Sitush doesn't know whether she is Hindu or Christian and deleted 'Hinduism' as her religion only because she studied in convent schools then I think such kind of assumptions is possible. Well, in India, there are thousands of convents and mostly Hindus are studying there. So if someone says, he/she is the P.M. of India and makes id's as Pmpm, will you believe it? I think some crank user must have done so, probably any of her fan. Kindly refrain from putting this everywhere as she has been doing this. This shows quite a biased behavior.Ananyaprasad (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Jeopardy!. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains much useless trivia, fancruft, original research, and unnecessary details which cannot be reliably sourced in any way. I have merged any and all encyclopedic or useful information from this article into the "Theme music" section of the main Jeopardy! article, as I feel that this article contains too much unnecessary detail and does not appear to be encyclopedic. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) Friday, October 5, 2012, 17:34 UTC.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Band apparently fails notability criteria for WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Article has been tagged since 2009 for lack of any reliable sources and my recent search uncovered no substantial coverage -- only Wikipedia mirrors or insubstantial mentions. (Previous PROD was removed without addressing the issues, so I've brought this to AFD.) — CactusWriter (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Special editions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just another "special edition" volume for the popular Now! series. These albums never receive significant coverage in reliable sources, are rarely reviewed, and chart high on a compilation chart because 1) there're not that many compilation albums and 2) they are well promoted. This one, in particular, hasn't even been released yet and fails the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe sourcing only, couldn't find independent significant coverage required per WP:FRINGE "A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources" and Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources.
Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reliable sources: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject—such as the creator of a theory, and not the theory itself—should be given far less weight when deciding on notability."
In essence, this article can't put the topic into perspective with respect to the mainstream because the sources don't seem to exist, and so neutrality can never be satisfied. There is no content suitable for merging since weight is only given in articles covered by WP:FRINGE to what is discussed in independent secondary sources (the article is mostly WP:OR anyway). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks coverage in multiple reliable sources. No evidence of notability per WP:CORP. Kinu t/c 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Though the available sources show a limited level of notability, the general consensus from this discussion is that they are not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 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)) . |
This is a blatant advertisement to sell a book by a non-notable author and is likely autobiography. There have been repeated rejections of both "Singh Rashmi" and the individual books as topics on WP:AFC as this is WP:COI advertising with relatively few sources to establish notability. I'm not sure how this page got past WP:AFC. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to advertise books for commercial sale. K7L (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the WP:OSE essay explains the oddities that are geographical and schools articles. I don't agree with the approach to those but it is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"you are among the people expressing "keep" in this discussion who simply do not understand policy/guidelines and who are obfuscating things by making false charges etc."- I am still trying understand certain guidelines, yes, but what needs to stop here and right now is ad hominem approach while arguing. I have not made any "false statements". You're the one who is stretching this unnecessarily.
Extended content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
174.22x.xxx.xxx IP addresses? It looks like user:rrashmissingh and user:ananyaprasad are posting from the same Internet provider. Ananyaprasad is 117.224.142.131 in this edit and Rrashmissingh is 117.225.89.236 in this edit. Both are following the same edit pattern, if not vociferously "I am Spartacus" then at least both insisting just as aggressively "I am not Rashmi Singh". The addresses are dynamic IPv4's where every attempt to connect lands on a different address in a ridiculously huge block of 147454 IP's, so not everyone posting from the 174.224.0.0-174.226.63.255 range is Rashmi or is among the single-purpose users here to discuss these articles (Rashmi Singh (author), Love's Journey, Pustak Mahal) or edit the associated WP:AFC and WP:AFD pages.
