< 18 December	20 December >

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 Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) under CSD G3. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks (2012 TV series)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rubinkumar (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, nothing about it online, latest in a series of WP:HOAX articles about cartoons. Filing Flunky (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any sources for this. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment creator was just blocked for 72 hours for creating more hoax articles. 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax (especially in the light of the editor's other hoaxes). Tagged as such. Sparthorse (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Every Love Song Has Good Memories[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NALBUMS. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep album by significant and notable artist. references do haowever need to be improved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NALBUMS: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this is a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V for lack of references. After three weeks on AfD all there is are two links to Chinese search engine results. Sandstein 08:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I:Cube[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this musician. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found a bit of (possible significant) coverage on Google and Google News. Some of these are French sources, so I can't tell how substantial the coverage of I:Cube actually is.
~~[1]~~
[2]
~~[3]~~
[4]
[5]
[6]

See also French Wikipedia article. HurricaneFan 25 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The 3rd reference does not seem like a reliable source. I:Cube is a musician for Versatile Records - "Rather than following the crowds along a given and inevitably ephemeral path, we take to the open road and our artists release the kind of music we hold dear..." SL93 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Beatportal, the first reference, is a blog. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks — I didn't really check the quality of the sources. I've struck them. HurricaneFan 25 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speak French, and reference #2 seems like a good one to me. I wouldn't use any of the others, personally. Alternative search term "Nicolas Chaix" doesn't seem to bring up any useful sources either. We really need another source. Failing that, what we have is content that passes WP:V (having one reference) but fails WP:N (not having two), which indicates that it ought to be redirected or merged somewhere rather than deleted. But we don't seem to have anything like a List of French techno musicians that would serve as a target.—S Marshall T/C 02:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the stub after there was no entry and the artist was listed on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music/Performers_and_bands#I page. A page for him had been requested on there, I fulfilled it. I don't see what benefit deleting the article brings, Wikipedia gains nothing and takes a step back in completeness in my view. Just because he stays out of the media limelight, doesn't mean his commercially released records are less valid than any other professional musician. In fact, I wonder if these kind of articles are more valuable because they collate information on a subject that isn't so easy to just pump into google and get worthwhile results. His music is heard regularly by millions in the UK as it is constantly used in factual programs, especially "Adore". In summary. I didn't request a page for him, someone else did, and he has released far more commercially than a lot or artists who have pages on Wikipedia. Arguably many of them are far less notable, just more vocal. GQsm ^{Talk | c} 02:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4WeHelp Cincinnati Movers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero significant coverage for this local moving company. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like spam. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail the WP:GNG.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of significant coverage means article fails wp:gng and wp:corp. Chris (talk - contribs) 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no reliable sources to make it notable. Stedrick (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam, possibly speediable RadioFan (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Stein[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mix one part Content fork of information located at Characters of Monster High, one part overly in-universe content, and one part original research, and you've got this article. I found that the character is a doll (of a set of many), and that the author has offered but a few sentences on the character, but I've found no substantial independent commentary that would make this fictional character individually notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncboy2010 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 December 2011‎

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. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Foxification of News[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well cited but nevertheless clear original research, relying on a synthesis of published sources to develop an original line of social and political science research. While some may find it to be an interesting and well-written academic paper, it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. causa sui (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/The_Newspaper_in_Canadian_Society_(Michael_Valpy) causa sui (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly an essay, not encyclopedic. The extent of the OR and POV issues is such that little is salvageable. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't original research to organize information from multiple sources in a thematically coherent and linguistically pleasing way. A argues X[ref], but B argues Y[ref] isn't OR because the facts appear in the same article, or are conjoined by a "but". Reading NOR so strictly reduces articles about social and political issues to useless quote farming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This concept (putative bias of Fox News and similar media) is discussed in reliable sources, cited in abundance, such as The Economist editorial entitled "Impartiality: The Foxification of news"! Rename the article if necessary, but it isn't as though the author were presenting their own views. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Clearly OR/Synthesis, and a POV essay to boot. Some of the content could be merged into the 'Assertions of Conservative Bias' section of the Fox News article, provided it was written in an NPOV tone. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the credit for originating this concept goes to The Economist, not the author. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half-hearted Keep: (edit conflict) Although the original draft of the article seems to contain quite a bit of synthesis, I disagree with the statement that it relies on synthesis to develop an original line of research. Following the Google links above clearly shows the existence of the concept of news "Foxification" long before this article was added. Trimming the "Books" search to "Foxification" +news yields enough results to establish notability of the subject; poor compliance with sourcing and MoS guidelines by a new editor is a reason to help fix the article, not a reason to delete it. (As for "half-hearted", I can't say we need another Fox News Channel controversies fork to serve as a coatrack, but the "Keep" is an attempt to WP:AGF and a belief that the scope is broader than the title implies.) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So... you think it's a coatrack, and an unnecessary POV-fork, but you want to keep it because of WP:AGF? I don't want to disrupt the class project either, and as sympathetic as I am to such things, I can't believe the closing admin will consider that a convincing rationale to keep the article. This is about making editorial decisions about what content will be in Wikipedia, full stop. causa sui (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it could easily become a coatrack and the title might suggest a POV fork. That's where the AGF comes in. The overall subject of the article is, as I pointed out, hardly original to this author. If the professor who assigned the topics for this project had placed more emphasis on being NPOV and encyclopedic, and less emphasis on the potential of a title to grab attention, something like "Politicization of news" could have been produced with far less outcry while keeping much of the existing, sourced content and adding a broader set of examples. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, delete per nomination. causa sui (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (1) A huge amount of well-done work here by a new content contributor. Kudos for that and I hope your time at Wikipedia is lengthy, productive, fun, and fulfilling. (2) This title is pretty obviously that of an original essay — and, it could reasonably argued, a POV essay at that. "Foxification" is a non-notable neologism, for starters. Encyclopedia entries should generally be constructed around nouns for twosies. While "The Foxification of News" would make a swell topic for an essay in The Progressive or The Nation or In These Times, say, and something that I would personally like to read, it 's not an encyclopedic presentation of an encyclopedic topic. Fox News and the 24 hour news cycle are already covered; the impact of hyperpartisanship upon television news is a subject for empirical research or polemic — neither of which has a place at WP, for better or worse. (3) Since this started in a sandbox hopefully it is still there. In the event this closes as a delete, will the closing administrator please make sure that the content creator still has the info okay, as there is doubtlessly content that would be suitable at either of the two standing articles that I mention, or other standing articles that I do not mention. I hope the content creator dusts himself off and gives it another go, slicing the bread differently next time. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of the articles in this project at ANI seems to be deciding/have decided (it's archived already) to "re-userfy" pretty much all of the articles, with only a couple of exceptions to be merged to existing topics. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fat&Happy above, a rewrite into an essay on Politicization of news might be able to be done dispassionately. It seems, however, that a standing piece on Sun News Network is another likely place where some of this material may be adapted and put into play encyclopedically. The content creator is cautioned to carefully read, reflect upon, and accept the essential Wikipedia doctrine of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW before embarking upon that. This is sensitive ground... Carrite (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominating editor. Points made are identical to those I brought forth on the talk page. An interesting article, but unfortunately original research at one of its best examples. A perfect example of a college essay. Arzel (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Other articles related to this project such as Newspaper commercialism also suffer from the same problems of original research and synthesis of material. The latter is of particular interest as it has a conclusion section completely void of sources. Arzel (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that section as inherently inappropriate for a WP article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems pretty clear by now that this particular project is not destined to go down in Wikipedia history as a shining example to be emulated.

