886:. I'm less convinced than S Marshall. A lot of work, and new references have been added, and that is enough to at least see it re-tested at AfD. The sources are not so impressive. There are too many YouTube references for comfort. Of the three references that S Marshall points to, the first and third do not do much to satisfy the GNG for me, but the second does somewhat. --
296:
I'd think someone in marketing might find this to have some pretty significant value. Seeing how marketing and slogans have evolved over many years seems, well, useful. I admit I tend to have a very wide view of what others might find useful, but this honestly seems a lot more useful to me than 90%
257:
Incorrect close. the key reason given for deletion was not that it was unreferenceable, but that it was currently unreferenced. That's contrary to deletion policy, and should not have been closed as a delete. It was also argued that it was trivial and "cruft", but that's a matter of opinion, and with
776:
articles, both of which had been deleted multiple times in the past until someone took the effort to write an article demonstrating their notability. Of course both are extremely popular and well-sourced now. I think Alex Day has enough coverage to pass the notability bar, but a new AfD is likely
1347:
comparing the current state of the article with the state at the last review and there is no substantial change. Anyway this DRV is going the way of the original AFD using the discussion as a vehicle for a out of process FAR discussion. Last time there was a FAR following the AFD. That can happen
472:
if the article had been horrible that would perhaps be enough, but the discussion was a pretty clear NC (leaning perhaps a bit toward delete) and the article itself isn't that bad. I don't see a strong policy-based reason to delete nor do those arguing for deletion make a solid argument. It's
1173:
you can buy knives and many more items. There isn't a single reliable reference or a source that indicates the worthiness of this person to have a wikipedia page. The references point to magazine articles known to post paid advertising articles or pages that no more exist.
383:. Considering that this was a 7 year old article with 854 edits from 270 users, and that the content was in no way controversial, I'd like to see a stronger measure of consensus before it is deleted. The content seems verifiable. A google search readily reveals that
1275:
I am well aware an AFD on this article will be closed as keep, but this DRV has even less chance of succeeding. As the nominator also so placed an AFD template on the article it appears he is confused by the deletion processes, which answers my original question.
765:: I think the article as currently drafted is so long and full of references which don't go to establishing notability (i.e., meeting GNG) that unfortunately most will have trouble assessing. The BBC called Alex Day/Nerimon a youtube "star" way back in 2008
1316:
This is an advertisement, but it's clearly fixable and should therefore be fixed rather than deleted. No, this material is not of an appropriate quality for a featured article, and in my view a FAR is unnecessary: I think it can be summarily demoted per
950:, with no objection to a new AfD if anyone thinks he's still not notable. The draft isn't perfect by any means, but there are enough new sources that weren't present when the original AfD was (correctly) closed as delete to justify further discussion.
506:. Proper close, but could have done with some narrative to forestall exactly this foreseeable request. Any deletion of a "list of..." article will almost inevitably be challenged, usually by those who painstakingly compiled it from primary sources.
852:
if we can verify that Alex Day and
Nerimon are one and the same person. The AfD correctly found that subject passes the GNG but fails WP:ENT. It incorrectly found that WP:ENT overrode the GNG. IN fact, when in doubt the GNG should prevail, so
768:, but we have a sort of bad-but-understandable precedent here about youtube notables that keeps out some notable ones in the effort to fight the endless attempts to create articles about nobodies on youtube. I know this as the creator of the
539:
per MuZemike. The arguments for deletion were based on policy, while the ones for keep on the assumption there must be sources out there (which they never provided). BTW shouldn't temporarily undeleted articles for DRV fully protected?
352:
of finding the material necessary to support an article lies with those who want it kept. In the fourteen days the AfD was open, not a single source was presented. This is evidence in favour of the arguments that the article fails our
930:
When policies appear to conflict, only the community can decide the proper interpretation, and the place would be a second AfD.Not my subject exactly, so I'm not at all sure what my opinion thee would be if i even had one.
156:
1293:- This is completely absurd. The article is a Featured Article and has gone through FAC and FAR. Subject is notable, article is properly sourced. Whatever happened to raising concerns on an article's talk page?--
340:- The AfD could probably have been closed as no consensus after the first seven days, but the opinions after it was relisted were unanimous in favour of deletion. Of the three keeps the first was
628:
1169:
I disagree with the decision to keep that page. It's a blatant advertising of the business owned by the person. The claims that you can't buy his products anymore are false. On his website
240:
the original decision. The article was/is crufty, suffers from a huge lack of references, and in my opinion the subject matter itself does not rise to the level of notability.
1000:
Pointedly insulting terms do no good. No good for the subject, editors, or the project. If you think promotion is the underlying problem, please simply point the authors to
74:– Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that deletion was the proper reading of the discussion in light of the lack of sources cited either in the article or AfD. –
1261:
is a different matter and article changes since the last review and changing standards will have a bearing. Odd as well is the long contribution break of the nominator.