The addresses belong to a mobile telephone provider (which may explain why they are highly dynamic) and cover much of northern India. As such, a checkuser would likely neither prove nor rule out the possibility that multiple accounts connecting via the same ISP to edit just the Rashmi Singh discussion are the same user. Any determination would therefore have to be based primarily or entirely on a comparison of edit histories of user:rrashmissingh, user:Love's Journey, user:ananyaprasad and any others which turn up in future with an identical pattern of promoting this single topic. K7L (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to lack notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. GSearch and GBooks produce not a lot of information about the article subject. He seems to be an Urdu poet who wrote a poem that was later popularised by Ram Prasad Bismil but there really is not much coverage at all even in non-English sources, and mostly his name is just mentioned rather than discussed. I'll flag this AfD at WT:INB in case it is a systemic issue. Sitush (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of notability. A company that gets the standard amount of local coverage, but no indications of any depth of coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper TheChampionMan1234 11:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's no dispute that the LSUC is a notable organization, but an article about the election of its Board of Directors (which is what the "benchers" are) is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. The article is an example of what Wikipedia is not and does not meet the general principles of WP:Notability. For the most part, a routine election of an organization's board of directors is of minor, if any, importance outside the organization and is really a matter of internal corporate governance and administration. The only sources for the article are the LSUC's own website, while the "further reading" consists of blog posts of little interest outside the legal community. The article itself is simply an opening statement that the LSUC election will be held in 2011, followed by a list of all the canidates. This is not supposed to be a directory or a data-dump. Agent 86 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the assassin of Hrant Dink. Falls under WP:1E all the relevant information is covered in Assassination of Hrant Dink George Spurlin (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the big issue with this book. While no one can deny that Steel is notable, I'm not entirely sure that I can say without a doubt that she's so notable that all of her books are automatically notable by extension. Part of me says yes, part of me says no because while she's influenced so many I'm not entirely certain that she's at the point where it's absolutely undeniable. Rather than just redirecting it to her article, I thought I'd bring it up to AfD for a wider consensus since this isn't a cut and dry notable/nonnotable discussion for me. As far as sources go, I found three: two trade reviews and a spot on ABC News, but three sources are not enough to show notability. The book did achieve NYT Bestseller status but that doesn't actually extend notability and is considered trivial in the grand scheme of things. The Kirkus Review is so bland and non-descriptive that I almost didn't use it. A search only brought up trivial mentions. I'd love it if someone can dig up more sources that actually go over the novel, but this appears to be non-notable outside of the author's notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article describes a "financial news" site of extremely marginal notability in typically sugarcoated promospeak. Going through the "references" provided, we find most of them to be self-published material (or simple reposts thereof) or simple passing mentions in this or that publication. The strongest thing this has going for it is probably its Forbes blog, but I'm not sure that alone is sufficient. Overall, the article is written almost entirely in an unencyclopaedic fashion and seems to fail WP:ORG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a vanity publisher that has attracted no notice from reliable secondary sources, hence failing WP:GNG. Claims to be India's largest book distributor, but that is unsupported. Batard0 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article was PRODed by User:Argento Surfer but had previous contested PRODs. I didn't notice this and deleted the page (*trouts self*). PROD concern was "Non-notable minor fictional character. Very little real-world information on subject." Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. declined speedy, not sure why. zero gnews hits and zero in trove [44]. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal TheChampionMan1234 04:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page whose purpose is unclear. Dictionary definition of a term, sourced by a bunch of websites dedicated to the use of that term. Possible promotion. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. No independent sources and nothing obvious in google. No evidence of awards. Created by an WP:SPA with a similar name to the self professed author of the software. PROD removed as the first edit of a brand-new account. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bootleg. Getting a review at Allmusic, having a few mentions in print, and selling 15,000 copies establish that this exists, but it fails WP:MUSIC. Bootlegs are usually not notable and this is especially true for a band like Pink Floyd who have hundreds or thousands. This one is of mild interest for the main article, but doesn't warrant one of its own. (Google search for sources.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not notable (contested speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a self-published account of how a UK police officer has been gravely wronged by the public and by the system of justice in the UK. The plot summary speaks for itself (note, I have removed a worst element, but it was minor). Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia does not exist for this sort of account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources to WP:verify notability, as required by the general notability guideline. Nomination three years ago ended in no consensus, mostly on the good faith belief of the "keep" commenters who believed that there was potential for this article. I've looked into that potential and concluded that further searches WP:WONTWORK and won't turn up more than a single sentence mention here or there (which are not enough to establish notability). The coverage we need doesn't exist, and so this must be deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, suggest redirect to election article. Arbor8 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer, has not received significant coverage, never played for a fully-pro team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and more importantly WP:GNG. Also the sources he gave to a match report dont help as the player is not listed as playing. PROD was contested without giving a reason. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment: He has now officially played in his first official match today (see here) but of course he fails GNG still so I will let you guys decide. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep . Already moved to new title, should be edited so as to be an article about the event and not a biography. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. High profile murder case currently underway, but I cannot see any prospect this will have lasting historical significance. Certainly, the article does not explain why there would be any. Moondyne (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
Keep - Perhaps the name of the page should be changed to one of the suggestions above, but this is certainly a case that will be discussed and written about for many years. There is a lot of information than can be added to this page as it is, but I am refraining as the trial is in progress.Athomeinkobe (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but (for now) move to Death of Corryn Rayney per several views above and to more fully conform with notability guidelines. Comparable with Death of Azaria Chamberlain. Bjenks (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this vanity piece about an obscure service provider (with a whole eleven employees) that pimps for brand names qualify under WP:CORP? I don't see it; but will readily admit there may be cultural barriers involved. (Just reading the article nauseates me.) Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There are some valid arguments made by those who wish to delete this, but there are also some very odd objections with a dubious basis, as well as some backhanded accusations of bad faith. I would suggest that the page's author seek help at WP:RSN to help them determine which of the sources they wish to use would be suitable and which would not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO reddogsix (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
|
---|
A. The Foreword of Armstrong's first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003), was written by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: advisor to Pope Paul VI, catechist for Blessed Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, a major Catholic catechist and author, whose cause is now being considered for sainthood. He gave a glowing recommendation of Armstrong's apologetics in the Foreword, and he is listed on Wikipedia, too. B. Dr. Scott Hahn: probably the most well-known Catholic apologist today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (2002; albeit self-published). He has a Wikipedia entry as well. C. Joseph Pearce: arguably the leading Catholic biographer alive today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's latest book, The Quotable Newman. He also has a Wikipedia entry. D. The esteem and importance in which Armstrong and his work is held by virtually all the most important fellow Catholic apologists across the board is shown in what they have said about him, in unsolicited remarks. These are listed on his Literary Resume page online: Dr. Scott Hahn: "Good stuff. Keep up the great work . . . rather remarkable cyber-talents." / "Thanks again for the great work you're doing for Christ and His Church." Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (prominent Catholic apologist and author): "I always appreciate your work." Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the live call-in TV show on EWTN: The Journey Home): "You utterly amaze me! Such good stuff . . . Dave, keep up your effective and eternally valuable apologetic journalism!" Patrick Madrid (well-known Catholic apologist and prolific author [listed in Wikipedia]; editor of Envoy Magazine): "I admire, as ever, your fantastic and penetrating work for Christ and His Church." / "Keep up the fantastic work with "Biblical Catholicism." All of us at Envoy love it and often refer people to it." Mark Brumley (CEO of Ignatius Press): "Your site continues to look good and to be among the most useful." Amy Welborn (well-known Catholic author and blogmaster; listed in Wikipedia): "There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong." Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books; listed in Wikipedia): "I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site." Moreover, the fact that Armstrong has been published by four major Catholic publishers of apologetics is significant: Sophia Institute Press (it specializes in Catholic classics, and Armstrong is its best-selling author): five books; Our Sunday Visitor (the largest Catholic publisher, with a Wikipedia entry): a pamphlet (Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked) and notes for the bestselling New Catholic Answer Bible; Catholic Answers: the largest Catholic apologetics organization, and Saint Benedict Press (eight books in all, and a very popular pamphlet) shows that he is widely respected in this sub-community, as an author and apologist. He also worked on staff for three years as an online moderator for the forum at The Coming Home Network: a major and well-known Catholic organization. He has been published in many of the important Catholic apologetics magazines, multiple times: This Rock (now Catholic Answers Magazine), The Catholic Answer, The Coming Home Newsletter, Envoy Magazine, and The Latin Mass, among others. He has appeared about twenty times on Catholic radio shows,several of them nationally syndicated (EWTN), such as Catholic Answers Live (twice), Catholic Connection (Teresa Tomeo), Kresta in the Afternoon (three times), and Faith and Family Live (Steve Wood), among others.