Who takes action based on the ANI discussion? It seems to have finished on the 15th with all sorts of apologies and mea culpas from coordinators and such, promising to fix the problem by returning the articles to user sandboxes, yet here we are a week later still looking at individual articles. What's the procedure for waking someone to do the follow-up? Fat&Happy (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: well sourced original research. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of this article depends on the opinion piece "The Foxification of News". The Economist. 9 July 2011". Editorials and opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources, and the remainder is definately original research. SeanNovack (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced summary of stuff that has been around for years. Not original research by the usual and customary definitions here.Nofatlandshark (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a sourced attack article, aimed at trying to influence readers with opinions and synthesis of others, as well as the articles creator. Not much could be salvaged from this diatribe.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, synthesis and opinion I get...but "attack" and "diatribe"? You're going to need to justify that one a bit more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One person's "attack" is another person's "pointed critique". The difference is meaningless for the purposes of this discussion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's simply out of scope and no level of sourcing can alter that fact. Merge/redirect is only needed if you can use a non-trivial amount of text in another article, without completely rewriting it. But, if anything in this article were used elsewhere, it would need to be fully rewritten to satisfy NPOV. Sources can be reused elsewhere without a merge/redirect. We already have ample space provided for criticism of Fox News in the main article, and in Fox News Channel controversies. People can also add to Sun News Network, and I'm sure there will soon be a Sun News Network controversies. Having this article under any name, means there's one extra place where people can sneak in POV that they hope fewer eyes will see. Also, much of the "sourcing" of this article is actually worthless. The author writes about things that are entirely beside the point, such as CBC funding, and provides a citation for the irrelevant point. And, I would actually say this is an attack piece. The article states "Fox News has commercialized and mainstreamed a style of discourse identified by political historian Richard Hofstadter as the paranoid style.[47]". Notice, how the description of Fox is given as a definitive fact, not an attributed opinion. Footnote 47[7] is to a 1964 source, which obviously predated Fox News, so can't possibly support the full sentence. Using a single citation at the end of the sentence was a sly way of implying the whole sentence was supported, when it just supported a fragment. It's kind of like saying "John Smith is a homosexual, which is a man who has sex with men[1]" and using a source[1] that confirms the meaning of homosexual, but doesn't mention John Smith. That is an attack. A smart attack. A typical stupid attack, is deleted in 5 seconds. --Rob (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like this concept has some notability, probably enough to justify an article. In addition to the piece in the Economist, I found these on Google Books and Scholar pretty easily: [8][9][10][11][12][13]. I don't see any of these cited in the article though, which surprises me. In fact, I tend to agree with the opinions above that this page, as it is, is unsuitable for Wikipedia. (Though it may be fine as an essay.) So I guess my !vote is Delete as is, but I'm willing to reconsider if this is rewritten. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A well-written, well-sourced analysis that does not belong in Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of airports in Ireland. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyboughal Aerodrome[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a bit of a weird one. I was brought to this article by the tag requesting that the geographic coordinates be corrected; but as I searched around online, I ran into one roadblock after another. Although several sites dealing with airports have a page for this place, most or all of the sites seem to depend on user-submitted information. The location that most of them give (53°32′03″N 6°14′46″W / 53.5341°N 6.2460°W / 53.5341; -6.2460) appears on Google and Bing maps to be an agricultural field planted in crops, with no sign of a hangar or any other facility for aircraft (and certainly not the 1,700-foot asphalt runway specified in our article), and a scan of the surrounding area on both Google Maps and the Irish OS map turns up nothing that looks like an airfield. The purported ICAO code for the airfield—EIBA, found in our article and on some of the external sites—does not exist according to page 61 of this 2006 ICAO document, and the "Airfield Trust" said by our article to run the airfield appears to actually operate—or to have operated—an "urban farm" tourist attraction in Dundrum and not any airports (as shown by the complete Wayback history of its Web site at http://www.airfield.ie). All in all, though I can't go so far as to say that this is a hoax, it certainly seems to fail WP:V for lack of reliable sources. Deor (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - while WP:RS do need to be found, I found this at somebody's private site - not RS, but a hint: "EIBA, Ballyboughal, N, 53, 31, 53, W, 006, 16, 27 ? 1997, Agriculture, Closed? Runway gone by 2009." So, apparently, a closed airport. Notability is not temporary, and closed airports are as notable as open ones, but if we can't find sources, well... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually any substantial closed airport/airbase leaves traces behind which are visible from a satellite view, even in verdant agricultural land (eastern England is covered with them); but at those slightly different coordinates you found, there's no sign of any leftover infrastructure or traces in the fields. Perhaps there was a basic airstrip there at some point, but if so I think it was little more than a field, and I doubt it would be intrinsically notable. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a Naul Road running through the site, but searches based on that are complicated by the coincidence that there's another Naul Road a few km south, next to the very real and notable Dublin airport. bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While notability isn't temporary, if there aren't reliable sources, this was notable never. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; without substantial coverage by independent sources, it appears to fall short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Following up on The Bushranger's information, I found this site (not necessarily a reliable source, I know), where the spelling "Ballyboghil" is used. Searching for that spelling, however, led me to even less than I found for "Ballyboughal". Deor (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to have been notable to have an ICAO code allocated but apart from that zilch, perhaps redirect to List of airports in Ireland which nearly says more about it in one line! MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable thing to do. Redirect to List of airports in Ireland. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, per MilborneOne and The Bushranger. 1,600 feet of asphalt is more than a grass field.Red Hurley (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that this is OR is clear. As for the userfied version, send that to MfD if need be. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social, Ethical and Legal Implications of Bioengineering Animal Species[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as it stands, this is a WP:POVFORK of Genetically modified organism, especially the section controversy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an editorial. Anything salvageable could go into the main article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious case of original research. --NellieBly (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although some of this is really BJAODN-worthy. "The specie being created will not have the same make-up as any other animal. This specie will not have a family. This is an issue because it is not right for anyone to not have family members" and "Many people believe that the bioengineering of animals is very inhumane for the reason that they do not get a say" are just a bit over the line between a dispassionate accounting of facts and advocacy. FWIW, most of the history section is plagiarized from the first link; the first two sentences are way too close to sentences in the original. Horologium (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it may be of serious academic interest, the subject is inherently unencyclopedic, and the article moreso. causa sui (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is inherently encyclopedic, so you've made an error. We've already got an article that covers it over at Synthetic_biology#Challenges. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it isn't really a stand-alone topic; it could possibly be part of Genetically modified organism, but that is outside of my scope. It has been suggested that this may in fact be a school assignment, perhaps we could split the difference by sending it to the user's sandbox? TreacherousWays (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork, violates WP:OR. Obviously unencyclopedic essay, and a pretty terrible one at that. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article under discussion has nothing to do with Genetically modified organism, so both the original nominator and TreacherousWays are incorrect. This is neither a POVFORK nor unencyclopedic. This subject is about bioengineering synthetic organisms, which falls under synthetic biology, and is already covered under the Synthetic_biology#Challenges section which is entirely encyclopedic and ripe for splitting out into a new article as this new user has done. Unfortunately, this discussion shows that the community is more interested in ganging up on new editors and nominating their articles for deletion than helping collaborate and build the encyclopedia. This article was created by a new user who registered their account at 22:03, 18 December 2011. They created the article at 18:46, 19 December, and it was tagged for deletion at 20:06, 19 December 2011‎. All throughout, only one person made an effort to talk to them, while their user talk page received four template messages (if you include the welcome template). At the very beginning, someone should have pointed them to the synthetic biology page which covers this topic, but apparently, the editors in this AfD aren't here to help new users, but to template and delete their articles, which is precisely the behavior the Foundation concluded was leading to dwindling rates of editor retention. Congratulations. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you took away the OR, how much would be left? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not OR in any way. It's a new user who started a new encyclopedia article about the ethics of bioengineering synthetic organisms. Granted, what they have now is not usable, but it is a legitimate topic in biology and has many reliable sources supporting it. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "This is an issue because it is not right for anyone to not have family members." If that's not OR, I don't know what is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The topic is not OR. It is a well-established subject. We don't delete articles based on one strange statement. Baby, bath water, etc. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You said, "It's not OR in any way", and I just showed you some OR. QED. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't shown anything of the kind. That's not OR. The issue of whether new species can form families and reproduce is a standard topic in the ethics of bioengineering. The author's opinion that "it is not right for anyone to not have family members" does not change the fact that this subject is well-established. We don't delete articles because a new editor adds a value judgment. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You said there was no OR in the article, and I've demonstrated that there is OR in the article. So, again I must ask, if you were to take away the OR/editorializing/personal-opinion from the article, how much of the article would be left? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And, I've previously informed you that the subject of whether new species can form families and reproduce is a standard topic in the ethics of bioengineering. It's not OR. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said the subject was necessarily OR. I said the article content was OR. And it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The article content is based on standard topics found in the literature. It's not OR. That the new editor has chosen to take a stand on some of these topics in violation of NPOV is another matter altogether, and isn't a good reason for deletion. This XfD is another wonderful example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. A new editor comes here to contribute and instead of being welcomed with open arms, is template bombed and has their article nominated for deletion in a matter of hours. Nobody here wants to do the work, so they come here to complain. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        When every other commenter feels something is WP:OR, and one commenter alone feels otherwise, one can either decide that the consensus of editors is badly mistaken or that the lone holdout is wrong. The more likely possibility is the latter, which is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Likely or not, in my opinion Viriditas is right here, and the "consensus" ganging up upon him/her is wrong. --Lambiam 01:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "Ganging up" is an interestesting choice of words, considering that there were 8 "delete" !votes before Viriditas made his first comment, and only 4 after (to this point) -- how can that be construed as "ganging up"? And why the scare quotes around "consensus"? So far, you and Viriditas are the only voices heard in opposition, the rest of the comments have been to delete -- is that not a consensus?
        So, are you saying that you agree with Viriditas that there is no OR in the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I agree with V. The article contains many statements that present viewpoints that have been brought forward in the ethics debate concerning the creation of new live forms by bioengineering. As such these viewpoints can be sourced to reliable sources. What is wrong with the article as it stands, is that the author only presents those arguments and opinions from the debate that s/he apparently agrees with, and does not present them as points-of-view in a debate, but as if they are factual statements. So the article violates WP:NPOV, but that does not make it WP:OR. At least in theory it could be rewritten to a neutral point of view, which, however, is not easy; like for any ethics article, it requires the editor to be familiar with the debate and the variety of arguments and viewpoints. --Lambiam 11:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Would it be useful if I go into the article and remove or tag all the OR statements, and see what's left? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think that's necessary. If things keep on in this fasion, there's likely to be a snow close as delete, or, at the very least, a regular close as delete in 7 days. The dissenting opinion of one editor doesn't seem to be finding any traction, not at this point, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR essay, no-brainer Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't original research,[14] and I'm getting the sense that nobody here knows what that word means. That's typical of XfD, of course. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's laden with editorializing, which is a subset of... tad-dah... original research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not laden with editorializing. You merely pointed to one value judgement the author made, which does not make the subject as a whole OR. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having just re-read the thing, I can confidently say that nearly every sentence in the article is personal opinion, and Tiger's reading of it is probably correct. It looks like an essay I might have written for an assignment in 4th grade or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is your "confident" opinion, then I would have to say that your opinion isn't worth very much at all. The first statement in the article, "Bioengineering was first introduced in 1976, with Genentech" isn't an opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That statement would be considered factual, and also factually correct if it were sourced. And that's the point. There are maybe 3 factual statements in the article. The rest is editorializing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a homework assignment. Obvious WP:ESSAY And btw, I learned how to write articles by getting templates slapped all over my early efforts. It's character-building. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got it backwards. Template messages are the problem, not the solution. "Slapping" template messages on new user pages is deprecated. Don't do it. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where does it say that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've never heard "Don't template the newbies"? Were you raised by wolves? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Close. Wolverines. :) And what I've usually heard is, don't template the regulars. So are you saying don't template anybody? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request to keep this discussion on the inclusion of the article, and pursue a discussion on the merits of templating the regulars/newcomers elsewhere. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite what Viriditas says, there is no salvageable content in the article; it reads exactly like someone's essay assignment. It is full of original research: "There are many social implications of the bioengineering of animal species because it is an unnatural process"; " it is not right for anyone to not have family members"; "The specie would have to rely on human researchers to take care of it and give it the care it needs"; "Another implication is choosing who is to care for this animal and take responsibility for it. Who will own it? Who will pay for any medical care it will need?" (OR, then editorialised); "Precautions need to be taken incase this animal is used for food and is poisonous." Those are the most obvious ones taken from one section alone. I've checked each one against the three source - the sources seem to be more further reading, rather than actual sources for information presented in the article. I appreciate the concerns expressed by Viriditas that this is from a new user, etc etc; however, if we were to remove all of the original research, we would be left with next to nothing, certainly not enough to continue with. Thus deletion is the best way to go; if someone wants to write a friendly message on the author's talk page about why the article was deleted and how to better contribute to Wikipedia in the future, go for it (I'll do it if no one else wants to). No, we shouldn't bite the newbies; however, that should never be a licence to allow blatantly unencyclopdic & unsalvageable material to remain on Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:POV out the wazoo. With regards to Viriditas' comments above, Wikipedia:Don't template the newbies does not exist. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars does. And is an essay, not a guideline, not a policy. I have no idea where this DTTN comes from, but if people break the rules, that's what the templates are for, no matter who they are. Regardless of this side-discussion, request snow close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Viriditas is confusing WP:Don't bite the newbies with WP:Don't template the regulars.
  I concur with the snow close request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't template the newbies is an old essay from 2009 that is currently best practice on Wikipedia. That so many people here don't know this is a problem. I haven't confused anything. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where's your citation for that editor's personal essay being acclaimed "currently best practice on Wikipedia"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Best practice...sorry for being blunt, but "yeah, right". It's (a) an essay, not a guideline or policy; it's (b) in userspace, not even WP space, and (c) Wikipedia doesn't have "best practices". "Best practices" become guidelines or policies - that this essay remains in userspace demonstrates its importance (specifically, lack thereof). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note that Viriditas has copied the article into the author's userspace (not "moved" as he wrote on her talk page, since it remains in mainspace), so that she can work on it.[15] While this is often done for articles which are "not ready for prime time", as many of the commenters here have noted there is very little indication that this specific article -- as opposed to another article on the same subject -- will ever be suitable for mainspace. Because of this, I would like to suggest that if this discussion is closed as "delete", the exactly equivalent userfied article should be deleted as well, rather than go through the unnecessary bureaucracy of a seperate MfD for it. There is no indication in the comments of the contributors here that anyone, other than Viriditas, sees userfication as a proper outcome of this discussion, so his bold action should not be taken as representing a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Viriditas seems to have strong feelings about the article. Maybe he should userfy it to his own space (or maybe his PC, offline) and see if he can salvage an actual article from it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork and pure original research. Night Ranger (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork and original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. (Since there's already a copy in user-space, that translates to "delete"). I agree 100% with the OR concerns; but this is an area where wikipedia needs better content, and I believe the creator is well-intentioned. Right now, the content of the article is not suitable for article-space but if the original writer hasn't been put off by diving in at the deep end and realising there are crocodiles in the water, perhaps they'd be able to change the text so it's less like an essay and more like a summary of what reliable sources say, and that would be a good thing, and I would cheer if the improved content is later returned to article-space (perhaps with a slightly different title, or added into an existing article). I don't think we're going to improve the encyclopaedia by repeating "This content is bad" - that point has already been made - rather, we should focus on "How we can get better content?". bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to get better content in regards to this essay would be to delete everything and start again - there is nothing (not even the title) which could be salvaged from this article and ever used again in the mainspace. I echo Beyond My Ken's call to delete the userfied version too. If anyone believes that something can be salvaged from this article, then they can start working on it. If the article is significantly improved before this discussion is closed, then there would be reason to keep it. If that does not happen, it further proves the point that the article is beyond repair. Essentially, if the article is not unsalvagable, then someone should easily be able to prove us wrong. Until and unless that happens, my delete votes stands. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have argued above, the article may be salvageable, but not easily – it requires that the editor be familiar with all sides of the debate. --Lambiam 19:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way for this article to be salvaged is to blow it up and start over - it's a notable topic, but the article is not something that can be salvaged in any way shape or form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is well known, but the article is absolutely original research. If an editor wants to improve the article, that's his or her choice, but the current article should be deleted while and if that happens.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The nominator withdrew the nomination per the sources found and posted by User:Coin945, as well as User:Coin945's arguments for topic notability. (Non-administrator closure). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Belt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is not notable as a region. The only source provided, from the USDA, does not use the term "rice belt" or the word "belt" once. I cannot find any sources which mention a "rice belt". ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What about here and here. "Rice belt texas" gives 6170 hits in GoogleBooks. Include all four states in the search and you get 970 hits - and these sources seem pretty darn good on first glance. On normal Google, there's 13,400 hits!. My argument isn't no. of hits, but just have a look at even some of those hits and you'll be convinced in the subject's notability. I'm convinced.--Coin945 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right - well found. I withdraw this nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Strategies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of RS coverage suggests that it is non-notable. Tagged as such since August. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in Google news - can't see any sources that will fulfil WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos Munegabe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this article technically satisfies the NSPORTS guideline (we can verify that this person played in one FIFA "A" international friendly against Namibia in 2002), there is no additional information available and it obviously fails the GNG. In the two years this article has existed no editors have added any information, and after fairly extensive searches I was unable to find any additional information about this person (including date of birth, club career, etc). I'm asking that we apply some common sense where an article technically passes a notability guideline (NSPORTS), but cannot be a useful article because there are insufficient sources. Jogurney (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - common sense should be adopted when dealing with notability, and this individual, other than less than 90 minutes in an international match nearly a decade ago, has no claim to it. Giant Snowman 09:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we're going to start using common sense then let's use it properly, for example on players who have appeared in one or two League Two matches, rather than delete articles on players who have represented their countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand your point, but the difference here is that this article will never have more content that its current state unless this person eventually gets more (some) coverage in RS. Why not recreate when and if that happens. Jogurney (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way is that a difference? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suspect most articles about people who appeared in one or two League Two matches have more RS available (so we know what clubs they played for, when and where they were born, etc). We have nothing like that for Cosmos Munegabe. Jogurney (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the common sense idea. There is no future notability to be expected. If it occurs; recreate. Stormbay (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only is it common sense, but WP:NSPORT specifically says that BLP's also have to meet the general notability guideline. This article clearly does not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The waterpolo precedent notwithstanding, the result of the discussion clearly points the opposite way. Perhaps it was the weather, perhaps the motion of the constellations. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Group nominations of all individual sport articles linked in Template:EventsAt2011SoutheastAsianGames. This grouped AfD was preceeded by an individual AfD for Water Polo, the result of which was a consensus to delete. Per that consensus, which I believe applies equally to the other event articles for the 2011 Southeast Asian Games. In general, problems are no reliable, independent sources that demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. A complete list of nominated articles follows:

Articles Nominated for Deletion in this Grouped AfD

ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 18:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least football, basketball, swimming and athletics -- those had plenty of coverage, at least on my neck of the woods. Weak keep on baseball, softball, and billiards & snooker per same reason. Dunno on the rest, but if the premise is one is kept, that means the others should be kept too. The basketball event had ~3k+ views per day when the tournament was ongoing, while football had ~15k+ page views, implying interest, ergo references should be very easy to find at least on those two. –H T D 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I think straight deletion is a nuclear option without much thought. A much more useful approach would be to merge the information from the notability-failing articles into a games-specific results page at 2011 Southeast Asian Games results (2002 Commonwealth Games results is an inelegant example here). Such a sub-article is warranted, the targets can be section redirects, and there is no clear reason why we should delete information when it is suitable to merge it elsewhere. Notability is easily achievable for the major sports events, with the Athletics page being an example of the standard that can be achieved with a bit of effort. SFB 19:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of athletics, that article actually has prose and I count at least 5 valid references, including one from the IAAF! The nominator could've picked the really bad eggs. I've been watching these pages last month and most of them are really bad, either they're a sub-stub or incomplete. Those that are bad should probably be redirected to 2011 Southeast Asian Games or to a new article as SFB has said, although I dunno if someone will work on it. –H T D 19:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all articles, where a real content exists (for instance Badminton at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games, Archery at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games, Wall climbing at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games etc. (no merging), delete all articles consisting only of headers like Fin swimming at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games, Table tennis at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games. --Florentyna (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP major and popular sport articles (football, basketball, badminton,athletic). KEEP, other article which content is reliable. Just FYI, most of content in seagames 2011 article is correct (i am watching sea games 2011 in tv), but the editor have difficulty to find reference in english ( most of reference in Indonesia) --*Annas* (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, Wall climbing should be renamed Sport climbing, per the 2011 Games site. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - The same series of sports articles exists also for the 2005, 2007 and 2009 Southeast Asian Games. So if deleted we will have to look at these other years as well. I am quite sure there is a lot of coverage on these events, and it is also televised in many Asian countries. We just lack English language coverage about it. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara and David[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web); no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Article originally claimed, with no reference, that it was the "world's first 3D webcomic", but I can find other claims for this online from as early as 2001 so far [16]. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find reliable sources to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable third-party sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only can I personally say that there's been other 3D webcomics that've come before this (although many got deleted when geocities and the like stopped existing), but there's no reliable third-party sources to prove that this series is notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I'd happily keep if sources were found to establish notability, but there aren't any that I can see. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Stokes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating per outcome of discussion here.

