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} 00:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's Deli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined speedy deletion, A7. Notability definitely borderline; but I was unable to find sufficient reliable sourcing to meet WP:CORP. Appears to be a local chain of significant size, but I could find no major coverage, only some menus, phone numbers, forums, and blogs. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In a gNews search, an unrelated establishment in Providence, RI with the same name had more newspaper coverage than this chain based in Houston, TX. I did find one business journal article on this restaurant chain here. But I don't think that's enough to establish notability. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG, as stated before. Chris (talk) 19:53, 12 October 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 Promise (Sade album). (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never as Good as the First Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One line lead in the entire article? Surprised this hasn't been nominated before. Pretty sure this fails every part of Wikipedia rules and doesn't have any notability. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or redirect. I'm a fan, but I don't see the need for this almost-nothing article. Delete, or redirect to the album page--> Promise_(Sade_album). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Promise (Sade album) per WP:NSONG as this song is not of sufficient note to establish a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 7 October 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} 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2012 + The Best of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, unreleased compilation album. Cmprince (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Per WP:Speedy_Delete A9. Apparently random collection that will come out in November. What part of WP:NOTPROMOTION is not clear? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 11 October 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} 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable compilation album. Cmprince (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've removed the one link provided in the article (to a sales site), to make this less of a WP:NOTPROMOTION violation, but it still fails WP:GNG. Not reviewed by allmusic, metacritic, or pitchfork, or anywhere else, as far as I can tell. The one WP:RS I could find was to an ARIA charts listing, indicating sales in Australia of between 70,000-140,000 units, but I don't consider this important for a random hits compilation that evidently no one cares about as a compilation. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 11 October 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. Was eligible for WP:SK1 as well. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Old Fall River Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS (no significant high-quality indepedent coverage). Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:COI notice: I noticed this article in AfD and have spent some time today adding to it:

- Added 20 citations, including to the New York Times, Time Magazine, the New Yorker, Billboard, and the Library of Congress.

- Have built up the main description.

- Added a recordings section, including two, separate top 10 recordings of the song from 1914.

If it is kept, then I'd like to recommend correcting the title--the "i" in "LIne" was inadvertently capitalized. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per added references. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of the recent changes, which added references to assert notability which was previously missing, I'd like to withdraw my request for deletion. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:48, 11 October 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} 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Cornett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. All previous sources (now reinserted as bare links by anon.) provided do not actually support Cornett's claims. The recent article at deadspin has the relevant details. The only source that actually appears to be on point is IMDB, but it is not a reliable source, and even if correct does not support notability under WP:ENT. Also not notable for the alleged hoax under WP:BLP1E. Cmprince (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pretty much per nom. No evidence of notability as an actress/athlete, and the deadspin thing, well, BLP1E and claims of harassment and inaccuracy do not make it a promising prospect to build an article on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletewhile it is technicaly possible that she is boarderline notable it's not worth sorting out the mess if she is.©Geni 22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HOTTIE.--v/r - TP 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She was borderline keep when I created the article. In my mind, she has moved from that border since. Dismas|^(talk) 01:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person is not notable. Vincelord (talk) 14:27, 11 October 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} 00:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any secondary sources on the subject, nothing at all that qualifies under WP:NSPORT, WP:GROUP or WP:GNG. Trusilver 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 11 October 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. WP:SNOW is falling. And AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parmanand Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has cited 28 references among which more than 24 do not work. The article is seriously flawed and does not have any verifiable information. I nominate this page for deletion --DBhuwanSurfer 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC) DBhuwanSurfer 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is the Vice President of Nepal, clearly satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. A Google search easily verifies this. Dead links are a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. If verifiability is a problem, we can start from a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per Gene93k. Telco (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, the Vice President of a sovereign state is obviously notable. Deletion is NOT the apt method to deal with problems inside articles. Regarding sources, the article was well sourced until nepalnews.com remodelled their website making all links dead. That doesn't mean that the references are necessarily wrong, just that they need to be dated. There can still be copies of the linked articles in cache of archive.org etc.. --Soman (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the VP of a sovereign state is usually notable, but the referencing is in a dire state. The zeenews and BBC links work, but I don't know what the BBC one says - GoogleTranslate says it's in Hindi and gives a nearly incomprehensible translation. If someone with knowledge of the subject and/or the area could do a reference tidy-up, it would help matters. If there is just a speedy keep, no-one will bother and we'll either still have the problem, or we'll have a stub based solely on whatever those two sources say. Peridon (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep AfD is not clean up, try discussing on the article talk page. If you want help improving an article there are more appropriate ways of doing this than AfD. Wikipedia:Cleanup should have been the first port of call. Polyamorph (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps the nominator could explain to us why the article is thought to be flawed. Peridon (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is not an AfD issue, if there is flawed information in the article then it should be removed via normal editing practices, not AfD. Taking the discussion to the article talk page would be a good start. wikiproject Nepal may also be able to help. Polyamorph (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: As others have pointed out, AfD is not the proper venue for article cleanup, and the nom's dereliction of WP:BEFORE is so severe to warrant speculation as to whether this is a bad faith nomination. The article "does not have any verifiable information?" Excuse me? I can't imagine that any such attempt was made. Ravenswing 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Subject is CURRENT VICE-PRESIDENT OF A COUNTRY. No one denies this, not even the nominator, who claims to be a native of this country and is certainly very active on related articles. Can someone alert the WP:SNOW patrol and have them shut this AfD down, already? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject is notable, per above. -LtNOWIS (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Linkrot is not a valid reason for deleting an article about the vice-president of a country. First Light (talk) 04:29, 10 October 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) 00:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commie (slur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:DICDEF. This is an unreferenced dictionary definition for something that already exists on Wiktionary. Originally prodded, but article creator removed the prod notice. Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per A10 criteria. - Redundant article with no relevant information to merge into Communism, which covers the information implied in this article. As that Commie already redirects to Communism, a redirect is not appropriate in this case. Trusilver 22:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as dictionary definition, or an unsourced original essay — take your pick. Carrite (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to the gulagdelete - as noted above, a dictionary definition with no possibility of growth aside from content-forking of Anti-communism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:NOR. WP is not a dictionary.--JayJasper (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not a dictionary. If author wants to improve the existing Wiktionary definition, then do so. If there is scope for an encyclopedia entry, then come back with an encyclopedia entry, not this. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as dictionary definition. First Light (talk) 04:30, 10 October 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. Fairly apparent there's no support for using the deletion tool here. Courcelles 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