Armstrong specializes in "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" (the name of his website), and this is considered an important aspect of modern Catholic apologetics. He consciously writes books for the masses and tries to make Catholicism more understandable to them. If it is objected that he is not an academic, it should also be noted that many of the most famous and influential and respected Catholic apologists were and are not, either, or (like Armstrong) had no theological degree or formal training. G. K. Chesterton had no college degree at all. Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, and Malcolm Muggeridge were academics, but not in theology, as was the Anglican C. S. Lewis (an English professor). Karl Keating and Frank Sheed were lawyers. This is nothing new. There are plenty of lay Catholic apologists, fully encouraged by the Catholic Church.
Armstrong's work has been the subject of numerous prominent feature articles and interviews in the Catholic community. He has these listed online, on his Literary Resume page: A. He received the award, Website of the Year (for 1998) from the staff and advisors of Envoy Magazine, and was a finalist (with three others) for "Best New Evangelist" (Envoy, January/February 1999, 10). B. His website (online since February 1997, with nearly 2,500 articles) was positively reviewed in New Covenant magazine, August, 1998. C. "Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics' "Socratic Evangelist," interview with, and article by Tim Drake, for the regular feature "Diplomatic Corps," Envoy Magazine, Spring 2002, volume 5.6, 8-9. D. Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004. E. Review of The Catholic Verses, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, October 2005; reprinted in Ignatius Insight. F. Review of The One-Minute Apologist, by Carl E. Olson, in National Catholic Register, August 26 - September 1, 2007 issue. G. His book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (Lulu) was reviewed by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the January / February 2009 issue of The Catholic Response (Vol. V, No. 4, pp. 31-32). Fr. Stravinskas will also in the near future write reviews of Armstrong's two "officially published" books in 2012: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers) and The Quotable Newman (Sophia Institute Press). H. "'Can I Get a Quote on That?': An Interview With Dave Armstrong," Gilbert Magazine (Vol. 13, No. 5, March 2010, pp. 14-17; interviewer: Dale Ahlquist (who hosts shows on Chesterton on the EWTN television network), is a leading expert on Chesterton. This periodical is published by the American Chesterton Society (Ahlquist is President). It was devoted primarily to Armstrong's book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton. I. "My Two Conversions: An Interview with Spanish Journalist Itxu Díaz," of the Dicax Press Agency (April 2011) J. "Ten must-see web resources for Catholics" (by Mark Shea; OSV Newsweekly, 21 February 2012; Armstrong's full-time apologetics ministry was one of the ten profiled). K. "Lessons from Catholic Evangelists," by Jim Graves, The Catholic World Report, 22 August 2012. [Armstrong was cited at length as one of five interviewees in the article] L. Reviews of Armstrong's books on Amazon come from a variety of well-known, active fellow apologists, and his books are rated highly (usually four stars or above).