Original reason: This is one of ten bios created from a CNN award for "a normal person, they're doing a normal job," to quote CNN itself. Point is, this is WP:ONEEVENT and also a good example of how widespread coverage in a national publication can still occasionally not be an indication of notability. In fact, I think that this set of articles is the textbook definition of BLP1E.

Of course what these individuals are doing is great, but it can be sufficiently covered in an article about the CNN Heroes series/award. We don't need new BLPs to do that either.

I'm nominating those that don't have coverage outside of the CNN related coverage. A few entries have additional references unrelated to the BLP1E so I am not nominating those. This particular nom only applies to this article. Shadowjams (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Expand CNN Heroes with more referenced content from reliable sources. If the 2011 section there gets too big, then it can be split off to CNN Heroes 2011. If any one person in that new split-off list gets more notable beyond BLP1E, then it can be split off to its own article, but a WP:Walled garden of mini-stubs like these should for now be corralled back into the one article. Filing Flunky (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. This articulates much better what I've been thinking on the topic than I was able to communicate. Shadowjams (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemon Bucket Orkestra[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable band in the Toronto Music Scene, connected to Fedora Upside Down Sunrise Records the Kensington Market scene and tradition folk music in the city. They play sold out shows with 1000 people : http://www.robteehan.com/the_boxcar_boys/2011/10/fedora-upside-down-festival-.html . Well known in the Canadian music scene. One of the members, Michael Louis Johnson is very well-known, has connections with Broken Social Scene and Leslie Feist. Yohowithrum (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this article is sourced with reliable sources, which are current and well-publicized. Yohowithrum (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's questionable whether the references mentioned in the article or above meet guidelines for reliable sources. The claim that they are Well known in the Canadian music scene. is not backed up by these or any other sources. Bands are the one place where notability can be inherited Wikipedia-wise but without an article or further references making the notability of Michael Louis Johnson clear, we cant really use that here to determine the notability of this band. Are we putting the cart before the horse here?--RadioFan (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in question include Now (magazine), Metro News, Canadian Jewish News and various websites. They are well known in the Canadian music scene, however, I have excluded said point from the article itself because I can't find a solid source for that. Based on the recent sources for the band, I judged them notable. I have also added a note of their involvement with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra ^[1] Could you perhaps provide some advice onto how to improve this article as to avoid its deletion? Thanks! Yohowithrum (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, I looked at the notability guidelines. I found three examples:
"7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." This is supported in the article, the band is known for their unique style and scene and are considered ambassadors for that. The references are in the article.
"11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network." Their song "Lemon Cheeky" has rotation on CBC Radio 3. http://radio3.cbc.ca/#/bands/Lemon-Bucket-Orkestra
"12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Was broadcast Nationally on CBC Radio by Gilda Salomone. http://www.rcinet.ca/english/column/gilda-s-playlist/16-05_2011-11-15-nans/ Yohowithrum (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. EURO-World Network closed as keep, additional articles should be nominated seperately. v/r - T P 15:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EURO-World Network[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP as I cannot find any significant secondary coverage. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a co-nomination, along with:

CroatianTV-America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HungarianTV-America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NEXTV America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They are all part of the same company and I can find no coverage of any of them. SmartSE (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Althought all 4 articles need a lot of work there does look to be some references out there although I do admit that some of them are in foreign langauges I don't understand and some are not what I would consider strong sources. --Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide some links? I searched myself but couldn't find anything beyond passing mentions. SmartSE (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EURO-World Network, I'm finding a number of mentions in Google News the other articles are not needed. This can be adequately covered in a single article on the network. RadioFan (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, can you show what you mean by "mentions in google news" - are they enough to meet WP:CORP? SmartSE (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I mean its enough for some coverage in Wikipedia but I'm not seeing enough here to warrant a dedicate article.--RadioFan (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that the title of this article has been corrected to EUROWorldNetwork RadioFan (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem and why all of a sudden this article has been part of Wikipedia for over 2 years and was just recently updated to reflect new & up-to-date information. Please explain to me how this process works and why this is now an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC5Bandidos (talk • contribs) 07:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes articles escape notice for a while. It might have been patrolled by a new editor. Lots of reasons. Notability guidelines apply to all articles, longevity here doesn't give it a pass. RadioFan (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 05:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently an internationally distributor of radio programs, and therefore important. It would help to have specific references, but the many very notable stations it distributes are in this case sufficient evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. For the record, I disagree with M.O.P.'s comment that the promise that there is a plethora of sourcing doesn't determine notability. WP:GNG requires that sources exist, not that they are actually included in the article. WP:V requires sources in the article but isnt a notability guideline. Also, in response to James500, the WP:BURDEN of proof is on those advocating to keep an article/material. Rebuttles aside, the consensus is to keep. Article has been improved, renamed, and sourced. v/r - T P 15:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy advocacy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really much of an article here. All it does is explain the word in a short paragraph. This belongs on Wikitionary - not Wikipedia Oddbodz (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need an article defining the expression. The meat of the article, which is about scientists advocating for or against political policies, is important. However it should be in an article on "Science and politics" or perhaps in a section of scientist which whould discuss scientists acting in other roles, and the pluses and minuses of that. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is only a dictionary entry. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dictionary entry, not encyclopedia article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just a quick peek at GoogleBooks reveals notability. Current status should not make a difference. Yes, right now it may be a dic def but as a fully formed article, it would be great. The concept deserves to be in an encyclopedia.--Coin945 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDICTIONARY is not a reason to delete an article that is capable of expansion.
Google Books has 91,200 results for this, including, on the first page, books with the titles "Policy advocacy:Experiences and lessons from the Phillipines" and "Budget analysis and policy advocacy".
I am inclined to keep this. James500 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contingent upon expansion of article with addition of reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I'm tempted to close this as a delete, but, since people keep claiming that there are sources, I'll give it another round. People arguing keep; remember that we can't keep an article around on the promise that there's a plethora of sourcing to be added to it, or that there are a bunch of Google hits. That is not a valid rationale. Please either expand the article or demonstrate notability conclusively, otherwise it will be deleted or soft-redirected to Wiktionary.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 05:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't keep an article around on the promise that there's a plethora of sourcing to be added to it". No, the burden is on the nominator to positively check and confirm that there are no sources available and that article cannot be expanded. See WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC) If you want to delete this, you need to positively tell us that it is not notable, not challenge us to find evidence of notability. James500 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) At this point, no one has asserted that "policy advocacy" isn't notable, so there is no valid rationale for deletion in the first place. James500 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments above in this debate were predicated on this article being located at Policy advocacy. Not that that isn't easily fixed. James500 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now moved the page back to Policy advocacy. James500 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfocused article without specific sourcing. I think an article could be written on the subject, but this isn't a useful beginning. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been moved to Policy advocacy and Science and expanded since 12 December. I am not sure what DGG means by "specific sourcing". The article now has a list of nine sources. James500 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC) In fact the article was referenced to two papers to begin with. James500 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am inclined to think that this article should go back to its original location, Policy advocacy.~~ If the topic were felt to be too insubstantial to support a separate article, it could be merged into ~~Policy~~ and the page Policy advocacy redirected to ~~that article~~. James500 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC) This subject is already discussed in Advocacy Evaluation#Typology of Policy Advocacy and a better merge and redirect would be to the article Advocacy. James500 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A useful term to include in Wikipedia. Article could use expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star FK Radium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Band and WP:V: non-notable band with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. There are many sources in the article, but they're all blogs or reviews by independent/unreliable webzines. Only The Deli looks legitimate in any way (and that's a stretch), but it's a single source and it's an interview. A Google search turned up nothing else of note. This isn't much to write an actual article around, and certainly not enough to demonstrate notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I know this is considered immaterial to whether the article is notable enough for inclusion, but a YouTube video from 2008 featuring a song off their debut album has received over 100 000 views, which is a bit above average for a largely unknown band. Nevertheless, they remain exactly that - a largely unknown band. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Just not notable enough as yet. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search turns up many articles written about the band from at least 10 different countries and languages. I think this clearly fits Wikipedia's criteria of "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Many of these articles are extremely reliable sources such as the Deli Magazine which has national coverage, Musical News (one of the biggest music websites in Italy), and BuzzPop (very well known from Germany). A partial list of the articles found follows:

http://washington.thedelimagazine.com/7554/interview-star-fk-radium-dc-delis-band-month-october http://buzzpop.tumblr.com/post/917207047/starfkradium-interview http://www.musicalnews.com/articolo.php?codice=19490&sz=4 http://trippintherift.com/en/archives/396 http://www.angelica-music.com/reviews/star-fk-radium-blue-siberia-album-review http://www.burnyourears.de/reviews/cd/11509-star-fk-radium-blue-siberia http://www.ilpopolodelblues.com/rev/ago10/recensione/starfkradium.html http://www.metal-revolution.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.2898 http://www.districtofsound.com/archive/the-landscape-of-star-fk-radium.html http://wwww.babyblaue-seiten.de/album_10851.html http://www.maelstrom.nu/ezine/review_iss70_5664.php?sid=e3b6f1b5e87f9534ae9d97463cfa61f2&section=3 http://www.metalcentre.com/webzine.php?p=reviews&nr=3877&lang=eng http://thehotsheetpca.com/star-fk-radium-%E2%80%93-call-it-%E2%80%98chamber-rock%E2%80%99-455.html#more-455 http://leonardslair.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/review-star-fk-radium-blue-siberia/ http://www.musikansich.de/review.php?id=8624 http://www.rocktimes.de/gesamt/s/star_fk_radium/blue_siberia.html http://www.rockmetalbands.com/Star_FK_Radium_review.htm http://www.timemachinemusic.org/2011/04/star-fk-radium-blue-siberia/ http://www.citysbest.com/baltimore/news/2011/03/09/novo-fest-winds-down-at-the-windup-space/ http://acrn.com/features/previews/?review=186 http://hangingsounds.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-star-fk-radium-blue-siberia-2010.html http://www.jerrylucky.com/reviews%20s-t_050.htm http://www.progressor.net/review/sfkr_2011.html http://www.kathodik.it/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=4433 http://www.dprp.net/reviews/201066.php#star http://wwww.babyblaue-seiten.de/album_10851.html http://eyelevel.si.edu/2010/11/luce-unplugged.html http://thesilentballet.com/dnn/Home/tabid/36/ctl/Details/mid/367/ItemID/3720/Default.aspx http://www.movimentiprog.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Recensioni&file=view&id=3295 http://rjominn.is/2011/09/28/star-fk-radium-josies-porch-swing/ 16:26, 13 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenuity90 (talk • contribs)

