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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR j⚛e decker^talk 06:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Wills[edit]

David S. Wills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article contains one source that demonstrates notability (review of subject's book in The Korea Herald). Other sources are connected to Wills himself (his blog, etc.); there were other "sources", but they were blogs and comments on Amazon. The book itself is self-published. Insufficient independent evidence of notability, thus does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable FarceFan (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The single review of this book is not, to me, enough to bolster its author into notability. Self-publishing confers no notability in either fiction or blogging. I can find no further reliable sources. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If the book was the subject of this article, I would have given some leeway, but since it's the author I could not find verifiable sources that give him significant coverage. Therefore delete for failing WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete MAde a search on Google and could no find some sources to support notability. —Hahc21 15:31, 8 July 2012 (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. WP:V, possible hoax. j⚛e decker^talk 06:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo 3: Mystery Incorporated[edit]

Scooby-Doo 3: Mystery Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete. Subject does not meet the criteria for notability for future films. A search for references to support the article came back with nothing. Only mention of the film was this Wikipedia article. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 22:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 2 July 2012 (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)

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

• Delete due to article not providing enough information to really determine the Scooby Doo topic. The similarly titled Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated was released in 2010,[1] received kids choice award nominations,[2] and decent coverage[3][4] And a different topic referred to as Scooby-Doo 3 was being discussed in sources as early as 2004.[5] Combining the search terms into "Scooby-Doo 3: Mystery Incorporated" search gives NO results other than Wikipedia.[6] The nominator is spot on. Lacking even verifiability of any Scooby-Doo movie being made for 2013 release, this article is at best WP:TOOSOON and at worst a possible hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rob and Mchael rationales. Either way, this film has never been announced and surely a hoax, since no plans for it actually exist. —Hahc21 15:32, 8 July 2012 (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. Consensus appears to be that the RIAA gold status and mentions by the sources provided by Michael Q. Schmidt satisfy the notability guidelines. 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lopez: Let's Get Loud[edit]

Jennifer Lopez: Let's Get Loud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete - Non-notable concert film release. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE due to lack of coverage from verifiable or reliable independent sources. SplashScreen (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the topic meets both WP:GNG and WP:NF. Why would th nom believe that a DVDd of two of J-Lo's live concerts woud not get any coverage? Rather than just a concert film release, this was J- Lo's second DVD... and yes, it received the requisite coverage and commentary to meet WP:NF. The nom erred to say "lack of coverage from verifiable or reliable independent sources," as WP:BEFORE shows sources exist. Perhaps his concern was that the article did not itself contain the available sources. I remind him of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP and more importantly, WP:NRVE. Topic notability is dependent on sources BEING aavilable, not their use or not within an article on that topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're voting to keep the article because the AfD process says that sources need to exist, not because there are actual reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that comment on this release. If that is the case - where are they? SplashScreen (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in your other J-Lo nomination, my keep is based upon my own before, and not yours. Before opining, I thought to myself "Is it possible that the second DVD ever from J-Lo would not have received any coverage??" And so I took a quick look and found enough to have me look further. Among the results, I found its title track spoken of in New Straits Times and the DVD itelf spoken of in Vagalume Daily Press Allstarz Detikcom and 4Hoteliers among others, and at Allmusic and Billboard and Hollywood Reporter. These took only a few moments and guided my opinion. When a nominator claims that independent secondary sources do not exist when in fact sources do, it suggests a lack of proper WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Schmidt. I will add some additional content in the article. Additionally, the video was certified Gold by the RIAA. Statυs (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per the numerous sources provided above, this topic meets WP:GNG. Till 05:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on MichaelQ's listed sources and Status's improvements.  The Steve  06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I just expanded Jennifer Lopez: Feelin' So Good (an article also nominated by Splash for the same reasons) 5x [7]. I will do the same with this article tomorrow. Statυs (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2012 (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. Snow keep, per HEY and Status remarkable efforts.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feelin' So Good (video)[edit]