In-universe fictional biography that contains nothing more than plot elements from the film and trivial mentions of the character in other media. 100 Greatest Movie Characters is not "significant coverage", and this article fails to meet WP:GNG independent from the Back to the Future franchise. Google search produces fan wiki results and similar links. Google Books search produces nothing that would help meet WP:GNG. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The only problem worth deleting this or any similar articles (i.e. Marty McFly) for is lack of independent sources; long plot summaries can be trimmed. The NYT is generally a reliable source, though it's true that articles solely about this character are hard to find. This one has more to do with the character. Articles like this don't need deletion, they just need some work. §everal⇒|Times 21:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—In addition to being from reliable third-party publications, sources also need to offer significant coverage of the topic per WP:GNG, which is provided in neither of these sources. Your first source is merely a review of the plot of the second film. It does not provide any detail that would qualify as significant coverage of Emmett Brown. Your second source is about Lloyd's career and mentions that his first on-screen kiss will be during his portrayal of Emmett Brown in the third film. There are mentions of "Emmett Brown," but one article in the NYT with mostly plot details from the film and one or two lines from the director about the character's backstory is not significant coverage of the the topic. This second article belongs linked in Christopher Lloyd's article (or is barely relevant in Back to the Future trilogy). Sottolacqua (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A collection of non-trivial references should be sufficient to establish notability. §everal⇒|Times 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since there appears to be significant coverage from reliable sources about this character. The key is to search for "Doc". There is an entire book about the original film, and there is a book of critical essays about the films. Other books I noticed mentioning "Doc" often were Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era and Jungian Reflections within the Cinema. The character is a significant enough part of coverage about the films that in addition to the coverage being included in film articles, it can be re-formatted to provide a profile of the character in his own article. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage in search results is mostly about the plot of the film. Mentioning the character in describing the plot, describing time travel, etc. does not meet "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. A Google book search on "Doc Brown" still does not produce results that fit significant coverage, with only one applicable result (WP:ONESOURCE). Sottolacqua (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your query lists the two books I mentioned. I previewed them and found analysis of the character that can be used. Not to mention the two books about the first film and the set of films; they're definitely not just plot summaries. Which result do you think is the only one applicable? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - That it is not perfect at the moment does not diminish the fact that it is a notable character, a notable search term and a notable article. The character has significant cultural impact alongside Marty McFly.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources have to exist for this guy. It's almost impossible for there not to be. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "sources must exist" does not address the issue that this topic does not meet WP:GNG. You need to provide the actual sources that you believe to exist. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, here is a source which could replace #4(not sure of the reliability of mental_floss.) Also, the "100 Greatest Movie Characters" source does in fact display notability. I don't know why you would say it doesn't. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd argue that the "100 Greatest Movie Characters" would, almost without exception, be notable enough for stand-alone articles, and Doc Brown is one of the very best-known characters from 1980s cinema. As for the article being poorly-written and plottish, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "100 Greatest Movie Characters" article is not significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. The main argument that this article should be deleted is based upon the failure of the topic to meet WP:GNG, not that it needs cleaned up. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Snow keep With respect to the nom and his not agreeing, multiple available secondary sources DO show this character as being covered in a non-trivial fashion, and notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article. Were this a real person, notability would not even be an issue. As we do not have a specific notability criteria set for fictional characters, we instead use existing guidelines and policies. The character is worthy of note and there is too much available information about this iconic character to include elsewhere. Such proper application of guideline and policy is why we have articles on such as Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk that are separate from their series or actor articles. It's how it is done here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge to List of characters in the Back to the Future films: I do not think that there is a large amount of reliable sources that give reception and significance in the real world fro the character as a stand-alone subject, so I believe that it does not meet general notability guideline satisfactorily and there is no concrete evidence that the article can be more than a plot-only description of a fictional work. As such, I believe that merging the character into List of characters in the Back to the Future films is a better solution than keeping the article until concrete evidence shows that the character deserves a stand-alone article, although, personally, I have the impression, not proof, that the character is notable by himself. Jfgslo (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: there's some sources beginning to appear here. The 100 greatest movie characters list does begin to WP:verify notability. Ideally there would be more sources to give a sense of weight, so we can tell what's important about this character instead of just piling on details. No prejudice against a merge if further sources aren't found. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 10 October 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} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Are Records? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An unreferenced article on a record label that seems to have no claim to notability. Fails WP:ORG. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 September 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) 00:18, 22 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Utterly unsourced and spammy introductory section, but a useful set of blue links below. I'd advocate a change to List of bands on What Are Records? after snipping out all the unsubstantiated royalty bull and commentary about "United Interests." This would preserve the utility of the page while erasing verifiability issues. As for notability, there seems to be little taste among wikipedians for gutting out popular culture from the encyclopedia. Utility as a source of in-links trumps rigid adherence to notabilty guidelines in this case, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 29 September 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, Rcsprinter (chatter) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mostly a list of links. No reliable sources. Non-notable company. --John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If a purported record label isn't notable - and it isn't - then its alleged roster of bands isn't, either. Even if the article was "useful" - a suggestion for which no evidence has been tendered - relevant policies and guidelines do not allow utility to trump notability ... quite the reverse. No reliable sources, and none to be found. Ravenswing 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 11 October 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} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Elliott Seitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Autobiography which clearly fails notability with no reliable sources references are primary, wikipedia or blog Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Autobiography by non-notable. 