The Deli is a two-person publication, and the article is an interview. BuzzPop is some guy's blog. Musical News appears to be just another unreliable, pay-per-article music site; when I tried to get information on the author or the site's editorial policies, I found that most of these links are nothing more than email addresses. No, we need sources that are non-trivial and reliable and independent, not just one of the above. (See WP:IRS for information about finding reliable sources.) Even if everyone in the world blogged about this band, we would still require legitimate music journalism to base our articles upon. I hope this helps. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After doing some research, it looks like a number of those articles are non-trivial, reliable and independent. For instance the Il Popolo Del Blues article ( http://www.ilpopolodelblues.com/rev/ago10/recensione/starfkradium.html ) is edited by Ernesto De Pascale, who is a very well known, independent and non-trivial journalist - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ernesto_De_Pascale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwhite65 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I still don't see how this meets WP:BAND. A tiny review of their album in a web zine doesn't help us write an encyclopedia article about the band itself. WP:BAND criteria also excludes interviews, because we write based on what music journalists say about the band, not what the band says about itself. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To add to the discussion, I would point out that along with the above mentioned Pascale, Jerry Lucky is a published author of multiple books on music, such as The Progressive Rock Files, The Progressive Rock Handbook, and 20th Century of Rock and Roll: Progressive Rock. He is definitely a credible, independent journalist, and has written about this band, which meets WP:BAND. I agree that there are many other bands on wikipedia that have zero credible sources and should be deleted, but I think this band does indeed pass based on a handfull of their sources. 64.7.173.130 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has written about the album, and it's still a relatively short review. We require sources about the subject of the article, which is the band. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument that an article about an album does not indicate notability for the band is quite unique. If bands cannot pick up coverage for things they do, such as albums and concerts, should they wear some particularly striking socks and hope to gain notability that way? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about albums (such as reviews) help us write article about albums. Sources about bands help us write articles about bands. Yes, there's overlap, of course, but these sources don't "count" towards WP:BAND because they don't speak towards the notability of this band. Even our notability requirements for music admits that notable bands may issue non-notable albums, and non-notable bands may release notable albums. In other words, notability isn't inherited. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sources about albums count towards wp:band. what in the notability requirements for music suggests that non-notable bands may release notable albums? i couldn't find that. what type of sources are you seeking, sort of overviews of multiple albums? bands with only one album cannot be notable unless articles also treat of their concerts, and vice versa? or articles that mention the members' hobbies or something? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS states that "an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline". This article is about the band, so we're looking for sources that tell us about the band itself: the history, style and themes (if any), influences (either their influences or who they've influenced), and, most importantly for our purposes here, why they're important. Like User:Legis, I feel that WP:TOOSOON is a big factor here. They may warrant their own article in the future, but we're putting the cart before the horse here and the sources need to exist before we can write an article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formed an opinion about the present case. i'm just boggled by the idea that a subject's work being reviewed doesn't indicate notability for the subject. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of odd, yes, but within the context of building an encyclopedia it makes sense. If critics and journalists only discussed works of art and not the artists, then you'd only find articles on works of art here. Thankfully, that's usually not the case, at least with established artists. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, i don't agree that's the consensus position -- editors seem happy to define a subject's notability by their work, certainly in this field -- but i see what you're saying. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I speak Italian, so I looked in to Musical News a bit farther. They are one of the top three music journalism websites in Italy, and very credible. What specifically led you to the conclusion that they are a pay-per-article site? I couldn't find a shred of evidence of that. Not familiar with Jerry Lucky, but his publications and books look legit as well. Hope that helps. 15:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwhite65 (talk • contribs)
- The website layout is very similar to other pay-per-article sites that we don't use as sources here on Wikipedia. For example: by-lines with an email address instead of a link to a journalist's credentials; a method for bands to request reviews and interviews directly on the "Editorial" page; and numerous authors with "yahoo.it" and "hotmail.it" addresses. The entire site comes across as amateurish. And, since it needs to be mentioned again, the link is to a review of the band's album, not about the band itself. Plus, it's a very short review with no real content we can use to write an article about the band. This is exactly why criteria 1 of WP:Band calls for "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" written about "the subject", not their self-released album. Please also keep in mind that this isn't a vote, and that starting each reply with "Keep" is unnecessary. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - note: I struck Red's extraneous "keep". 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not liking the "appearance" of one of the sources is not an objective reason to delete an article. Also, please site wikipedia's documentation where it states that a band with a notable album (over 120,000 hits on youtube and sources from 10+ countries) is not itself notable. An artist and their notable work go hand in hand. 21:42 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwhite65 (talk • contribs)

Nyan Cat has 54 million views on YouTube and has become a global Internet meme, but you won't find articles on prguitarman, daniwell, or saraj00n here on Wikipedia. Big numbers don't matter; quality sources do. I'm really not trying to be a dick here, but I've already linked to WP:NALBUMS and explained that notability is not inherited. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read WP:NALBUMS very carefully, and it states that album credibility is not inherited from an already notable band. That's not the issue here. Please point me to the specific wikipedia standards which state that a band having a notable album such as Blue Siberia are not themselves therefore considered notable. 03:22, 22, December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwhite65 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline" (WP:NALBUMS). Releasing notable albums can (but doesn't always) prove an artist or band to be notable. WP:BAND specifically requires that they chart nationally, be certified gold, etc. In those situations, yes, an album can make the band notable (providing it's sufficiently referenced), but these do not appear to be the case for this band. For our purposes here, an article on the band, the band must be "the subject" of quality sources unless they meet other criteria of WP:BAND. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia Notability music "...may be notable if it meets Italic text one Italic text of the following criteria. 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drynevada (talk • contribs)

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. I am discounting the single purpose accounts (one of which has faked a user signature), and am giving more weight to the opinions of established editors. Sandstein 08:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Watts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this puff piece. award is not major. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. there is a lot of references provided but there is a lack of good ones. a mix of youtube, PR, passing mentions, shop. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had this on my watchlist a while ago but have gone seriously off-wiki lately, seriously needs to go, it is just a rather vain list of self-aggrandizing twaddle (see Personal Life section for example), unsupported by serious references and contains incredible lists of equipment plugging and so on. Pull the plug! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:20, 4 December 2011 (UT)

I'm a little unclear as to why this article is slated for deletion. Avery Watts may not be a huge name in music, but it looks to me like he's notable (I also admit a little bias being a fan). For example, after a little bit of Googling I found that his music is in this NFL reel: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d82339b4d/Week-6-top-plays, he was interviewed on ESPN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX6uxsXIZaY. I've seen less notable artists in Wiki, so I find this move a little baffling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auciker (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC) I did a little more digging, and I reall think this article should not be deleted, as I haven't seen much of a case. As far as the criteria for wp:music goes, he satisfies items 4 (The Examiner did a review of his national tour), 10 (NFL, NBA - Only 2nd Artist ever to play half-time at the Rose Garden Arena) and 12 (ESPN On Field Interview). He's also in AllMusic and BMI Repoitoire, both of which are resources that wp:music recommends[reply]

4, where is this coverage? 10 needs more than just a guest spot link that, 12 these are not "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment?" duffbeerforme (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reinforce the above, Avery Watts's music has been streamed nearly 53 million times via his myspace.com page. His YouTube Channel has over 1.6 million channel views. Millions views/listens have to bolster the claim of "notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.232.148 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Article looks poor (as noted above), but I think he appears just about notable enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does he pass wp:musicbio? duffbeerforme (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: calling all experienced editors please give this a look in, I have just severely stubbed the article as almost none of the sources were reliable and/or contained the purported information referred to in the article: for example, deleted YouTube video (interview), NFL scoreboard from Yahoo! to prove Avery played at half-time! yes, for real, and so on. Other sources included OurSports Central which is "fan-driven and relies on our contributors for material" (non RS) and another site intriguingly titled Newswire PR Today: news distribution network with the tiniest mention of AW on a page in the "Premium/Advertising" section.
Please contribute so that we can get this AfD'd, self-confessed fans (see above) have added in a lot of junk lately that is totally not supported by references/reliable sources, I have Googled and four pages deep there is nothing that resembles a reliable source, it's all YouTube, Wikipedia (obviously), LinkedIn, Wordpress, Avery's blog and so on.
Just to reiterate Strong Delete CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. His band (not him, just the band, but then the band is named "Avery Watts") had a record on a bluelinked label (LS Records). Just one, and WP:MUSICBIO asks for two, and on a major or major-indy label. LS Records, bluelink or no, does not seem to meet that criteria ("best-known for bringing [the label founder's] wife... to fame in the late 70s... n the past twenty years, LS has released over a dozen compilation albums of [founder's wife's] hits, and some Gospel and country music covers" (why is this label even bluelinked?)). And there is nothing about this person in the press, zero. No interviews, magazine articles, or reviews (one review, on a website). He thus does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO, it seems.

On the other hand... there are some claims that if true are interesting. I don't know if they're true and they may well not be. One is that, somewhere, sometime, CBS called him the (or a) "New Face of Rock n Roll" (there are many instances in Google but all verbatim mirrors of the string). It's possible some CBS affiliate somewhere made that statement, but I can't find it, and without knowing the context I am disregarding it even if true which is dubious. The other is, his Allmusic page says "[his music has been] picked up for numerous sports soundtracks, with ESPN, Fox Sports, and all the major U.S. networks using it for commercials and pre-game coverage". A similar claim, expanded and much mirrored, can be seen here: "Watts’ music can be heard in Major Motion Picture Soundtracks, video games, on main stream television networks and in pop culture media. Partnered with Fox Sports, ESPN, NBC, ABC and CBS, his music can be heard on TV via the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, Formula 1 Racing, X-Games, AST DEW Tour, the Olympics...." I think these are mirrors of a press release and don't give it any creedance. But there might be a grain of truth here.

But then lookie here. Watts won "Best Rock" (whatever that means) at the 2009 Hollywood Media in Music awards. But the Hollywood Media in Music awards are not themselves notable, it seems. But neither are they held in some guy's basement; they seem to be able to afford a nice website and to rent the Kodak Theatre (where the Oscars are also held) for their party, and entice Smokey Robinson to show up. So they're not nothing. (On the other hand, their "celebrity" co-hosts this year were Adam Gaynor and Suzan Brittan and their band lineup -- Sonic Ashtanga, Vital, Ruby Summer, SJ, Queen Caveat and Sledge Grits -- are all redlinked. So let's not get carried away.)

Meh. Probably not really notable. A step above some some bar band I suppose. C-list rather than D-list I guess. I don't have a strong opinion on this article. --Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve been following this for a while now and although I don’t have an impressive list of Wikipedia edits, I do donate to the site no less than 4-5 times a year and contribute to it staying alive/active. I’ve also been on both sides of the music industry (both the musician and business sides). That said, I feel my opinion on this topic is warranted. I finally decided to speak up because just yesterday I was watching the NFL on Fox and saw none other than the name “Avery Watts” come up on the screen with his song “A Cut Above” being played. This is not the first, nor second, or even third time this has happened. I’ve seen all the links people have provided here as well as the original page and I think the facts need to be cleared up:

1. His music has been played on multiple mainstream outlets. - There’s a video Right Here being housed off of NFL.com (which would indicate this is a video produced by the NFL and cannot be faked) that is clearly set to his song “A Cut Above” – as shown in the chyron credit. I know first-hand that you need to be what is deemed “notable” to have any music associated with major league sports in an official capacity. These networks typically only pull from Major Label catalogs and have licensing deals with those entities to even clear the music. That would mean an artist would need a top-tier publishing deal with a PRO (performing rights organization), not to mention they would have to warrant a level of popularity for the network to even feel they’re popular enough to augment their programming. Sure enough, here’s an entire Avery Watts catalog with BMI. Now, the outsider may not consider this very “notable”, but as a guy in the business, I think it’s not only notable, it's nearly impossible for an independent artist (not on a major label or major-indy) to get played and credited both on ESPN, the NFL and every other sports outlet this guy has been on. I honestly wish I had his agent a few years back! I’ve seen videos of Avery's music on anything from skateboarding, to F1 Racing (they did an Official video of Sebastian Vettel winning the championships in Abu Dhabi to Avery Watts - A Cut Above). He even penned a custom song for 3-Time Olympic Medalist Megan Jendrick to act as her walk-up music for competition, which she talked about in Fitness RX Magazine - See Steve Blechman. Alex Gonzalez uses Avery Watts “A Cut Above” as his walk-up music in MLB games as well - See one reference here, more can be found. The list goes on…

2. He’s been interviewed live on ESPN: - The interview is Right Here. Yes, it’s being housed on YouTube, but it’s clearly the original ESPN broadcast – not just some kid in his bedroom with his iPhone lip-syncing to Britney Spears. I know YouTube links are basically shunned here, but If I see Motley Crue getting interviewed on Piers Morgan, and I only find the video on YouTube (because CNN didn’t archive it and it’s old), then are you saying it didn’t really happen? This is clearly not something they do with every “bar band” that happens on the field. I’ve never actually seen any other musical act interviewed on ESPN, come to think of it. I could be wrong. It also appears there used to even be a Wikipedia article for The Takeover EP (mentioned in the video) but it got deleted – Even though it’s in AllMusic here and Avery’s holding in his hand on ESPN talking about the release. It seems odd that someone would basically deem this CD “doesn’t exist in an official capacity” – which is what I’ve come to know Wikipedia to be the authority of.

3. He did play the Half-Time show at the Rose Garden for the Trail Blazers in front of nearly 22,000 people. - Although I agree with Captain Screebo, and the original reference for this didn’t say much (I think it may have originally said more) here’s a site for it under “Random Game Note”. The words spoken about the guy aren’t very flattering, but the entire forum talks almost more about the Avery Watts performance than they do the actual game. Seems like something worth noting to me considering it’s only the second time in history they’ve had a band play half-time in the Rose Garden (arena).

4. He's had notable media cover his National Tour. - He’s had segments on both CBS (see here) and ABC (since removed, but searchable) as well as multiple articles such as Examiner.com (search 'Avery Watts Examiner'). Here’s toured with P.O.D. - See Here - Including a show at Qualcomm Stadium, as well as Lynyrd Skynyrd - Photo Here

5. Major Musical Sponsors - It appeared previously that the article was plugging a bunch of music companies as well. Now, I thought the same thing until I Googled the names with Avery Watts. I discovered he actually has deals with all these companies. Once again, I can tell you first-hand, this is no easy task. You need to prove you’re notable enough to increase the sales of their products by mentioning your name on their site. This is usually reserved for touring acts on big labels. They typically dislike doing web updates (to add artists to their sites) and need a really good reason to do it. That said, I found Avery on D'Addario (Here), Eminence Speakers, PreSonus (Here), Krank Amplification (Here), and Warmoth Guitars (Here). On this company Voodoo Lab (which makes high-end guitar electronics) Avery’s name is right next to Billy Joel and the Beach Boys. I don’t see any of my friend’s bands up there (which they would love). He even has endorsement deals outside of music. On Labrada Nutrition , he’s on a celebrity list along with The Rock, Janet Jackson, The Jonas Brothers and just about every professional athlete known to man. I don’t know any musician even sponsored by a nutrition company, let alone on a list like that.

6. Serious Numbers - He’s got almost ‘Justin Bieber’ music plays - almost 53,000,000 on Myspace, a few million on YouTube, almost half a million on Last FM. The last guys that did numbers like that by themselves were Hollywood Undead and Soulja Boy, and that escalated them nearly by itself to mainstream “A-List” status.

7. Video Game Placement - I found that Avery is the title track (menu music) for the popular mobile game “Hockey Fight Pro”, which appears to be topping the iTunes charts in Canada. That seems like it’s worth mentioning.