Armstrong's body of work (even ten of his self-published Lulu books, as in this instance), was regarded so highly that a set of them was published by Logos Bible Software: the leading company devoted to online / computer / electronic Christian and biblical resources. They offer the Dave Armstrong Collection. This is doubly significant because Logos is primarily a Protestant organization. They do have a Catholic division now, and Armstrong is one of the few living Catholic authors included. If we include these published works, it brings Armstrong's total of "officially" (not only self-published works) to eighteen, which is quite notable and significant for any author to achieve. Furthermore, the libraries that stock Armstrong's books indicate the importance given to them: A. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003) -- this can be verified at Google books -- is carried in the libraries of Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Marquette University, Harvard Divinity School, and at least 23 others. B. The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is in eleven libraries. C. The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is also carried in eleven libraries. D. Even Protestant seminaries and colleges carry his books. Dallas Theological Seminary has three of Armstrong's Sophia books. Liberty University has The Catholic Verses. Hope College, Geneva College, Abilene Christian University, Master's Seminary, and three others have one or more of his books. Moreover, his thus far self-published book, The Quotable Wesley, is being seriously considered for publication, by a major Wesleyan publisher, Beacon Hill Press (no small feat for a Catholic apologist, if it is accepted). Lastly, if it is objected that Armstrong publishes books on his own, in addition to his eighteen "official" ones, it should be noted that they (or a revision, as in one case) were later published by conventional publishers in four instances (and with three of those, even with minimal additional editing). This includes his most famous title, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. If The Quotable Wesley is "officially" published, that will be the fifth time this has happened. This, along with the Logos Collection, indicates the high quality even of his self-published work, and of his editing skills (in the case of collections of quotations). His body of "official" work (eighteen volumes published by reputable five publishers, including a Protestant one) is indeed substantial and noteworthy: hardly deserving of the disdain shown by the reviewers who wish to delete his entry. |
Uzma Gamal asked: "You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[7] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic." Nice try. I did that precisely because you wrote, above: "Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources . . . Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone [sic] articles)." Thus, I posted articles from periodicals. Most of them do not have a link since most are not online, or no longer online (and you said websites and blogs are unreliable anyway): but they can be checked, just as any bibliographical source can be. These articles are "out there." They exist. Others have a link, but it is to Armstrong's site (he cut-and-pasted the articles onto his blog in several instances; e.g., the interview with Dale Ahlquist of Gilbert Magazine, about Chesterton), and I was informed above that links to his blog are automatically deleted, because (who knows why?) it has caused problems of some sort in the past. Thus, those sources can't be added, and no one can go read them (unless they search independently). Yet other articles are only available in a temporary archive at Catholic Answers (e.g., four articles published in This Rock in 2004), so I thought it best not to make those links. Links to the articles I added (where they exist at all: and some are already obsolete) can be found on Armstrong's "Literary Resume" page on his blog (linked from the top right of the home page): this is where most of the info. I have added was found. Other possible links would be on Internet Archive only, which I deemed best not to bother including (figuring -- the way it has been going -- the validity would be disputed).
This is my explanation for what I did. It was a perfectly rational response from a "Wikipedia rookie" (I probably screwed up again in some fashion, regarding these endless guidelines, but I'm explaining my rationale, from where I sit and what I know about Wikipedia policies at this point: which obviously ain't much! LOL). The whole process is far more complicated than I ever realized. In any event, I've spent more than enough time here (way too much, in retrospect). If the article goes down, it goes down. It's pointless for me to spend more of my time on this when it seems to be a futile effort, on all counts. I will say, however (on a positive note) that it's heartening to me to see that Wikipedia has such high standards, because I'm an enthusiastic advocate of Wikipedia and use it all the time (and always defend it when folks run it down as a supposedly altogether unreliable, unscholarly source). Thus, despite my present exasperation and frustration over having wasted so much of my time for what may end up as "nothing", I'm truly delighted to see this rigor and high concern for accuracy and substantiation. I'm one with y'all there. But I don't have time to keep pursuing this, and it's no high priority to me at all. It's become a "diminishing returns" scenario, so I'm done with the effort. Thanks for listening to my opinions and bearing with my considerable ignorance of Wikipedia policies (for which I apologize). For what it's worth, I agree with the reasoning that the article could or should be kept as a "Writings of" article (presumably modified accordingly). That makes sense, but others (who know the ropes around here) will have to argue that case. Logos-Word 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources. No evidence of any notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Part of a walled garden including Antal E. Fekete and Sandeep Jaitly (the latter also at AfD). Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion, as it may be a bit difficult to find sources for a Spanish band that has not been around since the 1990s. But I've tried searching for sources using search combinations of the band's name with their various song titles, and have not been able to find any sources that support the content in the article. Perhaps other editors will have more success than I have. The article asserts the band had "hits" but it is not clear what that means. Also, I could not find a corresponding article on the Spanish Wikipedia. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This company does not appear to be notable. Only news hits found were press releases. Eeekster (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A musical that never garnered any notability. The only external link present is the (now defunct) official site, and I am unable to find a single reference online mentioning this stage show. Rorshacma (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]