99.168.81.210 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources I could find. EEng (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable, non encyclopedic and no reason to be here...Modernist (talk) 19:34, 7 October 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} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Morales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable musician fails WP:MUSICBIO. BLPPROD was refused with the addition of a source (Metallyrica) that is likely unreliable. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obscure musician and even if that band is notable, which it doesn't appear to be that much, he was in it for what, three years? CityOfSilver 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 11 October 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} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vega Brothers (characters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced orphaned stub about two movie characters. Vic Vega speedily deleted 23 January 2008. Vincent Vega merged to List of Pulp Fiction characters following deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Vega), which was later redirected to Pulp Fiction (film)#Cast 18 March 2010 following a merge discussion on that page. Any notable details about Vince or Vic Vega are discussed in the Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, delete per nom (oh no inclusionists are going to whine about that! Silly me for agreeing!). I patrolled this article, considered deletion, couldn't be arsed dealing with the inevitable nonsense that would ensue. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article lacks a source to support its entire premise -- that these characters from separate movies are brothers. I've heard that idea before, but I thought it was just fan speculation, not canon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the article currently lacks a source is irrelevant to whether it can be sourced. The idea that they are brothers comes from Tarantino himself. Sciretta, Peter (April 7, 2007). "Quentin Tarantino talks Vega Brothers, the Pulp Fiction & Reservoir Dogs sequel/prequel". Slashfilm. As discussed in Quentin Tarrantino#Other potential projects, he was considering a film about them together but gave up on the idea. This is also mentioned in Pulp Fiction, and should also be mentioned in Reservoir Dogs (if only in a footnote). But a mention is really all it merits. I see no substance to justify an article, nor is the title useful as a redirect (The Vega Brothers, sans parenthetical, already redirects to Tarantino's article), so delete. postdlf (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. We have two characters of the same surname that have not actually been paired as brothers, so the only coverage about the pair is the film that Tarantino had hoped to do. That planned film can be covered at the director's article. However, I would be fine with a Vincent Vega article if coverage about Pulp Fiction also covered him in detail. The film has a ton of coverage, though it is hard to tell how much Vincent is profiled in them. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fictional characters do not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject. Jfgslo (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. It's an interesting rumor but not basis for an article. To what extent the rumor is out there, it might warrant a mention in the article about Quentin Tarantino. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted above, it's not original research as the concept that the two film characters are brothers is easily verifiable online as coming from Tarantino himself. He, and at least Madsen as well, have discussed it as a potential film project in multiple interviews, which is already mentioned in Tarantino's article. So you're calling for the right result, but for the wrong reasons. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 10 October 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. The term "routine coverage" is always open to interpretation. Reasonable minds will differ, and reasonable minds have split down the middle here. Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete under WP:NOTNEWS. Article hasn't had any substantial editing or expansion since the last AfD discussion. The story is sad, but the article lacks any larger historical context, and I think it's unlikely that time will provide this additional context/perspective. A simple Google search reveals nothing new since March/April. How is this fundamentally different from any of thousands of other cases? AstroCog (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Which bit of WP:NOTNEWS does this article violate? It's not first-hand account of a breaking event, it's not a routine event, it's not about an individual involved in the story. In other words, the reason given for deletion is not valid.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response It violates #2 in WP:NOTNEWS. All the references for this article are news articles all from within a week's time span of when the story was reported. Since then...nothing. I think it's pretty clear that this is not an "enduring" story, at least not in reliable sources.AstroCog (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Thanks for clarification. I have modified my comment accordingly. I still disagree- I think that #2 of WP:NOTNEWS is there to stop articles on minor local events and celeb-related trivia. The case has some unusual features and it isn't a routine event despite what Mean World Syndrome might lead us to believe.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree. There are child abductions that take place somewhere in the industrialized world that get significant press coverage almost every day. Does that mean they all get their own articles? An abducted or murdered child, while sad, is not encyclopedic barring some extremely unusual circumstances that make it so (such as in the case of Amy Mihaljevic.) Trusilver 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response There are obviously unusual circumstances here- the fact that it was a double disappearance, the fact that the case is unsolved, the fact that it took six years for the disappearance of two children in "the industrialized world" to be noticed. That does not happen every day.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Case also mentioned in June 2011 [1] Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Verifiability does not mean notability. While a sad story, the article is unencyclopedic. I also agree that the article fail to pass WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:NOTTEMP. I don't want this to sound anywhere near as harsh as it is going to, but a child abduction, barring other circumstances that would make it so, is not inherently notable. Trusilver 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Misunderstanding or misapplication of NOTNEWS #2; what we have here can hardly be compared to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Also, there is further news since March/April, even though it doesn't show up in a Google search.  --Lambiam 07:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response If a total of six sentences of updated material about the trial of one of the parents involved doesn't count as "routine" coverage, then what is it? What is fundamentally unusual about this case? The parents involved seem crooked, the abduction of the kids is sad, but I still fail to see how this story has a enduring impact giving it a special place in a larger societal context.AstroCog (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Regarding the lack of press coverage: I could be wrong, but I think that there are rules about what the press can say about an ongoing case. That's certainly the case in the UK. The First Amendment makes the situation in the US more complex of course.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has had more coverage per further news since March/April. Dont see any reason for deletion at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards userify, as this looks like a routine (but tragic) double murder. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Stuartyeates's Userfy suggestion if anyone is willing to take the article. I think the nominator's rationale is fair but the article is in good shape and circumstances may change in a way that makes the subject matter indubitably notable in the future. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What does "userify"/"userfy" mean? Help please! Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Reply on my talk page if you like Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Userfy means to delete the article and place the deleted article as a subpage of the creating editor (or anyone else who happens to want it) for improvement and possibly reintegration into the encyclopedia at a later date should something happen to prove notability. Trusilver 11:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, Tigerboy1966. I should have used an internal link to the WP:USERFY article which explains the process. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:05, 13 October 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) Monty₈₄₅ 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Surrealism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an unreferenced essay, an exercise in original research and synthesis, based on an editor's reading of Surrealism. There is no such thing as "organic surrealism," this is simply a term made up by said editor. For these reasons, the article should be deleted. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep—actually, there is such a thing as organic surrealism. (sorry they're all snippet view, evidently art historians are touchy about drm.) there are hundreds more, and the fact that many of them mention the same group of artists, including miro and matta, make it seem doubtful that it's just a random confluence of the two words, but a recognized genre. finally, there are four sentences on the subject in EB online (in the surrealism article, i forgot to say before), in which it is called one of the two major poles of the surrealist movement, and said to be synonymous with emblematic surrealism and absolute surrealism. i agree that the article is crap, though. but there are plenty of sources available, so it ought to stay.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO Neologism. Appeared in a press release and a gallery opening announcement, but no reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • seriously?— did you even hit the book search link in the find sources template up there? here is the britannica online article on surrealism, which specifically discusses organic surrealism.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are a variety of art books that identify organic surrealism as a form of surrealism. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my vote to Keep, after alf.laylah.wa.laylah's wholesale rewrite. I suggest this AfD be closed. Discussion on article talk page should commence as to further improvement. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:02, 8 October 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} 00:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Vagnetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. He does have three appearances for the San Marino national team, but these were in the Regions Cup, meaning they are not full internationals. Coverage of this tournament is trivial. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:41, 11 October 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} 00:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WindizUpdate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Defunct, not notable in any way A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Admin: A review by an admin familiar with content licensing and attribution might be a good idea. See my !vote below. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wow. Not one shred of evidence of notability, no results in a news search other than a single forum post complaining that using the service had messed up his computer. The previous AfD closed with a merge result, somewhat startlingly, since the sole rationale the two Keep/Merge proponents proferred was that they tried it and liked it. Unimproved in years, orphaned, let's just flush this one. Ravenswing 16:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no coverage about this initiative that I could find in reliable sources aside from a mention in this Dummies book. The previous AFD resulted in a decision of "merge" to "Microsoft Update". If the material was merged, then we need to be concerned about attribution. But looking at the history, there does not appear to have been any actual merge. And in any case, that article has since been merged/redirected to Windows Update. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 11 October 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} 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Generation Vs. Big Bang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD, rationale was "WP:HAMMER". If this isn't it, I don't know what is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to believe this is a blatant hoax. Girls' Generation and Big Bang in 45 episodes in a variety show, of all things? Announced a year ahead of broadcast? In the state Big Bang is in at the moment (Daesung's car accident controversy and G-Dragon's recent marijuana scandal)? Not buying it, honestly. — ξ^xplicit 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not either, but I don't know Korean at all, so I'd like to play it safe on the off-chance this is just crystal-ball gazing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: even if it is not a hoax, the article consists of a collection of unverifiable speculation and it is too soon per WP:CRYSTAL--Michaela den (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the original author is just adding hoaxes here and to Yuri (South Korean singer), even deleting the original AfD tag. None of it is verifiable. Evaders99 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 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. UBLP, no references added during a week. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Powers (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable and unreferenced BLP. Bit-part actor falls well below the bar for notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single actor - that's why we have IMDB. Biker Biker (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that he really meets WP:ACTOR. Strongly agree with the nominator's comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. The growing body of this actor's work is verifiable and appears to push slightly at the instruction at WP:ENT. Toward the nominator's wish to direct readers to places outside these pages, what exists in a non-RS database is irrelevant to Wikipedia as we are not them... however, such databases allow editors hints to encourage a more diligent search... through which "hint" I was able to easily confirm this actor's character of Franklin Winthrop as being significant to Oz (TV series)[2] We can judge an actor by the most notable projects with which they had a role, or consider the length and depth of their careers, and we do our readers a disservice by looking only at the least and then declaring all as insignificant. Heck, even the most notable actor may have had small roles. IE: Sylvester Stallone had a large number of insignificant or uncredited roles in the beginning of his career... such as Stud, Extra at Wedding, Subway Thug No.1, Discothèque Patron, Youth in Park, Young Man in Crowd, Mafioso, Man on Street, etc. We do not judge by the least. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 11 October 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  12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bro (online subculture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, unencyclopedic topic that is not clearly defined by the article, which is a tenuously held together string of media references (almost all of which are tongue-in-cheek). The sources cited include a LinkedIn profile, a Facebook page, a chat, a comedy performance misconstrued as relating to the topic, a profile of a business of little note, and a tongue-in-cheek slideshow (which is used as the only source for the entire history section). The only reliable sources relate to etymology, making the verifiable information no more than a dicdef. No evidence that reliable sources can be found. Feeeshboy (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete...and recreate as a functional article. I'm willing to believe that an article on Bros could be well-supported in detailed in much the way of Hipster (contemporary subculture). This clearly isn't that article, and referring to it as an online subculture might just be erroneous. §everal⇒|Times 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the talk page indicate that this page was created as a class project. My vote remains the same. §everal⇒|Times 16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it's not just one class project, but one in a set of class projects. See User:LeshedInstructor for more information. §everal⇒|Times 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And change the tag line to be "contemporary subculture". I am the article's creator and yes, this was created as part of a class project, but I also believe there is potential for a well supported article like Hipster (contemporary subculture), as §everal⇒|Times mentioned. --Lenwomp (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as stated in the page for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." I'd like to file this article for a "rescue". More reliable sources are needed, but this is a notable topic. --Lenwomp (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these reliable sources? Please show us that they exist. The article is near nonsense. LadyofShalott 12:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dictdef, WP:NEO, WP:OR. --John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non-notable neologism with an impressive number of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Trusilver 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We've been over the alleged "bro" culture at AfD before. My POV remains as it has in prior similar AfDs; that this is a dicdef at best, a neologism short of that, a WP:BULLSHIT matter the rest of the time, and that a faction has claimed in each and every one that reliable sources are out there, somewhere, maybe. How about, next time out, that such sources are produced as a prerequisite to creating an article ... as, in fact, they are supposed to be? Ravenswing 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What similar AFDs have there been? Dream Focus 09:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as complete BS. Even if this were a notable topic nothing but the word "bro" and "reflist" should remain. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a bunch of tripe. In Wikipedia terms, it's a combination of WP:DICDEF and WP:OR. LadyofShalott 01:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite and rename "Bros" are unfortunately a real thing, also called "frat boys". The type of guys who talk about nothing but sex, sports, and how drunk they got, are athletic and shallow, and enjoy humiliating others. Read through this article in Time magazine for example. [3] I don't see this as an "online" subculture, since they exist off the internet as well, and have for quite some time now. Having an article for just "Bros" might make sense. The current article has most of its content referenced to places that aren't reliable sources. Finding sources is difficult since "bros" gets results from "Super Mario Bros" to any number of other things. Dream Focus 09:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand this (and your link) correctly, the title is almost correct (that is, one word is correct, but not the "online subculture" part), but the article is incorrect and should be rewritten so that it's about something else completely, for which it is difficult to find sources besides an article from Time (according to which "bros" are "frat-boys and frat-boys wannabes"--pretty dicdeffy, it seems to me). Drmies (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename it Bro subculture. The aspects of their culture is mentioned. Google news archive search for "Bro culture" has some results. [4] Dream Focus 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Referencing? Have the authors of this article even heard of the concept? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as (mostly) utter nonsense. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:52, 13 October 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. Still a UBLP after a week. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Jayantsen Suriswarji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined BLPPROD, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this Acharya. Langauge and cultural familiarity issues may be blocking my attempts to find appropriate sources. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. This article has been around for almost five years and then was tagged as unreferenced and proposed for deletion on the same day. Is that sensible? Surely you tag an article as a warning and then start a deletion process if it doesn't improve WP:ATD#Tagging. Give it a chance Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That's awfully close to WP:LONGTIME. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. The point isn't that the article has been around a long time. It's that there was no time given to respond to the tagging. Actually it was nominated for deletion and THEN tagged which is surely the wrong way around Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Respectfully, I'm afraid we disagree. Quite a fraction of the community believed last year that unsourced BLPs should be deleted en masse and without discussion, while I strongly disagree with that position as well, it's still my sense that the community is not willing to extend a great deal of patience to unsourced and unsourcable biographies of living people. I would also disagree with your suggestion that there is or was "no time given to respond to the tagging". This AfD should run at least seven days, and my selection of AfD (rather than PROD) was specifically designed to increase the chances that sources establishing notability would be found. Moreover, I *declined* a BLPPROD on this that had run for ten days before sending this to the slower-paced AfD process. If you'd like to save this article, I recommend actually trying to demonstrate notability. And I sincerely hope you find something, I wasn't able to. --joe decker^{talk to me} 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Tigerboy, do you have genuine reason to believe that reliable sources exist demonstrating this subject's notability? If so, then why are you not adding them to the article? If you do not, in fact, have any reliable sources to proffer, then upon what legitimate policy grounds are you advocating keeping the article? The article has had a chance - during the four years in which no substantive improvements were made, during the ten days of the BLPPROD in which no reliable sourcing was added. No evidence the subject passes the GNG, and there's nothing in Wikipedia policy - quite the opposite, actually - allowing for the indefinite retention of unsourced BLPs pending, well, people not working on them. Ravenswing 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Our policies on biographies of living people do not allow us to keep such articles if they are unsourced. I'm open to changing my mind is some sources can be offered but at this point I can find none. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. (It's possible that there are pages out there in Hindi about this person using a variant name, if they come to light prior to closing, ping my userpage and I'll reevaluate.) Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 11 October 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 - original author agrees it is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MYMOSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable organization. No independent sources. Google search mainly comes up with the project's own website and unrelated pages. GNews gives not a single hit. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 15:11, 6 October 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} 00:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferhat Ozcep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article on a Turkish associate professor. Sole references are to Marquis' Who's Who, his CV, and a book that he has published. The Web of Science lists 11 publications with a total of 9 citations and an h-index of 2. Too early: does not meet WP:PROF. Crusio (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as does not satisfy the requirements in WP:Prof. Possible conflict of interest since the user Geofizica who created the article has no contributions outside of this article.Polyamorph (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. He appears to have published prolifically but that is not a notability criterion unless his publications have been taken note of by others. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 10 October 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. And rename to Elder law in India. The copyright concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rights of older persons in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic. The article's main aim is to bring awareness to aged citizens of India about their rights. It also fails WP:N. — Abhishek  ^Talk 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Abhishek  ^Talk 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Elder law in India is a subject that could support an article, I think. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to copyright concerns. As a topic, this is viable, and probably better under a different title as pointed out above. However, this article appears to have been assembled by copying or closely paraphrasing bits and pieces of material grabbed off the web. The article veers from well formed high level of writing in English, to parts which are much less so. Look at the snippet "Surveys have found that every 6th person living in urban areas in the country does not get proper food, every third old person does not get proper medicine or health care in old age and every second old person does not receive due respect or good treatment from family member or society." and compare to this. Material also appears to have been lifted from this, and also paraphrased from here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted above, this is likely an encyclopediatic subject; however, given the way the article is at the moment, it needs to be blown up and started over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Whpq. Actually i want to help, but sorry, Whpq have a point there, why don't the creator make it encyclopedic? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged for rescue. As stated above, this is a potentially valuable encyclopedic topic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article needs copy-editing and rewriting, but appears to be quite salvageable. I've begun the process of rewriting this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Moving this article to the title, "Elder law in India" would be a more precise title to use. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I Googled various things from the article to check, and I don't see any copyright problems at all. This is obviously a notable topic and has valid content in it. Finding coverage to verify and reference the various sections of it should not be a problem at all. I'll get to work on it now. Dream Focus 23:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs work, probably by someone with knowledge of Indian law, but certainly salvageable. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename - Per in the article: U.N. source, Government of India source and The Hindu source. Rename to: "Elder law in India". Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 07:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename This is definately salvageable, could be rewriten and turned into a proper artical, but a rename might be good, "Elder law in India" sounds right. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete unless it gets some serious repair work, but that seems to be coming, so ... Clearly an encyclopedic subject (agree with the rename proposal) but would need to be significantly rewritten - right now it seems more like an essay about a noble cause than an encyclopedic coverage of elder law. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've significantly cleaned up and copy-edited the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The parts with original research can be removed, and the article can be moved to Elder law in India or Elderly care in India. Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) seems to have edited the article to address the copyright concerns. utcursch | talk 12:18, 14 October 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) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Munshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was a proposed deletion that seemed borderline to me, so I objected. The given reason for the prod was: "Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT." Munshi's been in a few films in supporting roles, but a quick search seems to show he is much better known for his involvement in the Jessica Lall trial. For the record, I'm a keep. Cmprince (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Cmprince, Munshi was barely notable in film but became notorious in the Lall trial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He acted in important roles, and major roles at least in two movies (Jhankaar Beats and The Bong Connection). Also, his involvement in Jesica Lall case is noteworthy. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge? - I came across this article while working on unreferenced BLPs. I found the two references regarding the legal case but none to support his acting career as noteworthy - therefore I suggested "Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT". Looking further maybe WP:BIO1E fits and it should be merged into Murder_of_Jessica_Lall#Judgement? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite interesting. This fellow was officially declared a liar by the Delhi High Court in 2006[5] and 5 years later faced perjury charges.[6] This shows us that he made a very bad decision and got caught. As it made the press and has coverage for an extended period, his legal problem is worth speaking about in the article. But that negative press should not detract from his already having met WP:ENT. My thought here is that despite the generally negative aspect of most of the 200+ sources speaking toward this fellow from 2005 to present, nearly all of the sources also give us decent information of the man and his career apart from the trial aspect. Meeting WP:ENT means his roles must be significant and the productions notable. If they are, then no matter the negative aspect of the sources, the career becomes verifiable. By way of a cogent example, the undoubtly notable Fatty Arbuckle had a great deal more negative press when arrested and tried for rape and murder... an event which put a big dent in his career. However, and in spite of that negativity and the BLP1E of Arbuckle's 3 manslaughter trials, his notability was found to exist both apart from and as part of that years-long legal issue. More cogent, is that Arbuckle is mentioned in the alleged victim's article, just as she is mentioned in his, and no need has been found to delete or merge either one into the other. In this AFD, and although Shayan's years-long notoriety bleeds over into almost all coverage of his acting, his acting is the a constant which is NOT a "one event". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 12 October 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. without prejudice to recreation as a redirect Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Castelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Castelle does not pass WP:CRIME. Information on Castelle can be found in the Lucchese crime family#Capos section. Vic49 (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am inclined to delete. Castelle was an underboss for a while, but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about his time in that job. Rogermx (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor gangster, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lucchese crime family#Capos. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CRIME, minor criminal. --Cox wasan (talk) 07:11, 14 October 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} 00:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Ringtones number-one chart of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a Billboard chart of minimal notability, if at all. Lists for minor and component charts such as this have been deleted multiple times in the past. I see no evidence of lists for other years besides this one. Even the article for the chart itself (Hot Ringtones) redirects to Billboard (magazine). - eo (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 11 October 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. I'm sorry Mchart89 but there is a clear consensus here that this company does not pass WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Reach Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am not 100% sure of my case, but this looks much like advertising. The company itself is maybe notable, but also not very convincing. Not as much Google hits as you might expect from a noteworthy company. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. a foreign exchange broker..... It provides foreign exchange services to corporate businesses and private individuals. O RLY? The more you try to argue notability in Wikipedia in the article itself, the more obvious the spam becomes. This one tries to parlay obviously incidental coverage (Over the past ten years Global Reach Partners have made many appearances on global television networks, commentating on economic and political events that impact on global currencies....) and petty trade awards (In April 2011 Global Reach Partners achieved The Carbon Neutral Company certification.) in hopes of getting the spam article kept. It seems obvious that this article was inserted by a publicist who's made a superficial study of WP:N, hoping to get a client a Wikipedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes have been amended. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchart89 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources are provided and I cannot find any, so it doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. §everal⇒|Times 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended the sources provided as well as the first point made. Preceding comment added by Mchart89 (talk 20:11,6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • As stated in WP:CORP, "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I only see two sources, one of which is a description of the company. The other appears to require some kind of login credentials. The article is just a stub now so I'm ambivalent about deletion, but it won't progress beyond a stub without more detailed independent sources. §everal⇒|Times 17:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended the changes so that they fulfill the WP:GNG requirements. Adding many more notable, independent and reliable sources, hope this helps to verify the page. Here is also a similar page which has been verified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiFX Mchart89 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have axed out everything what was not relevant. You still have to proof that the company is noteworthy by giving reliable third party sources. Is it a coincidence that there is a marketing- en promotion campaign running? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added third party sources after following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources and extended the article so that it is not a stub. I think its just coincidental timing. Is there any other amendments I need to make? really hope this meets the spec now.Mchart89 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think that the information about their move and the info about their sponsorships really tells something about the company? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not entirely, the 10.5billion transactions made, the 130 currencies which they deal with, the expert commentary they give on the foreign currency market on broadcasters such as BBC, CNN and CNBC is but that got deleted, I have added more relevant information and referenced it so I hope this is alight. It is my first article on wikipedia so I need your help so if there is any more advice you could give me to improve the article I would be very grateful. .Mchart89 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is proving quite difficult to understand and provide the right third party sources.if there is still further amendments is it possible to gain further contact phone/e-mail about what constitutes correct sources as unfortunately I am still unclear. Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.Mchart89 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Smerdis, this is totally WP:SPAM. Nothing special or noteworthy about this company. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading WP:SPAM I have removed the Tommy Hill and GBmoto sponsorship so that it fits with the requirements and that there is no spam on the article.Mchart89 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 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 Florida Championship Wrestling#Female wrestlers. and semiprotect Courcelles 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Miller (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, no significant coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:ATHLETE. The article was created by gaming the system at AfC (a redirect was requested and, once created, turned into a full-blown article); attempts to turn it into a redirect again were all reverted by IP editors, but notability concerns were not addressed. Huon (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Surely the solution to the problem identified by the nominator is to semi-protect the redirect, rather than delete it? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and protect - reccomend reverting to here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 13 October 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. Courcelles 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Dodgeball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

this article appears to be nonsense. It looks like a part copy of Dodgeball, Ultimate Dodgeball fromn the British Heart Foundation and Extreme Dodgeball and not as original as the article claims it to be. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The article is not "nonsense," which would make it eligible for speedy, but it fails WP:GNG. I'm also going to nominate Extreme Dodgeball for the same reason.--~TPW 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to stay on the safe side while nominating this article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I recommend tagging and improving. It fulfills WP:GNP. It is played on many university campusesin organized leagues. rules here. Google Books and Google News--Ryan.germany (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads as a clear NFT case. Certainly, redundant to the main dodgeball article and probably not even worth a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:04, 11 October 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. Courcelles 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (COST) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Yet another Europroject where the author seems to think that independent references are not needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I'm now a Delete, see below) - well it certainly looks terrible, and the links provided are certainly internal to the project so useless as 3rd-party verifiable sources. That doesn't mean sources can't be found. Is deletion the right response here? Googling does turn up journals, conferences etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm a member of such a COST network myself and we have indeed even published a meeting report of our first meeting in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publishing is what academics do and only if others would start writing about our network (small chance...) would it become notable. The same is the case here. The network members do research, present data at meetings, and publish articles: nothing out of the ordinary. The same is the case here and I don't see anything that makes this particular case of Europrojectcruft notable. --Crusio (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, better Delete it then! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have written some of this article. This was my first attempt to add something to Wikipedia. I admit it is not perfect but I had hopped in time It can be edited and revised to become better. Hence, I am a bit confused why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirezafazeli (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the basic problem is that it neither shows why the subject is 'Notable' - i.e. why Wikipedia readers should be interested, why it is something out of the ordinary, worth recording in an encyclopaedia; nor that the subject is 'Verifiable', i.e. that there are serious, good, reliable independent sources outside the circle of people involved in some way with the project. At the moment those of us who've looked at it don't think so; if you can prove otherwise, the article will stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks. I am learning the life here. I need to read more. I am also asking others in my group that may have more experience to join in and help to make it to fit to the standards of Wikipedia and show why it deserves to be maintained in Wikipedia. How much time we have before you completly remove/delete it? Even writing these comments, I am not sure I am doing it correct and this is really the place or the way you do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirezafazeli (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find any third party sources to demonstrate notability. Polyamorph (talk) 07:49, 13 October 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. Courcelles 20:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neologism related to OPERA experiment speed of light findings from unpublished sci-fi author Rajagopal Kamath ^Khukri 06:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The context in which the subject is found in the literature (scholar and books) is hardly sufficient to have a serious article it about here. DVdm (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORIGINAL. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced, fails to establish notability, and academic notability seems doubtful to me because it looks dubious from a physics standpoint (tachyons are well-understood and don't require overturning relativity). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.A new idea based on the results of neutrino experiment. The authror/editor should expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sldgehmr (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin The above user was blocked as a sock account of the article creator. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. The neutrino experiment is very recent and the faster than light result very much unconfirmed and unlikely. There has not been sufficient time for any new theories to have become accepted by the physics community and hence no reliable sources are available to support this article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR, and WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable neologism at this point and per the arguments mentioned above already--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scope for improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.83.251 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 111.92.83.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gameseeker/Archive, this IP address is likely a sock of the article creator. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced, fails notability, etc. See WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 21:04, 12 October 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 tossed in the slammer. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of criminal gangs in Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The list is entirely based on a single document that reflected the what was happening in the mid 1990's. Not really much evidence that any of the listed gangs are still there. In the mean time, the outdated list has become a playground for fake entries and assorted vandalism. Seems like it is contrary to WP:NOTEVERYTHING.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given that the single source for this article is over 17-years-old, a more appropriate name for this article is List of criminal gangs that used to exist in Oakland, California. The subject matter of Oakland street gangs certainly deserves a place in Wikipedia, however, the best place for that is Crime in Oakland, California where there is currently no mention of gangs at all. Location (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's actually a good idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A directory of non notable gangs. Mattg82 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey -- who you calling non-notable!? I oughta cap your ass for that! EEng (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Try expanding another article on crime in the region. Dzlife (talk) 18:55, 12 October 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 delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lie. Lies. Lying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic Zerbu 04:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete—per nominator. this is a really weird page here. possibly a candidate for a speedy as patent nonsense?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A3 or G3, pick'em - Article creator removed a speedy tag already once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done nomination. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:36, 6 October 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 discussion has demonstrated that the article is clearly not a copyright violation, and that the article meets the notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Greeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No reliable third-party sources about this poll, other than this article [7] (in Greek) on Kathimerini, which is criticizing their choosing methods. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a nationally-networked television programme, this meets the notability criteria for wikipedia. Deb (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which notability criteria? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • These: Wikipedia:TVSERIES#Programming Deb (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, WP:TVSERIES alone does not justify notability ("Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable [...] "– my bold). Also, the second paragraph says "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.", which absence is exactly the point i made in my first comment. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  --Lambiam 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [8].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the two editors above who have !voted keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clear now that this is not copyvio. The problem now is notability, and there is no evidence that this article passes WP:GNG. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand that some of us have differing views as to whether it is notable. How, btw, do you find it any less notable than List of Greeks?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that list obviously needs (more) references to justify notability for every individual who's in there. But yes, i think it's more notable that the TV show "Great Greeks" (which shouldn't be treated as a list). Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are both lists. Why do you think the indicated one -- chosen only by one or more editors -- more notable than a poll by an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 10 October 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) Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belg der Belgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete But I'm biased in that I don't think any of these "greatest" lists are notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  --Lambiam 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [9].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As discussed above, this is (a) not copyvio, and (b) notable. Also (c) the vast AfD spam of the nominator, both with these and with coats-of-arms/flag pages, deserves a application of soggy seafood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 13 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Español de la Historia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nationally networked television programme. Deb (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  --Lambiam 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [10].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with other !voter, who has also !voted keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; Snow. Inasmuch as there is no support whatsoever for this nomination, and much disagreement with it, if someone wishes to close it at some point as a "SNOW" that would seem appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 11 October 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 EX-TER-MIN-ATE. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who story chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Completely original research. Article's references are attributed to inferences, observations, and speculation ("suggests", "seems", etc.). The article has admitted it is unverifiable since its inception (see the third paragraph of the lead). Previous AFD asked for better sources and none have been produced. The article self-consciously admits it can only guess.

Even if we weren't just guessing, this is a WP:CONTENTFORK that inherently fails the policy on what Wikipedia is not, namely not plot summaries. There are no third party sources that WP:verify notability of this chronology outside the notability of the Doctor Who series itself, and without any reception or significance this fork will fail the policy on WP:WAF. See the policy to WP:AVOIDSPLITs.

See this AFD for similar discussion and reasoning. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition from nominator: Forgot about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (2nd nomination), which is a fork of this article with a different in-universe perspective.

• I suggest this page not be deleted. It is constantly and meticulously updated. It gets hundreds of views every day. Very few entries are unsubstantiated and entries are rarely contested. Please retain this page. Thank you. Cumbersnatch (talk) 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Nearly completely unreferenced and infested with WP:OR. WP:NOT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR. Violates what Wikipedia is not as a WP:PLOT only WP:CONTENTFORK. Someone put some work into this that should be hosted at their website or at Wikia. Dzlife (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article appears to be original research by synthesis and there is no indication that it meets the general notability guideline by itself. This is a plot-only description of a fictional work and there is not a single reliable secondary source to presume that the topic is notable. Even the article itself mentions that the chronology is according to the personal perspective of a fictional character within the series, not from a real-world perspective, so this means that the article only has a in-universe perspective, which does not justify its inclusion in Wikipedia without reception or significance. Furthermore, the content itself has no inline references to backup the content. Instead, it has multiple notes about the interpretation of primary sources, which is original research. Even considering the article a list, notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the subject of the list as presented in the article has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, it is not an appropriate for Wikipedia. As the list also fall into what Wikipedia is not, it is also not suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Because of this, this article is redundant content fork from the several Doctor Who-related articles that alread cover the plot of the series, and, thus, this article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft. Banish to Wikia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only useful for a very small amount of people. who really cares what order events occur in? I immagine some Doctor Who fans don't even care about this. 81.2.71.33 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolute fancruft. Neutrality^talk 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Exterminate! As you get towards the new season it just looks exactly like the list of Doctor Who Serials page. Overall it seems hard to understand and slightly pointless because if you know the episode order you obviously know The Doctor's timeline, because the series centers around him... so just look at the serials page... ? Betsi-HaP (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this article includes more than just the television episodes, but also includes novels, audio dramas, and comics, which all take place between the episodes. Many of these stories do include placement notes, others have placement made clear by the presence and absence of companions. I will grant, however, that other stories' placements aren't quite as clear, and that any precise placement of these is original research. Bartender2347 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 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} 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Original research essay. Fundamentally unencyclopedic content that would require a complete rewrite. No indication that the topic meets the notability guidelines. causa sui (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsorced. Appears to be original research. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:14, 11 October 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} 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gábor Koltai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This BLP is not well-sourced in English (almost all sources are untranslated Hungarian). Subject is non-notable; article is entirely about a single legal issue. Miniapolis (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a WP:BLP violation. This is not really a biography but rather a coatrack to discuss pending and as-yet unproven criminal charges. The author is a single purpose account whose work here is entirely devoted to publicizing these accusations on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an obvious attack piece and BLP violation for a non-notable person. In my opinion it should be speedy.Jarhed (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom and Cullen328. - DonCalo (talk) 20:34, 6 October 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. No reason to delete has been advanced. (non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 03:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shaheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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