8. 50 Cent Endorsement - He’s the only Rock artist (to my knowledge) that’s been featured on ThisIs50.com – for those who don’t know, this is the personal social networking site of 50 Cent (ranked in the top 2000 sites in the world) and 50 has stated many times in interviews that all content generated for his site has to be approved by himself personally. It may be a stretch, but that says to me Avery is basically getting a 50 Cent endorsement. If we don't want to push it that far, we can agree that 50 found Avery Watts notable enough to help drive traffic to ThisIs50.com – because let’s face it, why would he want to put garbage on his site that he wants to continuously build in order to monetize web advertising?

9. The Hollywood Music in Media Award for Best Rock - I agree with Herostratus that although it may not be a well-known award show as of yet, living in Southern California I can tell you that any media award being given out in Hollywood at the Kodak Theatre (televised no less) is significant. This isn’t some tee-ball trophy given out in Skokie, Illinois. This would indicate there is some level of notoriety and popularity associated with Avery’s music (hence, Music in Hollywood Media), or it wouldn’t even be on the map. Just because the guy who wrote the theme song for your favorite TV show never won an Emmy for it (or has a record deal with Sony) doesn’t make him any less notable; that’s just my opinion.

10. IMVU Charts - Although he's not topping the Billboard Charts, I did find a screen shot of him outselling a large number of mainstream artists (including Eminem, Katy Perry and Ke$ha on IMVU. This is significant to me because IMVU is fan-generated. Labels can't come in and "inflate" any of those numbers (as they've been known to do). That's a site, in my opinion, that reflects what people are listening to and sharing with each other - outside of the controlled mainstream media.

To step off of my soap box: - I feel the need to defend this article because, although I don’t know Avery from Joe, I’d like to think Wikipedia is truly a place of Neutrality controlled by “the people” – outside of the major media machine. Call me a bleeding heart, but I’d like to think if some nobody from Nebraska can go on a killing spree and be deemed “notable enough” to be on Wikipedia, I would hope an independent musician who’s clearly breaking some new ground here could be deemed notable as well. The conversation here is about if this page should be deleted or not. Fact is, I’ve been getting Google alerts about the guy for over a week and I haven’t seen an arguable “nobody” pop up on more sites, in more countries, in more languages than Avery Watts. I even saw one site that claimed they had backend knowledge of him being the “most pirated rock artist of 2011”. Now, this clearly can’t be confirmed or deemed “notable” (they don’t give out Grammys for ‘Largest Underground Success via Illegal downloads’), but the point that it says to me this guy isn’t going anywhere and deleting the page would be in vain; He’ll just come right back.

I consider Wikipedia to be the ultimate source of what “exists” in the world. Not only that, I feel like it’s a site built “by the people, for the people,” if you will. That being said, people are clearly talking about Avery Watts and he has some level of notability – If he didn’t, would everyone on this site be dedicating hours of their lives (over the span of over 2 weeks) discussing it? If something is irrelevant (hence, not notable) you don’t even speak about it. We have almost an entire forum here on the topic. That says it all to me. To reiterate Keep --Thorshen (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.234.70 (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC) - 64.134.234.70 has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez! just an observation about the above, for someone who says "although I don’t know Avery from Joe" the above anon IP poster manages to write almost 12kb on this artist and dig up a ton of (trivial and fairly unconvincing) "facts". Hell, way to go, that stuff just seems to be right out there at your fingertips, wierd that I didn't hit all of this stuff 4 pages deep into a Google search. Just saying.

Oh and what's with the faked Thorshen username signature? "User account "Thorshen" is not registered." Smells like a whole barrel of fish here, someone who knows how to use WP and manipulate it, imho. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's clear he's notable enough, as illustrated above, the page just needs to make sure it's clean and referenced appropriately. There are bigger fish to fry. I was just on the page for Yelawolf and there's only 3 references in literally the first 20 sentences of the article. So because someone has a record deal, and technically meets WP:MUSIC, all kinds of unsubstantiated claims can be made with no sources? It seems like efforts could be better utilized elsewhere than debating about minutia on here. AlphaSur (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)— AlphaSur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I found very little non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like the keep votes are backing up their points with facts and references, i.e. making scholarly arguments. The kind of arguments that might be suitable for an encyclopedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.104.132 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - 71.105.104.132 has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would think these two sources Here & Here satisfy Article #4 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Also, if this broadcast itself is deemed a "substantial segment", This would satisfy Article #12 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." AlphaSur (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references in the article are not sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Other references raised above are trivial (like the last 2 by AlphaSur: the first is about only 1 local concert, the second is less than that--it's just a concert schedule), or aren't reliable. Finally, just as a note, the IP above is wrong on multiple accounts: Wikipedia is not a catalogue of everything that exists, and just because a few people here happen to be fans and are devoting hours and hours of their time to keeping the article is not sufficient to keep the article--the subject must meet our notability guideline. Now, all of that being said, it looks entirely possible that, in a little more time (maybe another major album, maybe a song breaking into some national charts), Avery could become notable, just not yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated points by Qwyrxian and good to know. I do have a question though (as I'm still a little new to this) - How does a person quantify an artist meeting #11 of WP:MUSICBIO which states, The artist Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network.. I listen to Faction (Sirius XM) and have heard Avery Watts on there many times. I would imagine that would be considered "in rotation", but where do you link something like that? In the same right, if an artist had a music video spinning on MTV how could you link that to a reliable source unless they did a write-up on them (which would not fall under Article #11, but Article #1 or #4)? It appears that both of those instances would meet #11 on WP:MUSICBIO but would be very difficult (if not impossible) to reference. Any suggestions? AlphaSur (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Conway Davis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

C.V.-like bio of non-notable individual. Fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE etc. Ghits do not reveal substantial coverage in reliable sources to demonstate notability. ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot locate references to reliable secondary sources to establish notability or verify claims about this BLP. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yepppppp! (per nom and JPS). I can't find any coverage either to support any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Moody[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources which are independent of the subject were found to indicate that she meets the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WordWord. The subject "seems" to meet WP:BLP1E. There are a lot of Gbooks and GNews hits about some "Jacqueline Moody", but the majority of them seems to refer to other people the same name, and the sources that certainly are related to her are referred to WordWorld. Cavarrone (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that redirect, if that was to be the consensus here PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take a look now. The profile has been expanded and I found a host of additional independent sources, including the new york post and The Hour. The subject meets the notability criteria under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO due to her emmy award. Transatlanick (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 daytime Emmy Award wins tick nicely at WP:ANYBIO and her writing and producing a notable show ticks nicely at WP:CREATIVE. While the article will benefit from expansion, the project will not be improved by deletion of a sourcably notable topic, and WP:BLP1E is for topics expected to otherwise remain or be likely to remain, a low-profile individual... and as co-creater of a notable series that has been airing and receiving coverage continuously since 2007, we do not exactly have a BLP1E event. Kudos to User:Transatlanick. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an Emmy winner, the subject is notable. Vincelord (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Abdurakhimova[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable 16-year old girl who has only played in two professional tennis matches— and lost both times. Senator2029║talk 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside of some tennis website profile links and tennis match recaps, there is no significant coverage. Player also does not meet the guidelines listed under WP:NSPORT#Tennis. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 15:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for sportspeople biographies...--Sabri76'^talk 12:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly fails WP:NTENNIS. A junior player who has not won a junior grand slam or reached top 3 in world junior rankings. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Anwar Yusuf Turani. Consensus is that this is not (yet) notable enough for an article. Sandstein 08:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Turkistan Government in Exile[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not noteworthy; created by user who seemingly just wanted to promote their cause. Calabe 1992 14:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per nom --Katarighe (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anwar Yusuf Turani. Besides existing, the government-in-exile hasn't done anything noteworthy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The East Turkistan Government in Exile is active. Although, it might seem like it does not do anything noteworthy from an English standpoint, the majority of what the East Turkistan Government in Exile does is carried out in its native language, Uyghur. This can be seen through its constant press releases and awareness advocacy towards the Uyghur people specifically.^[2]^[3] --Tewpiq (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published press releases cannot be used to establish notability, significant coverage from multiple reliable second sources needed--Skyfiler (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to either East Turkistan or Anwar Yusuf Turani, probably the latter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRAJ PRADESH .[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is about a proposed state. The only information I could find was a couple news articles from 2009 indicating that there was some support for the creation of such a state. Until this becomes a reall state, or at least is seriously considered by officials of the country, I think this should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL Millermk90 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Harit Pradesh, which is about the same proposed state as this article. "Harit Pradesh (Hindi: हरित प्रदेश, Urdu: ہرِت پردیش) is a proposed new state of India comprising the western parts of Uttar Pradesh state. Braj Pradesh (ब्रज प्रदेश) and Pashchim Pradesh (पश्चिम प्रदेश) are alternative names that have been proposed..." Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has an extra space and period in the title, as well as being in all caps. It should not be a rediriect (perhaps the article without the period could be though. Whether or not the content should be moved is really what's up for debate, due to the problems with the article's title. Millermk90 (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best article on the subject . The other articles which have been accepted by you on this subject are not complete.

This article gives the glimpse of the region in a nutshell.Therefore I request U to consider and accept the article "BRAJ PRADESH." .

G.S.RANA — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSR MRT (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Difficult read due to formatting and boldface emphasis of key names surrounding this proposed state, but that's an aside and has nothing to do with my !vote. As a proposed state, at this point, the article falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. It will only pass our notability guidelines if there is either conflict that arises as a result of this formation regardless of successful formation, or if it actually forms. Aside from that, based on User:GSR MRT's post, I can only presume the potential of conflict of interest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 ITF Djibouti Open (1)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely should be deleted per tennis project ladies tournament guidelines. "From 2008–2012 the ITF Women's $35,000–$100,000+ tournaments (excluding qualifications) are considered notable. From 1978–2007 the threshold for notability in the women's ITF circuit is a $25,000 event (excluding qualifications). This a tiny little $10,000 tournament of which there are hundreds every year filled with the lowest level pros in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

other related pages nominated under the same criteria:

Delete all The majority of these definitely don't meet the General notability guidelines, let alone any other guidelines as there are not independent sources to provide notability. There are some independent news sources for 2011 LIC ITF Women's Tennis Championships, but they don't provide sufficient coverage to provide notability or that this is more than just routine reporting of a sporting event.--Mrmatiko (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lowest level tournaments in pro tennis. (Gabinho^>:) 09:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These obviously fail the criteria set by wikiproject Tennis. I can only concur with above editors. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The pages where not made by me, I just helped. And I do not know how to delete the pages. Keroks (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem there. This IS the way you delete pages. You can't just click and make them go away. Unless it's blatant vandalism we nominate, see what people think, and then delete or keep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon we should delete them, there is not point of having them where there is red links everywhere. Keroks (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I look around, you may not have created these particular non-notable pages but you have created others such as this tournament which in the same way will need to be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not the place dedicated for them. Readers interested in it can probably find these on the ITF website. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. 2011 ITF Women's Circuit has sufficient info for such small tournaments, and can link to the draw at the ITF site. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian Adventures: Wet Panties[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILMS. The AEBN Award does not appear a notable award. No significant coverage on reliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It "does not appear" to be a notable award? And the consensus for this is where? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 14:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what WIKIPEDIA has to say about AEBN: "AEBN, short for Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network, is an Internet pornography company that specializes in delivering material through streaming video in a video on demand format. Subsidiaries include PornoTube." So a private company in the business of selling video streams proclaims this the "lesbian video of the year" (a marketing boon for them, no doubt) and somehow that qualifies this as an encyclopedia-worthy subject?!?! Ummm, not in my opinion. If this is such a big award, where are all the reports in "reliable sources" reporting the great triumph? Where was that black tie awards ceremony held again? Did Billy Crystal moderate??? Carrite (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is your problem? Your !vote (as well as your comment below) seems less based on notability concerns and more on simply not liking porn. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porn is swell. It also doesn't deserve a free pass into the encyclopedia. If anything, it should have a VERY HIGH bar for inclusion. Porn films should have to meet the criteria of all other films, for starters... So where are those substantial secondary sources to demonstrate notability, I ask? Carrite (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisement and per nom. --Omegle7 (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Omegle7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Cavarrone (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Pure porn cruft. It also pisses me off to no end that illustrative book jackets get bounced by the WP copyright volunteers with regularity, but every single publicity photo or packaging shot of a porn star or video seems to make the cut. How does this happen? Just wondering. In any event, ZERO sourcing for this utterly unnotable fuckflick. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage that I see in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Awards" given by vendors to promote products they hawk do not make a substantial contribution to, and certainly do not demonstrate, notability. "Reviews" posted by vendors to promote their products do even less. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect title to either the film series article Lesbian Adventures or its multiple award-winning director Nica Noelle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOTChA chart[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