1152:
48:
34:
964:
Could someone please point out to the fans of this vacuous nonentity that "talked about on youtube (source: comments on youtube)" is not acceptable referencing?
43:
744:
632:
144:
204:
I'm getting a 404 error on the cached copy. Can we please get a temp. undelete of this page? The discussion is hard to follow without it. Thanks
473:
sourced in places, could use other sources and is almost certainly soureable for every factoid (even if primary sources are needed in many cases.)
311:
And that's a good point, well made, but I'm afraid I find myself agreeing with Drmies. I think you'd need better sourcing to justify an overturn.—
561:- Exactly the way I had been planning on closing it—the delete arguments were per policy whereas the keep arguments had less policy grounds.
739:
stated that the page was ready to be moved but Alex Day is protected. The request to move the move the userspace draft has been denied. See
1140:
165:
39:
1334:
917:
870:
808:
324:
287:
186:
21:
1161:
707:
548:
1239:? At a glance I also think that page focuses way too much on his knifes for a biography and believe it could do with a new
447:
Well, it proves to our partners that we're not just wikiing off, that we're doing something useful like getting published.
1370:
1090:
1044:
657:
581:
94:
17:
845:
527:
MuZemike's analysis matched my own, a closure I had no memory of making. (Perhaps because this was 14 months ago.)
752:
429:" does is indiscriminately sell repackaged Knowledge (XXG) content, so that's really not indicative of anything.
345:
722:
360:
policy. Considering these facts, I think the closer correctly judged consensus in light of the relevant policy.
732:
566:
114:
1074:
490:– The arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention here, which comprised mostly of "there
1300:
1218:
192:
341:
110:
70:
1357:
1338:
1305:
1285:
1270:
1252:
1223:
1203:
1183:
1079:
1027:
1013:
995:
977:
959:
942:
921:
895:
874:
831:
812:
786:
756:
748:
644:
618:
570:
553:
531:
519:
498:
482:
456:
442:
420:
408:
396:
375:
328:
306:
291:
269:
249:
231:
213:
198:
83:
841:
1353:
1330:
1266:
1199:
955:
913:
866:
804:
348:
out there somewhere. The closer did right in ignoring the first altogether, and recognizing that the
320:
283:
274:
Could someone please explain to me in what sense that page was supposed to have encyclopaedic value?—
180:
79:
1175:
1179:
1110:
1009:
891:
773:
769:
562:
392:
1018:
I'm actually curious how calling the subject of an article something like that isn't a BLP issue.
349:
736:
636:
546:
495:
1294:
1212:
437:
416:
1318:
820:(the earlier versions of the article itself are in place in the history behind the redirect)
411:
book's publishers obviously value
Knowledge (XXG) material more highly than some editors do!
1281:
1248:
640:
452:
245:
1258:
1240:
1236:
1070:
1001:
818:
all versions in the talk p history temporarily restored for discussion at
Deletion Review
1349:
1322:
1262:
1195:
1023:
951:
905:
858:
796:
528:
478:
312:
302:
275:
209:
174:
75:
173:
The page should be referenced. References might be from encyclopedias and trivia sites.
1106:
1065:
1005:
887:
609:
388:
368:
354:
988:
972:
966:
938:
827:
792:
779:
740:
677:
541:
514:
508:
265:
227:
849:
431:
412:
1348:
again if someone requests it. The question now is was the AFD closed correctly.
448:
241:
1019:
986:"vacuous nonentity" - only on wikipedia can you pick up gems like this. :-) --
474:
298:
205:
791:
I don't think I can evaluate this without seeing the pre-deletion version of
1211:
any concerns with the article can be addressed at the article's talk page.--
606:– Recreation allowed, without prejudice to any subsequent AfD discussion. –
426:
361:
1343:
I doubt that the WP:SNOW argument would stick with a WP:FAR. I checked the
795:
and examining the sources that, according to the AfD, were listed therein.—
1235:
All this is four years old, why did you come here rather than start a new
1257:
Any new AfD will just look back and say notability has been established.
1069:– speedy close: you can't challenge a keep after this long. Create a new
933:
822:
766:
673:
602:
260:
222:
258:
only a few participants , it's insufficient discussion to decide.
1194:
Close fits consensus. Subsequent FAR review confirmed FAR status.
387:
cover the same subject, including at least one physical book. --
1170:
629:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination)
297:
of our sports coverage and 80% of our place-name coverage...
344:, and the other two were unsupported assertions that there
1344:
1147:
1133:
1125:
1117:
714:
700:
692:
684:
236:
I've looked at the discussion and the article, and see
151:
137:
129:
121:
840:
Thank you, DGG. The matter is exactly as I thought.