original research with no indication of notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. prod refund. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious WP:OR and poorly-written too. --JonathonSimister (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had this article on my watchlist due to a request at WP:REFUND (though I don't think it had been deleted, just some content removed). At the time I assumed it was going to be expanded but it doesn't look like that will be the case. Protonk (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think they're selling something, but what's here is so meaningless it's hard to say: A GOTChA chart is a variation of a "quad chart" where a chart is divided into four quadrants: Goals Describe what you are trying to accomplish as simply as possible. Do not use jargon and try to tie the goals to that of a large project/program or effort to provide context.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was not able to find reliable sources about this subject. Folgertat (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton Candy (My Little Pony)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A poor article with questionable fansites as a source to demonstrate its notability, with even more questionable notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How about this: LEAVE these topics alone!Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious sourcing. No indication of sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of My Little Pony characters. As with Pokémon, there are MLP characters that have signifcant third-party coverage that establish notability, but this isn't one of those. (Batten down the hatches, the bronies will undoubtedly be here making bad arguments in 3, 2, 1...) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if all the other pony articles are gone I don't see why this one should stay. SalfEnergy 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not deserve its own page. Remember MLP fanboys: create these kinds of pages on fan wikis, not wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimono (My Little Pony)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is part of a barrage of mediocre My Little Pony character articles which are supported by fansites as sources and there aren't reliable third person sources to support notability therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of My Little Pony characters. There's absolutely no reason to have an article for this pony. The character already has a mention on the MLP character page and that's all that really is needed. There's nothing to show that this character is notable outside of the franchise.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. No indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is significant coverage in reliable third party sources and the subject fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if all the other pony articles are gone I don't see why this one should stay. SalfEnergy 15:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't recommend a redirect. I also recommend explaining to the MLP fans that you cannot go into excessive detail about every character on a show on wikipedia. You have fan wikis for that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This hinges on how much coverage these guitars have gotten in the relevant sources. Many feel that it ought to have been covered, but as the sources seem to be mostly unavailable online, people are uncertain. If somebody does some library research, a next AfD might come to a more definite conclusion. Sandstein 08:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Cyclone[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had prodded this with the rationale that it does not appear to be a notable instrument. The prod was seconded with the comment that it fails WP:GNG. An IP editor contested the prod with no comment; now the issue stands for discussion. LadyofShalott 04:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks IP--I wonder if you care to comment here. Anyway, I did some work on the article and discovered that there is nothing to discover. They can't all be zingers, and this wasn't one--Fender made it for a couple of years and then scrapped it; no one, including the press, seems to have taken note of it. I added all I could to the article, and you can see it doesn't amount to much. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Only references seem to be in passing refs from a few artists that use one, or in reference books that list every available model. Did find [17] but I don't think that suffices. See more detailed delete rationale in my comment below Gaijin42 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is inconceivable that a guitar made by Fender for several years did not receive reviews in the world's guitar magazines. These may not be available online but they must exist. Google Books shows one review in Musician, and there must be several more in print sources.--Michig (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, would one review (which may just be a one-paragraph note in the margin) make it notable? It would be helpful if you can find the review so we can judge it: Vintage Guitar and Guitar Player both have reviews and "reviews", and the latter are little more than announcements/press releases. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funnily enough, I don't have an exhaustive collection of guitar-themed print magazines from that era to hand, although there are at least 3 in the UK that would probably have reviewed it. None of these magazines make their content available online.--Michig (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If every guitar from a manufacturer is reoutinely reviewed, doesn't that lead to WP:ROUTINE? Also, WP:NOTINHERITED, if the only reason the guitar is reviewed, is because fender made it, it seems like that is more fenders notability. also WP:PRODUCT says not to create articles about each and every model/line unless a good non-stub article can be written. Although none of these rationales are "enough" on their own, "by their powers combined", I think it means this article should not exist, unless it is truly a notable model, which the article itself indicates otherwise. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a gross misrepresentation of what both WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED actually say.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are several books dedicated to a trainspotterish detailing of Fender guitar models over the years (try searching on Amazon, for example), e.g. Tony Bacon's Fender Electric Guitar Book: Complete History of Fender Guitars. This is significant coverage and these are reliable sources. Fender is only one of a handful of guitar manufacturers that gets this sort of coverage. Why would we want to delete a purely factual, verifiable article on a subject that would be of interest to our readers? --Michig (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one reason: lack of sources...(not that I prefer Gibson, though I probably do.) The Cyclone is not in any of my trainspotter books, or my collection of VG and GP issues. As it turns out, Musician is not available through my library. So, I still have nothing to base an article except for "Cyclone was a guitar made by Fender"--I can't even give dates for it. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michig, so far you seem to be making the case that sources should exist. It needs to be demonstrated though that they do exist. Without that, the article passes neither WP:N, nor WP:V. LadyofShalott
    - If a book covers every model from a mfgr, does that grant individual notability? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Musician does cover it, Tony Bacon's book does cover it. Therefore it passes WP:V and WP:N.--Michig (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't pull up the proper page, but searching in Bacon for Cyclone delivers a list of guitars made in Mexico including the Cyclone. But I wouldn't call that "cover"--it's a listing, just like it lists every other single model. Your argument would suggest that every individual version of every model is notable, since it lists the Cyclone, the Cyclone HH, and the Cyclone II in the exact same way ("lists" here means "gives a set of specs," nothing more). As for Musician, I can't see it so I can't state that it's actually discussion or even a real review, as I said before. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Clearly we wouldn't have a separate for each individual variation of the same model of guitar, and no that (obviously) is not what I am suggesting. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There are references out there about these guitars. For example, I remember reading reviews when the Cyclone II came out in Guitar One magazine [18][19]. I'm sure with a little digging people will be able to find more information. The article is well written and encyclopedic, just in need of more references.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to find the exact issue, but I also remember the Cyclone and Tornado both getting a review by Guitar Player magazine when they came out in 2000 . . . that would make them notable when they came out. --Stvfetterly (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a dispute about the content (and/or name) of an article, and deletion cannot resolve it. See WP:DR for methods for how to resolve such disputes and links to the proper fora in which to address them. Sandstein 08:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Jashraj[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator of the page has created this page with a ulterior motive. The page was there with name Dada Jasraj, which did not collaborate to the facts of this page. As Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan, so he simply made a redirect. [20]. Further, see here [21] Dada Jasraj page as it was with citations and references. He deleted all the contents of the page Dada Jasraj and created this page Rana Jashraj giving their Lohanas version of folk-tale and story and made a redirect to this page. Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia should not tolerate this type of eye-wash and display of wrong statements. He should have asked for a merge of Dada Jasraj with his newly created page Raja Jashraj. But he did not do it deliberately because the original Dada Jasraj contents did not confirm to what he wants to highlight, so he took an easy way and just created a page and redirected Dada Jasraj page to it. Jethwarp (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : As a proof to my above statement see his talk page with user DCI [22], where he clearly says that on 29 Novemebr that [quote] Rana Jashra was a king of Lohar Gadha, who killed Genghis Khan(controversial). folk deity of Lohana,Bhanushali etc. castes of India.i creat on my user page to rewrite already a page as Dada Jasraj. but i am not satisfy with the article. need your help[un-quote]. I want to say who is he to say that as he is not satisfied with other page ( which cited many references that Jashraj could not have killed Genghis Khan - so he just re-wrote the article with new title and his POV. Also the book he cites in refrence in his page Dreams half finished is written by an industrialist Nanji Kalidas Mehta of their Lohana caste, who has just mentioned folk-fare of Jashrai, as prevalent in their community. That cannot be a relibale source, as author is not an historian. Dreams Half-finished is an auto-biography written by Nanji Kalidas Mehta. Whereas the Lohana community historian claims that Jasraj killing Gengis Khan cannot be ture Here I would like to add that this being the historical fact, our legends saying that Dada Jasraj killed Chengizkhan and that Taimurlang also lost his life at Dada's hands, needs to be corrected. Chengiz died in the year AD 1227 while fighting with Tanguts in Mongolia and lies buried in Burkan Qaldun-Mangolia. So aiso, Taimur died in AD 1405 at Otraer on Jaxartes river in war against China. Lohana History by R. T. Somaiya. Further, the other website cited [23]Histoty of Bhanushali community - is in Gujarati language (my mother toungue) and does not mention anything about Gengis Khan or Shamsuddin it is false citation. I would rather request Admin to restrict the User:Bhavinkundaliya from editing any further. Jethwarp (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Jethwarp (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Jashraj is not only Lohana, but also worship by Bhanushali, Khati Brahmin, and Saraswat Brahmin, million of people and they believe this.^[4] and it was reliable source by google books. and other ref by Upendra Thakur .^[5] and third party evidence by Bhanushali history in gujrati.

and i ask question which ref. is reliable? http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=e8_PTpO0EobUrQeBtPjCDA&ct=result&sqi=2&id=faZWAAAAMAAJ&dq=genghiskhan%2C+jashraj&q=Jashraj or http://www.genealogywise.com/forum/topics/lohana-history

and timur was purhaps kileed in the battle with Khokhar#Jasrath Khokhar same name cause to mistake.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm not taking any side here, but I'd just like to make a few suggestions. The old version of the article is not irretrievable, and it's possible to revert back to it if that's what you want to do. Also, we can save the text currently on the article, and add it on as a separate section. This way, all points of view are included. I do not wish to get involved in this, as I feel that you will be capable of resolving this. However, if you need more help, you may find some guidance here, at the Mediation Cabal, which offers some assistance when it comes to content disputes. Thank you both for your contributions to this site, and good luck resolving this issue. DCItalk 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested by mediators that a discussion on this be opened here. DCItalk 23:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'COMMENT : As suggested by [[[User:DCI]] - the author should admit his wrong doing and may revert to the old version of Dada Jasraj as is [24] here, which was written with Neutral Point of View before my any further comments in this matter.Jethwarp (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about we combine both versions, and have an article respecting all points of view? That way, the contributions of both of you can be included. If you two decide to revert the article, please save a copy of the current one somewhere, so it isn't lost. Again, I'd like to thank both of you for your work on this article. DCItalk 03:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There are glaring discrepancies in the reason for deletion by the nominator.Can the nominator tell the guideline according to which this article should be deleted.To me this present article has reliable sources (not all but enough to pass the guideline) and thus passes WP:RS and WP:GNG. According to the nominator User:Bhavinkundaliya changed the page.See this.The nominator says-->

"The creator of the page has created this page with a ulterior motive. The page was there with name Dada Jasraj, which did not collaborate to the facts of this page. As Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan, so he simply made a redirect. [25]. Further, see here [26] Dada Jasraj page as it was with citations and references. He deleted all the contents of the page Dada Jasraj and created this page Rana Jashraj giving their Lohanas version of folk-tale and story and made a redirect to this page."
This page allegedly had citations and references which User:Bhavinkundaliya changed.
The links in the previous version( which the nominator says was the most accurate one ) can be summarised as following.

http://www.genealogywise.com/forum/topics/lohana-history - This website's page says it is a "Genealogy Social Network" and moreover its a forum.How can a social network/Forum become a 'Reliable source'?If such things start happening Facebook will become a reliable source.According to WP:SPS--"whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated".In encyclopedia we do not "tolerate this type of eye-wash and display of wrong statements".
http://shethiaparivar.com/html/jasrajdada.html - This website's main page says "shethiaparivar website is about shethia parivar community who mainly belong to Kutch Gujarat.Main purpose of this website and group is to provide a mechanism to connect people belonging to Shethia Bhanushali Community". Again we see a more or less social networking website.This it is not a reliable source.
http://www.alamahabibi.com/English%20Articles%5CE-Madr_wa_Moi.htm - This is a reference for "this seems another folk-tale as most of the other historians claim that Sabuktigin died of illness in 997 AD and was buried in Ghazni" and not about the context of "Dada Jasraj" killing chengis khan and thus I won't even comment on its reliability.
Google book- this reference is used in the present article.
Links 4 & 5 have malwares in it and so I could not even check what was the content.
http://www.genealogywise.com/forum/topics/lohana-history - by R.T Somaiya is again from the "Genealogy Social Network" website.

Thus the nominator is completely wrong in saying that the previous version was correct.Now, that the version has been changed to the present situation of the article the reliability has improved(partially).Even the [27] by "Kalidas Mehta, Nanji" is a by far better source than "this" (as given by the nominator because again this links to the "Genealogy Social Network" and thus not at all a reliable source).

The question of "Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan" is a very difficult one to answer.I could not find confident reliable source to answer this question and thus its better to say that it is a legend(the word legend is very flexible to accommodate this issue).True or not we should leave it to the imagination.I am in support of adding this legend information because this info is given in the book citation.The nominator says "Whereas the Lohana community historian claims that Jasraj killing Gengis Khan cannot be ture(sic)".I ask if this author(R.T Somaiya) is a historian then he must have published books(not self published books,mind it).Citing such books will be the effective tool in resolving this issue.But I will take a strong exception in citing sources from "http://www.genealogywise.com" because it is basically a social networking website and not a reliable source.To me this is a more reliable source because it is written by someone from " Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol".This source writes about the history of Lohanas and also about "Dada Jasraj" by saying "jasraj and his men fought ferociously and jasraj managed to spear chenkizkhan to death"(page 16 of the above link).But still its not "chengiz khan" and thus "Dada Jasraj killing the former" may be still be a legend.

Presently I believe the sources no.-->2 & 3 are not reliable(but there are other reliable sources to make this article notable).Now, the nominator is asking "Admin to restrict the User:Bhavinkundaliya from editing any further".I believe this is too much.Rather i would say that kudos to User:Bhavinkundaliya for adding atleast some reliable sources to the article.Vivekananda De--tAlK 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Let me point out why the article is worth a delete.

I have never said previous page was better all I said was it was written with Neutral Point of View unlike this one. see my comments on Talk page of Dada Jasraj [28]. Even the old article was not up to Wikipedia criteria. Further, I think article it self is not worth keeping this one or other one being discussed for the following reasons :-

Creator of page has used following references - which are unreliable and those which are reliable mention nothing of the things written in article.

1. Dreams half expressed written by Nanji Kalidas Mehta is an auto-biography and has mentioned folk-tale of Rana Jashraj - as he was from Lohana caste. Nanji Kalidas was a businessmand however he mentions of a historian named Shiva Prasad Sharma of Gazni. Never heard of him google search result [29] zero.

2. http://shethiaparivar.com/html/jasrajdada.html - sethia parivar site used by bhavinkundaliya mentions timeline of dada jashraj as born 1032 ascended throne 1048 and died as 1058 AD. ( the timeline does not match with time line of gengis khan ) and as said by you is not RS.

3. http://www.lohanatimes.org/history.asp - Lohana history is again a community website - not RS.

4. Sindhi culture - does not mention anything about jasraj killing anyone or his date or time of reign.

5. Firmes et entreprises en Inde: Ia firme lignagere dans ses reseaux - mentions jashraj only as a folk-deity worshipped by lohana nothing else about his time of reign of killing of gengis khan.

6. Further, the other source Lohana History as cited in other version mentions timeline of Jasraj as 970 and 1000 citing some R.T. Somaiya, a Lohana historian it also mentions that considering Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan or Taimur Lang. But again this is not a Reliable source ( as pointed by user vivek de also ) being a social network site. So the article has very little or no sources to back what is says.

In conclusion the article fails WP:BIO and WP:RS and has no third party sources WP:THIRDPARTY apart from Lohana community to back the article. Further, Tomb of Genghis Khan is still a subject of speculation and here Nanji Kalidas Mehta says that it lies near Multan, which says in Chinese Here lies Khan Khan Gengis Khan whom Rana Jashraj of Lohar Gadha dealt a fatal blow - if this would have been true it would have been a World Heritage Site and most important historical structure of today's Pakistan. I would rather suggest jokingly that may be it falls under WP:HOAX. Jethwarp (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - I have already said that in the present article sources 2 & 3 are not reliable.WP:HOAX says "Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable to a reliable published source. If challenged, the burden is on the original author to prove the claims in the article".I have said that "Dada jasraj killing chengis khan" can be kept as a legend related info.Now, lets talk about the sources that have problems according to you.

Dreams half expressed - The above comment says "Nanji Kalidas was a businessmand however he mentions of a historian named Shiva Prasad Sharma of Gazni. Never heard of him google search result".Is it not a book that exists.Search world-cat website for its existence.The writer is a lohana himself and so it would be accurate info if he writes about himself.At least its a relaible source to say the person in the article existed.
Sindhi culture" does not mention anything about jasraj killing anyone or his date or time of reign".As I said jasraj killing somebody is a legend.Even this is a reliable source because it talks about the person mentioned about in the article(lets leave killing for the time being).According to this source this person existed and is notable to have a book written about/at least talked about in a book.
Firmes et entreprises en Inde: Ia firme lignagere dans ses reseaux -" mentions jashraj only as a folk-deity worshipped by lohana nothing else about his time of reign of killing of gengis khan".Again killing! Its a legend for gods sake.True or not lets leave it to our imagination.

If anybody notices he/she will see that the nominator has problem with only "Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan".But this is no reason for deleting a whole article about a person talked about in three books and by a person from "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol".This issue will simply be resolved by saying "legend has it that Dada Jasraj killed Chengis Khan".But for that you dont need to delete a complete article.P.S:It passes WP:RS quite easily as all the books exist.Vivekananda De--tAlK 16:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : The website you cite from "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" [30] again has conflicting things 1. it mentions Jasraj , a Lohana Kshatriya hero who lost his life while defending his domain on 22 January many centuries ago his date of death as 22 January but not the year that is a great source. 2. It says A Lohana warrior Jasraj had beheaded Changezkhan in the Multan fort. Although historical “evidence” as normally understood by modern historians may not substantiate such stories - so it says this thing and refutes it also.

I wonder if wikipedia accepts it as a Reliable source.!!!

In the end seems that you are going back on your earlier statements saying this is a legend so there are no reliable sources. I can see creator has asked your help to defend his case on your talk page. This may fall under WP:CANVAS on side of Bhavinkundaliya. You were no way involved in creating or editing this or earlier version. As a rule should have avoided voting and commenting on this AfD after being asked for help just like User:DCI did. Let Bhavinkundaliya defend his case. The article can also be considered as a delete as WP:OR. Jethwarp (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User VivekDe User:Vivek7de is — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. ( for further info see his talk page )

Reply - Yes Bhavinkundaliya has asked for my help because he is not very much comfortable with argumenting in english which is quite evident from the comment he made here.But my comments here are largely my own feelings and are not influenced by anybody else.WP:CANVAS says "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:On the talk pages of concerned editors who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed".For your information I am currently commenting on two BLP deletions and have commented on india/pakistan related topics on multiple occasions.Thus I am qualified enough to comment on this.If I would have been influenced I would not have said that "in the present article sources 2 & 3 are not reliable".Lets get a few things straigth.Right.

All the books and "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" document talk about the person in the article.Correct.That means the person existed.
Now,if we have multiple books(3) and a university department talking about a person which naturally shows that the person is notable.You don't have books and universities talking about non-notable people just for fun.

If the above points are correct then it simply means the person talked about in the article is notable enough(thus passes WP:GNG) and there are reliable sources to prove it.(thus it passes WP:RS and its not a WP:HOAX).Moreover you yourself have said earlier in the comments that

"does not mention anything about jasraj killing anyone or his date or time of reign"
"mentions jashraj only as a folk-deity worshipped by lohana nothing else about his time of reign of killing of gengis khan"

and thus acknowledge that the person aforementioned is being talked about in the reliable sources. Thus it is still a strong keep from me.

WP:OR says "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.The "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" paper also cites info from

"Mahajati Gujrati" by Chandrakant Bakshi,Navabharat Sahitya Mandir pg 228---given at the end of page 2
"Report on the history of Lohanas"(1993)by Dr. Katherine Prior,--given at the end of page 3
""The Oxford Histroy of India" by Vincent Smith,Oxford,--given at the end of page 12

Unfortunately, all these books can be seen by paid view,so I cannot quote anything from them.I ask if the "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" paper is wrong then so are all these books.But rather its the other way round.The nominator is trying to use every trick in the book to push this article for deletion even though there exists multiple books as a proof of its notability.
Now,history is something that largely does not have concrete proof.Accuracy of the history is always gauged from the number historians agreeing upon a single theory.Whether "Dada Jasraj could not have killed Gengis Khan" or not ,cannot be evidently told.But, as you pointed out there appear two versions of the same legend in "Department of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change,University of Bristol" paper.Its not a discrepancy rather an effort to acknowledge every version out there about Dada Jasraj's death.Thus it is actually supporting my argument that "this is a legend" simply because there is no concrete evidence to support either version.This is particularly why I have said the issue may be resolved by saying "legend has it that Dada Jasraj killed Chengis Khan".The whole article does not need to be deleted.P.S:Let the admins decide whether helping a non-english speaker is a form of canvassing.Vivekananda De--tAlK 17:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : If Bhavinkundaliya can create several pages on English Wikipedia, he can as well defend his case. No one looks at grammar in AfD. Jethwarp (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a content dispute rather than an issue of article deletion, so should be discussed on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. As suggested above, take the rest to the talk page. Stormbay (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : None of the keep votes above mention anything about Reliable Sources and mentions why article should be kept as per Wiki policy. Please note that this is a debate for deletion and not for content dispute, it is about a content and claims in the article which has no reliable sources to back its content and a few sources which name Jashraj do not back the article content. Just a mention of name in some sources does not make any subject notable, it should be notable enough to have an impact in history or any field to have an article. There are hardly any third party reference to the subject. The only claim to fame is killing of Gengis Khan - which obviously is a fairy-tale. His time line of reign - death not defined by any source. How does then article satisfy Wiki guidelines. So if this sources are removed article becomes original research. No one is saying anything about creators comment [31], where he clearly says that on 29 Novemebr that [quote] Rana Jashra was a king of Lohar Gadha, who killed Genghis Khan(controversial). folk deity of Lohana,Bhanushali etc. castes of India.i creat on my user page to rewrite already a page as Dada Jasraj. but i am not satisfy with the article. need your help[un-quote]. Clearly indicating that he created article with his WP:POV with citations not adhering to WP:V and WP:RS. I care least if the article is kept but it would be bad precedent as I feel article in its present form is not worthy of being kept on Wikipedia. Jethwarp (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much easier to read your comment if you removed the underlining and bolding. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just student of wiki,i have start 8 pages, and first was edited by jethva, 2nd Dci help me and then every time i ask and he correct grammer. and i am weak in use of technic and i translate with any info with help of gujratilexicon dictonary.

about nanji kalidas mehta. he also other three books[32]and[33]and [34]. not only buisnessman but author,writer also. see my all pages which i have start i always prefer to provide academic sources. and i ask if lord rama was fact or meath but page belong to him as his history or story. so why in case of Jashraj any have objection?Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : all 3 books are auto-biograpbhy 1. Smr̥ti ane saṃskr̥ti ( meaning my memoris ) 2. Mārā jīvananī anubhavakathā ( meaning experiences of my life ) 3. Yuropanā pravāsa ( my journey to Europe ) and Dreams Half expressed all are on his personal life. What I want emphasis is that he is not a HISTORIAN and not RS and being a Lohana not Third party source. He has just written folk-tale of Jashraj as is prevalent in your community without any research or claims to back his statements. He should have given a Photo of Tomb of Gengis Khan with inscription, which would have made his book instant hit!!! Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to close this argument, keep the article, and move this discussion to Talk:Rana Jashraj? This way, Bhavinkundaliya and Jethwarp can work out their disagreements there, with our help. DCItalk 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Reply : The closing Admin should also note that taking this article again to Talk page would build WP:DBTF. As whole article Rana Jashraj and old one [35] - Dada Jasraj is like Building the Frankenstein for the following reasons:-

1. As one source says Jashraj killed gengis khan another says he could not have done so as he lived during 970-1000 - both sources are from their own Lohana community. so their own people accept and deny the story.

2. the same source again says grave of Gengis Khan lies near Multan with an inscription in Chinese that Rana of Mirana (Jashraj) killed him!!!! But Tomb of Genghis Khan is yet a subject of debate - and none of the historian mention such tomb existing in Multan. Neither do British who ruled for 250 years mention it in any of their Gazettes nor after independence even Government of Pakistan !!! Gengis Khan died in 1227 so Jashraj should have been alive in that time. And there are some editors who argue that the book citing this is a RS.!!!! Whereas I have clearly said Dreams Half expressed is autobiography and not 3rd party source as author is Lohana. The book is written in 1966, may be Nanji Kalidas Mehta was more knowledgeable than British rulers or Pakistan Government.

3. one source says Jashraj's timeline as 970 to 1000AD, 2nd says 1032 to 1048 and another says 13th century around 1205-1231. !!!! Alll three sources which differ on his time-line are surprisingly from their own community ( Lohana ) websites. So there is no consensus among their own version of story. None of them are third party sources or reliable sources.!!!

4. one source says Jashraj may have also killed Timur Lang !!! but again other sources laugh at this claim. Timur Lang died in 1405 so Jashraj should have been alive in 1405 to have killed him. However, most of historians claim that Timurlane died at Atrar (Otrar) on February 17, 1405 due to illness.

5. one source says Jashraj may have killed Sabuktigin father of Muhmad of Gazhni!!! while many other claim he died due to illness. again Sabuktigin lived during 942–997, so Jashraj should be alive during that time.

6. one source says Jashraj died on 22 January many centuries ago ( but surprisingly not the year of death ) !!!

Further, discussions above point it that all this sources can not be termed reliable and there are no third party sources also.

Only thing one can say without any objection by any one is that Rana Jashraj or Dada Jashraj is name of clan-deity of Loshanas. The article is worth only this one line only, if it is to be kept.

So how is one going to deal with the article again on talk page.

I again therefore re-iterate that article is worth a delete as per Wiki policy on keeping the articles.

I would rather request the editors who have vote a keep to re-view their votes in view of my above comments. Thank you all!!! Jethwarp (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and move to the talk page. I have refrained from giving an opinion until now, but, as I will be unavailable for further comments until January 1st (due to America's holiday season), I will say this. The article's subject is notable, and there should be some form of an article on him. With this in mind, we can have a conversation on the talk page that involves everything mentioned here. I will be able to help with that discussion after the 1st. Good luck and thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. DCItalk 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Again I would say none of the Keep / Strong Keep votes mention why article is a strong keep. No one has yet given reply to WP:DBTF arguments. Any keep arguments should adhere to policy. Jethwarp (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote Wikipedia's deletion policy. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." As for the reasoning behind my "talk page discussion" ideas, I'll quote the page again: " Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input." Though I see your point, I think we can approach this through one of these routes. As I mentioned above, and as I told Bhavinkundaliya, I'll be gone until January 1st and didn't really expect to be commenting right now. However, I'll return in a week or two to help. DCItalk 13:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google book search gives [36] only 3 results. 1. Dreams Half-expressed written by Nanji Kalidas Mehta, a member and prominent leader of Lohana clan. ( about which there is a lot of argument given why it is not a Reliable Source ). 2. Other two books a) Census of India, 1961: Volume 5 b) Fairs and Festivals of India: Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar ... refer to Rana Jashraj, who built the hill on which Ambaji temple in Gujarat is located. So it is not about Lohana - Jashraj of Multan. Google search result for Dada Jashraj[37] is again only one the controversial Dreams Half-expressed. So where are WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT sources ??? Article does not pass WP:V and WP:NPV. Further, I have already expressed concern that taking article to talk-page will build WP:DBTF Jethwarp (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here [38] contributions of User:Bhavinkundaliya. He has been adding his POV ( Rana Jashraj and killing of Gengis Khan ) to all articles related like Lohana, History of Multan, Lahore Fort, some of which I have reverted. His major edits are on Lohana article and Lohana history. Does it not fall under WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTPOINT ??? Jethwarp (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Mahony[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if he is famous enough for an article. The article does have 16 references though which should be checked for accuracy. Thebirdlover (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Dan O'Mahony and while I didn't author this page, I've got to ask, who commenting here is familiar enough with the international hardcore and straight edge underground of the 1980's to arbitrarily shoot something down simply because it's outside their wheelhouse... my suggestion google Dan O'Mahony, period. My thinking if my 11 records, record label, books and many national and international tours don't qualify, then I shudder to think what other crucial underground figures from this movement will be deleted simply due to a small group of self-appointed online intelligentsia's lack of familiarity with a movement and era that changed the lives of tens of thousands of young people all over the world?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danosaysso (talk • contribs) 06:56, 11 December 2011‎