219:
temporarily restored for discussion at
Deletion Review
884:Allow recreation, allow immediate testing at AfD
745:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alex Day
633:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alex Day
8:
1089:The following is an archived debate of the
656:The following is an archived debate of the
93:The following is an archived debate of the
1058:
627:The article was nominated for deletion at
595:
63:
904:I wouldn't object to a subsequent AfD.—
631:. I have notified the participants of
735:and asked for requests for feedback.
7:
1373:of the page listed in the heading.
1047:of the page listed in the heading.
584:of the page listed in the heading.
848:suffice for the GNG, and so would
28:
1369:The above is an archive of the
1043:The above is an archive of the
580:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
1171:http://www.emersonknives.com/
1028:12:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
1014:22:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
996:02:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
978:21:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
960:12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
943:19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
645:23:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
619:09:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
571:12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
554:12:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
532:01:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
520:21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
499:17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
457:19:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
84:04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
1358:17:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1339:16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1306:14:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1286:13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1271:13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1253:12:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1224:17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1204:11:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1184:09:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1080:18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
922:10:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
896:10:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
875:21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
832:21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
813:16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
787:12:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
757:10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
483:20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
443:18:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
421:10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
397:10:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
376:21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
329:23:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
307:20:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
292:21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
270:21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
250:21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
232:20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
214:20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
199:20:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1396:
731:Made some imprvoements to
1376:Please do not modify it.
1096:Please do not modify it.
1050:Please do not modify it.
777:to occur to test that.--
733:User:Half price/Alex Day
663:Please do not modify it.
587:Please do not modify it.
494:be sources out there". –
100:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1259:Featured article review
1241:featured article review
381:Overturn (no consensus)
238:no reason to overturn
1076:SarekOfVulcan (talk)
1237:deletion discussion
1093:of the page above.
774:Ray William Johnson
770:The Annoying Orange
660:of the page above.
635:about the new AfD.
111:List of NBC slogans
97:of the page above.
71:List of NBC slogans
747:for more details.
1383:
1382:
1337:
1057:
1056:
994:
976:
920:
873:
811:
785:
617:
594:
593:
525:Endorse own close
518:
327:
290:
1387:
1378:
1329:
1327:
1164:
1159:
1150:
1136:
1128:
1120:
1098:
1077:
1059:
1052:
993:
970:
948:Allow recreation
912:
910:
865:
863:
855:overturn to keep
803:
801:
784:
763:Allow recreation
727:
725:
717:
703:
695:
687:
665:
616:
614:
607:
596:
589:
544:
512:
366:
319:
317:
282:
280:
195:
189:
183:
177:
168:
163:
154:
140:
132:
124:
102:
64:
53:
33:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1374:
1371:deletion review
1323:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1146:
1145:
1139:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1123:
1116:
1115:
1094:
1091:deletion review
1075:
1048:
1045:deletion review
906:
859:
797:
721:
719:
713:
712:
706:
699:
698:
691:
690:
683:
682:
661:
658:deletion review
610:
608:
585:
582:deletion review
551:
542:
372:
362:
346:must be sources
313:
276:
193:
187:
181:
175:
164:
162:
159:
150:
149:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
120:
119:
98:
95:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1393:
1391:
1381:
1380:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1206:
1167:
1166:
1156:
1143:
1137:
1129:
1121:
1113:
1107:Ernest_Emerson
1101:
1100:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1073:discussion. –
1066:Ernest Emerson
1055:
1054:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
981:
980:
962:
945:
927:
926:
925:
924:
899:
898:
880:
879:
878:
877:
835:
834:
815:
789:
729:
728:
710:
704:
696:
688:
680:
668:
667:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
622:
621:
592:
591:
576:
575:
574:
573:
563:Reaper Eternal
556:
549:
534:
522:
501:
485:
470:Overturn to NC
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
400:
399:
378:
370:
350:responsibility
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
272:
252:
234:
216:
171:
170:
160:
147:
141:
133:
125:
117:
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
61:
59:30 August 2011
56:
49:2011 August 31
47:
38:
35:2011 August 29
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1392:
1379:
1377:
1372:
1367:
1366:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1326:
1320:
1315:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1298:
1297:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1209:Endorse Close
1207:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:Endorse Close
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1163:
1154:
1149:
1142:
1135:
1127:
1119:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1078:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1053:
1051:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
998:
997:
991:
990:
985:
984:
983:
982:
979:
974:
969:
968:
963:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
944:
940:
936:
935:
929:
928:
923:
919:
915:
911:
909:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
882:
881:
876:
872:
868:
864:
862:
856:
851:
847:
843:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
824:
819:
816:
814:
810:
806:
802:
800:
794:
793:Talk:Alex Day
790:
788:
782:
781:
775:
771:
767:
764:
761:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:Talk:Alex Day
738:
734:
724:
716:
709:
702:
694:
686:
679:
675:
672:
671:
670:
669:
666:
664:
659:
654:
653:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
620:
615:
613:
605:
604:
600:
599:
598:
597:
590:
588:
583:
578:
577:
572:
568:
564:
560:
559:Endorse close
557:
555:
552:
547:
545:
538:
537:Endorsw close
535:
533:
530:
526:
523:
521:
516:
511:
510:
505:
502:
500:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
480:
476:
471:
468:
467:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
440:
439:
434:
433:
428:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
404:
403:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
379:
377:
374:
373:
367:
365:
359:
358:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
330:
326:
322:
318:
316:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
279:
273:
271:
267:
263:
262:
256:
253:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
233:
229:
225:
224:
220:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
190:
184:
178:
167:
158:
153:
146:
139:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1375:
1368:
1324:
1301:
1295:
1290:
1277:
1244:
1232:
1219:
1213:
1208:
1191:
1168:
1095:
1088:
1064:
1049:
1042:
987:
965:
947:
932:
907:
883:
860:
854:
821:
817:
798:
778:
762:
730:
662:
655:
611:
601:
586:
579:
558:
543:Sir Armbrust
536:
524:
507:
503:
491:
487:
469:
436:
430:
405:
384:
380:
369:
363:
356:
337:
314:
277:
259:
254:
237:
221:
218:
172:
99:
92:
69:
58:
846:this source
842:This source
342:just a vote
44:2011 August
1350:Agathoclea
1325:S Marshall
1302:Μολὼν λαβέ
1263:Agathoclea
1220:Μολὼν λαβέ
1196:Agathoclea
952:Alzarian16
908:S Marshall
861:S Marshall
799:S Marshall
737:The editor
612:Sandstein
529:Courcelles
425:All that "
315:S Marshall
278:S Marshall
176:nymets2000
76:Eluchil404
1176:Powermugu
1006:SmokeyJoe
888:SmokeyJoe
427:publisher
389:SmokeyJoe
989:Milowent
850:this one
780:Milowent
674:Alex Day
603:Alex Day
550:Contribs
496:MuZemike
20: |
1319:WP:SNOW
1291:Comment
1233:Comment
1162:restore
1126:history
749:Nominal
723:restore
693:history
504:Endorse
488:Endorse
432:postdlf
413:Thincat
406:Comment
357:ability
338:Endorse
166:restore
130:history
1278:Yoenit
1245:Yoenit
1071:WP:AFD
1002:WP:COI
637:Cunard
449:Drmies
385:others
355:verifi
255:Relist
242:Drmies
1148:watch
1141:links
1020:Hobit
1004:. --
973:Help!
939:talk
828:talk
715:watch
708:links
515:Help!
492:might
475:Hobit
299:Hobit
266:talk
228:talk
206:Hobit
152:watch
145:links
52:: -->
16:<
1354:talk
1345:diff
1296:Mike
1282:talk
1267:talk
1249:talk
1214:Mike
1200:talk
1180:talk
1134:logs
1118:edit
1111:talk
1024:talk
1010:talk
956:talk
892:talk
844:and
772:and
753:talk
743:and
701:logs
685:edit
678:talk
641:talk
567:talk
479:talk
453:talk
438:talk
417:talk
409:This
393:talk
364:Reyk
303:talk
246:talk
210:talk
138:logs
122:edit
115:talk
80:talk
32:<
1153:XfD
1151:) (
967:Guy
934:DGG
823:DGG
509:Guy
371:YO!
261:DGG
223:DGG
157:XfD
155:) (
22:Log
1356:)
1321:.—
1299:-
1284:)
1269:)
1251:)
1243:.
1217:-
1202:)
1182:)
1026:)
1012:)
992:•
958:)
941:)
894:)
857:.—
830:)
783:•
755:)
643:)
569:)
481:)
455:)
441:)
419:)
395:)
305:)
268:)
248:)
230:)
212:)
197:)
82:)
42::
1352:(
1335:C
1333:/
1331:T
1280:(
1265:(
1247:(
1198:(
1178:(
1165:)
1157:|
1144:|
1138:|
1130:|
1122:|
1114:|
1109:(
1022:(
1008:(
975:)
971:(
954:(
937:(
918:C
916:/
914:T
890:(
871:C
869:/
867:T
826:(
809:C
807:/
805:T
751:(
726:)
720:(
718:)
711:|
705:|
697:|
689:|
681:|
676:(
639:(
565:(
517:)
513:(
477:(
451:(
435:(
415:(
391:(
325:C
323:/
321:T
301:(
288:C
286:/
284:T
264:(
244:(
226:(
208:(
194:l
191:/
188:c
185:/
182:t
179:(
169:)
161:|
148:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
118:|
113:(
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.