For what it's worth, there are people here capable of assessing the size of punk rock icebergs in the pop culture ocean, but "career achievement" carries far less clout than you imagine in the assessment of a subject during a notability challenge. Carrite (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Underground music is not my seen, but looking at Dan's unsourced comments above, it looks like this article deserves the chance for someone with more expertise to at least take a look at it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Most of the references are poor, but there are some reliable ones which demonstrate notability, including Big Wheel Magazine and OC Weekly. Pburka (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Took the words right out of my mouth, Pburka. I'm in the process of starting a cleanup of this page, starting with cleaning out the non-reliable links. A quick search brought up more than enough reliable sources to warrant keeping the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. The sources weren't as plentiful as I first thought, but there's enough here to where I think O'Mahony squeaks by. I've a feeling that a good many of the RS about this guy are more in print form than electronic form, unfortunately. Such is the way with anything underground. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep - This should probably be a component of an article on the HC band No For An Answer, which is still redlink. Here's a source for FOR THEM. The MRR gig does bump up public-figurehood in the punk rock world. Sourcing here is bad, but WP maintains a low bar for pop culture, for better or worse, and this seems to be an encyclopedia-worthy subject. I'm certainly no fan of sXe HC of the Revelation Records orbit, so this is far from an WP:ILIKEIT keep recommendation, but the band and vocalist, particularly as West Coasters for an East Cost sub-genre, do seem to meet WP's Typical Standards for such fare. Article needs improvement, but that's neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made No For An Answer a redirect to this piece. At some point somebody needs to write that one up, it's certainly a notable band. Carrite (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Misanthropic Ceremonies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no independent notability shown for this ep. lacks coverage in reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not successful in finding reliable sources that demonstrate this source's notability. Folgertat (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chemistry Set (American band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows that this band is notable. The two local news stories that are in the article are the only media articles that I could find. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also found this from the Fort Worth Weekly. If anyone can come up with anything else we might have enough for an article.--Michig (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Two more from the Fort Worth Weekly: [39], [40].--Michig (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless anything turns up that suggests greater notability. They just don't make the grade. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what was already identified, I found an entire article about the band in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, now added to the article. The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established - requires coverage a bit wider than two local newspapers. Emeraude (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per coverage in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times (see article), Dallas Observer 1, Dallas Observer 2, and Fort Worth Weekly. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum – Here's another reliable source: Duncan finds right chemistry from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. This topic is meeting WP:BAND criteria #1. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MuZemike 04:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HemiHelp[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly promotional product of Bell Pottinger. Kilopi (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't seem like blatent promotion to me, and there are third party sources available on the net (several are already cited, albeit improperly) This artive may need a bit of work to conform to WP:NOPV, but I don't think it should be deleted. Millermk90 (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Not particularly notable charitable, but I tend to be charitable towards charities. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, it's promotional, but that could be edited out. However, I find significant coverage lacking. There is a brief mention in this article and a half mention in this BBC article, but that's it. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No doubt it is a worthy cause. But aside from the odd celebrity endorsement, this charity gets little or no coverage from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but redirect to Bell Pottinger Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --MuZemike 04:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Chapin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around for a while and has been tagged as needing sources, but it does not have any sources to verify notability. Ost (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable songwriter and activist. JJL (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get a close? JJL (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be enough now to establish notability. A merge with Harry Chapin would be preferable to a delete. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I get good results from google for this person. –BuickCentury Driver 03:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed. Based on Cat's in the Cradle alone, definitely notable. Yohowithrum (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Tepper School of Business. Michig (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Henderson Award[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award. No third party sources provided to establish notability, as required by WP:N. While the award has some notable recipients, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's notable (WP:NOTINHERITED.

With 1+ year since last AFD, and no new sources added and no expansion of content.
Previous AFD was "no consensus to delete" but that "there may be a consensus to merge." Well, my attempts to merge Tepper School of Business to main were reverted (to the point that the article became protected). GrapedApe (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There is no independent notability, and merge was the appropriate action. I see no new sourcing that changes my view that this should not be a standalone article. And as the content has been merged, retaining a redirect is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There was certainly a consensus to merge before. Come to that, I'm not a little bit disgusted that of the three Keep proponents in the prior AFD - whose argument was that despite black-letter policy, notability should be inherited - two were anon IPs with less than ten edits between them, neither of whom ever made another edit, and the third has made about fifty edits since. (This leaving aside that the third editor promptly began edit warring to prevent any merger or redirect.) This article is unimproved in six years, and the ones most eager to preserve it seem militantly uninterested in improving it or sourcing it. Could we, this time out, pretty please have a closing admin who has a feel for policy over nose count, especially when the side arguing against policy entirely consists of ephemeral accounts? Ravenswing 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Tepper School of Business - not separately notable but a useful search term. TerriersFan (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per TerriersFan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MuZemike 04:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence Green has been subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works in reliable independent sources as required to meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Notability. Most of the article was written by the language's creator. Published sources about the language appear to be primarily journal articles by the language creator (not independent and therefore insufficient to establish notability). Propose Delete. DGaw (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources. No assertion of notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the event of deletion, I request redirection to Ada (programming language) per the current article's hatnote. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability within the article, weblink is currently dead and when it says:
For the proposed language that was developed into Ada, see Ada (programming language) § History.
surely that implies the Ada one is a different language. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rave Rave Remix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable - only references are to Facebook and e-retail locations selling album. The fact that the album exists, does not make it notable, nor is notability inherited from artist. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Axel™ (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the creator is just here to shill for this band. --JonathonSimister (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --MuZemike 04:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. William Leonard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable American civil servant Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leonard is not in the civil service. He's a political appointee to a federal office, with substantial coverage in reliable sources [41] [42] [43] [44]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources? The article in the Denver Post is an editorial, the Daily Beast is a weblog, the article in the New York Times only states that he had that Office. The Federal Computer Week confirms that he was a public servant, not a political nominee. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have a WP:POLITICAL_APPOINTEE, but if you extrapolate WP:POLITICIAN and try and make a comparative judgement, he fails. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The topic appears to pass WP:GNG, however. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've found several reliable sources, see below for my !vote to keep this topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 articles listed above by User:Alessandra Napolitano satisfy WP:GNG. The previous 2 delete comments baffle me. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Napolitano's references are solid. Add to them an LA Times article written by Leonard, and a National Endowment for Democracy appointment/bio (also reported by the Federation of American Scientists[45]). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, but the appointment/bio clearly state that he is hired, so he is not a politician or political nominee. Your sources make clear that he was a civil servant. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's irrelevant. He easily qualifies under WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notable independent coverage of his appointment. I don't doubt he'll do great work and become notable shortly, but right now he's not. Soupy sautoy (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This topic appears to be quite notable, see below. Topic notability isn't limited to one aspect of a topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic easily passes WP:GNG, per: NY Times article 1, NY Times article 2, NY Times article 3, Information in the National Security Archive, Coverage in Newsweek, Coverage in Federal Computer Week, Denver Post (editorial). Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I !voted delete above but have struck that. It looks to me like the subject is known for a single event, but it's still going and generating coverage after five years, so I'm not sure that counts. There's also the fact that there might be classified coverage of this that we don't have access to; and that I really don't understand US politics. So I'm not going to vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and unanimous support for keeping the article. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable subject. Possible OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the five sources in the article, 3 appear to be independent RS news reports. I agree that there's a fair amount of weasel wording going on which needs cleanup, and think that despite having multiple RS so far, this might better be covered as a section in a larger article. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Maybe in the article on Hinduism in Russia? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I may be wrong, but judging by how the issue is developing, it will likely to grow beyond the scope of another article's subsection. Lets wait and see, merging is never late. I would be grateful if you point out the areas requiring a cleanup at the article's talkpage, unless you feel like editing them yourself. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk)

Strong keep The subject notable per WP:EVENT, because:
- this is about a legal case with permanent effect (per WP:NTEMP and WP:EFFECT),
- which has already affected and will further affect a large international societal group, namely, followers of Hinduism in Russia and India (per WP:GEOSCOPE), and has become a topic of discussion between the governments of India and Russia ([46]),
- which has been extensively covered (per WP:INDEPTH) in a variety of reliable media sources ([47]), including Times of India, Moscow Times, Forum 18, and Yahoo! News, as well as in a number of Russian-medium news sources (see the Russian version of this article ) (per WP:DIVERSE),
- and which has been going on and been covered in these media for the last few months (per WP:PERSISTENCE).

I would like the nominator to elucidate on the "possible WP:OR" allegation. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update With the new developments in the Parliament of India today: [48], [49], [50], this issue is notable beyond any doubt. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three different news media sources, and one advocacy media source with limited and conditional reliability. There's currently OR by SYNTHESIS (as marked), which is easily resolved by removing the synthetic clauses. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.31.110 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per above comments notable enough to keep. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 05:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is Notable and not OR Jethwarp (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have removed the two clauses marked as synthesis; the article is clearly encyclopedic, well-sourced, and certainly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for copyediting and for your support. I thought, though, there was no synthesis or OR in the first place, as both clauses were cited from RS:

“

The book may be accused of expressing religious hatred, suppressing human dignity and declaring one religion superior to all others. But “Bhagavad Gita as It Is” can hardly be called Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” Still — if prosecutors in Tomsk have their way — the two may soon end up together on the Justice Ministry’s list of banned extremist literature.[51]

”

“

Bhagavad Gita, one of the holiest Hindu scriptures, is facing a legal ban and the prospect of being branded as "an extremist" literature across Russia.[52]

”

But not a big deal. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given how hot the issue is, the choice I think is probably either to quote exactly (as you've done here, using quotation marks or the quote tag) or not to mention it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing that hysteria from Forum 18 is a singularly bad idea given their commitment to esoteric—ie implicit—"truth". Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, although I'd rather keep our discussion on Forum 18 at the RS Notice Board, but, briefly, (1) the two clauses that you marked as "synthesis" did not cite Forum 18, and (2) Forum 18 is cited extensively as a RS on religious freedom in the former Soviet Union by university-published books: [53], [54], [55], [56] and in a number of other serious pubications. So I do not think their "intrinsic truth" is overly esoteric: "intrinsic – belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring. (from Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)" Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close - I nominated this article, and in a short amount of time this subject has become the story for many reliable sources, many international. It is a current event, and is changing, i.e. growing. As such, I think the article should clearly be kept and expanded. In a short period of time a lot has changed. This is a very clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per above. Thanks. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 22:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Legacy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Facebook game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an ad and very poorly formatted too! --JonathonSimister (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-advert and heavily biased as well. No cited references (that I could find quickly in the article), and even if this article was to be kept, the formatting would indeed need improvement, per above. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was not able to find reliable sources about this game. Folgertat (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found one review, but that is not enough. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Michig (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VKV Shergaon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clue of notability, no details. Can be merged with parent company Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : All High Schools are notable, as per Wikipedia policy. Further, I have added citations. It is a part of Vivekananda Kendra Vidyalaya acronym VKV, which is a famous & known school line of India similar to [57] Category:Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and [58] Category:Kendriya Vidyalaya for Kendriya Vidyalaya or Delhi Public School. It is strange no one has yet covered other schools of VKV spread over twenty-two towns & villages of North East India. Jethwarp (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy that all high schools are notable. There is however an established precedent that high schools are generally kept. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per standard practice for high schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kudpung.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we keep an article that fails WP:GNG? The "established precedent" is challenged at the moment and it seems to lose footing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the general notability guideline is not the only determinant of what articles we include. What evidence do you have that the precedent is losing footing? I don't recall any AfD for a verified secondary/high school being closed as "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Notability of secondary schools (part 2), Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Draft RfC Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Trial of God[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable play, sourced to primary sources, PROD declined Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've added a number of reliable sources to the article. Just clicking the links at the top of the AfD makes it clear enough. Please practice some WP:BEFORE next time. Silver seren^C 03:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Question: Should a play by Elie Weisel , winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom which was adapted for nationwide TV broadcast on PBS , and which received detailed reviews in many reliable sources, be considered notable? One word answer: Yes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would think that just the fact that it's written by Elie Wiesel makes it notable, if nothing else. Would be nice to see more citations though. --JonathonSimister (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How can anyone think that a work by Ellie Wiesel is non-notable? His book Night is a frequent part of school lessons including in my class for 2 years. This play isn't that book, but of course works by someone as notable as Ellie Wiesel is notable which the above shows. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be sufficient reliable sources here to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but not simply because of its author. I now see enough sources to warrant notability on its own.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Topic notability has been established, per several reliable sources that qualify this topic's inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears that the nominator didn't search for sources as strongly suggested per WP:BEFORE. The nomination, as stated, appears to be based upon opinion, rather than actual topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did search for sources. Those supplied are rather mixed, Horowitz and Sanford certainly mention the play - they hardly provide substantial coverage. The other sources merely mention play readings and minor productions. Works of a notable author are not automatically notable themselves, contrary to what other editors believe. I suggest that editors actually read the notability guidelines before making statements such as "How can anyone think that a work by Ellie Wiesel is non-notable? His book Night is a frequent part of school lessons including in my class for 2 years. This play isn't that book, but of course works by someone as notable as Ellie Wiesel is notable which the above shows."; "I would think that just the fact that it's written by Elie Wiesel makes it notable, if nothing else."; "Question: Should a play by Elie Weisel , winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom which was adapted for nationwide TV broadcast on PBS , and which received detailed reviews in many reliable sources, be considered notable? One word answer: Yes." - with regards to the point about reviews, why is there no coverage from major national newspapers? The St Petersburg Times and The Dallas Morning News are hardly major sources for dramatic criticism. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Petersburg Times and The Dallas Morning News are "hardly major sources for dramatic criticism"? I would take serious issue with that characterization. These are major national newspapers. The papers are the 11th and 18th-most widely circulated in the United States. The Times is the widest-circulating paper in Florida, and the Morning News is the widest-circulating in Texas (two enormous states). Both papers have serious theater critics Lawson Taitte and John Fleming - who write on the performing arts. You can check out their extensive theater criticism resumes there.

Serious theater criticism doesn't just happen in New York. Neutrality^talk 09:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.