Feelin' So Good (video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable concert film release. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE due to lack of coverage from verifiable or reliable independent sources. SplashScreen (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the topic meets both WP:GNG and WP:NF. Rather than just a concert film release, this was J- Lo's first DVD... and yes, it received the requisite coverage and commentary to meet WP:NF. The nom erred to say "lack of coverage from verifiable or reliable independent sources," as the simplest WP:BEFORE shows MANY. Perhaps his concern was that the article did not itself contain the available sources. I remind him of WP:NRVE. Topic notability is dependent on sources BEING aavilable, not there use or not within an article on that topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're voting to keep the article because the AfD process says that sources need to exist, not because there are actual reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that comment on this release. If that is the case - where are they? SplashScreen (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I !vote based upon MY before, not yours. I have a quite difficult time believing that J-Lo's very-first-DVD-ever did not receive any sort of coverage. So before opining, I quickly looked and immediately found a decent and inciteful review at DVD Talk. [8] Hmmmm... seems a reliable source offering verifiability to me. Heck, even MLive here refers to it in a J-lo fiat comercial by stating folks might think the spot might even be a lost clip from the Feelin' So Good DVD. Had a merge and redirect been suggested, rather than an outright deletion, I might not have even bothered looking at all. What other sources were denied existance? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually referring to the video of her song "Feelin' So Good" when they state that. Statυs (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought the 2011 MLive statement "you might confuse it with a lost clip from the "Feelin' So Good" video" referred to the video's inclusion in the DVD. But "keep" none-the-less. Good job, by the way... kudos and thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Schmidt. I will add some additional content in the article. Additionally, the video was certified Gold by the RIAA. Statυs (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per sources provided above. Coverage does in fact exist for this DVD. Till 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are many reasons to keep this article, and it is obviously currently in the middle of being expanded. −SoapJar 07:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Articles has been expanded 5x of how it originally appeared before being nominated. [9] Statυs (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comments above and the expansion. — Tomica (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The certification from the RIAA alone is far cry from being "non notable". Erick (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Due to a temendous amount of work by User:Status in improving this topic, the article nominated as 16 word stub simply because it lacked use of available citatons, has now become a 2286 word C or B class article... that's a 142x expansion [10] of a (chuckle) topic "declared" unsorcable and non-notable so as to improve the project. Keeping this AFD open is pointless as the nominator's deletion rationale has been shown as incorrect in its presumptions. Perhaps someone might wish to early close this AFd per WP:SNOW? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like Splash is warring against each article worked by Status (and from J.Lo either). Also, this nomination shows he doesn't understand the policies. This article meets every guideline needed to be on WP. Cheers! —Hahc21 01:09, 4 July 2012 (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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY j⚛e decker^talk 06:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teodors Bļugers[edit]

Teodors Bļugers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A 17-year old ice hockey player who will is an incoming freshman for the Minnesota State Mavericks. He graduated high school in 2012. He was a 2nd round pick in the 2012 NHL Entry Draft. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he does. Patken4 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because I hate the red links. Giskard (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 July 2012 (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 creating a redirect to the appropriate section of the Jennifer Lopez or Ben Affleck biography. As the article is about the relationship between the actors and only passingly about the term "Bennifer" itself, any encyclopedic treatment of the relationship can be included within one or both of the actors' articles. While the relationship is arguably notable (depending on the weight one gives the sources), our notability guidelines do not require that all notable topics receive their own article when it is possible that a broader article – e.g. the actor bio(s) – can adequately cover the topic as part of its broader treatment of the subject. Several editors participating in the discussion have proposed including any relevant information in the actors' bios instead of having a standalone article, and no argument appears to have been made to explain why that proposal would be either a bad idea or against policy. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bennifer[edit]

Bennifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete - Following the deletion of Personal life of Jennifer Lopez (AfD), I feel that this article should be deleted for similar reasons. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE details of this piece read like a WP:TABLOID or WP:FANCRUFT. Moreover, this violates one of the fundamental principals of WP:BLP - "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" - and is full of WP:BLPGOSSIP. The article contains next to no out-of-universe commentary from verifiable or reliable independent sources. At the very most, transwiki to Wiktionary. SplashScreen (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To the closing administrator - please note that User:Status, the article's creator, originally !voted to merge and redirect the article [11] but has since removed his comments and changed his position. SplashScreen (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that there is actually no !vote from me located in this article. I decided to neither !vote keep, merge or delete. It should also be noted that this user seems to like nominating articles I create for deletion, and doing so without notification. Statυs (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except there was, when you originally !voted to merge and redirect the article [12]. SplashScreen (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article violates WP:BLP of Jennifer Lopez. Lopez would be critical of wikipedia based on this article. --Artene50 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jennifer Lopez#2002–03: J to tha L-O! The Remixes, This Is Me... Then and Bennifer. Having an article on this relationship is tabloidesque and not encyclopedic, but it could be a search term. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even a Lifetime movie about them may be more notable than the real-life relationship itself. Also, the whole article speaks only real-life events that made neither significance nor impact. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete covered better in their individual articles. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Not every celebrity relationship is notable, but this one is probably the most noteworthy coupling I can imagine, in part for popularizing this particular meme in pop culture of the combined name, but also just because it has been so heavily-ingrained into popular culture.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree with you, which is why I began the article in the first place. Statυs (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Fox News' assertion is entirely wrong; the trend-setting celebrity portmanteau was Pickfair. And The Devil's Advocate's "popular culture" argument breaks WP:LOCALFAME and WP:INTHENEWS. SplashScreen (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Their relationship was notable and affected their careers, both in negative way I guess. However, I still think this article has enough information to stand of its own.— Tomica (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:VALINFO and WP:ASSERTN? SplashScreen (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please elaborate, as I am not seeing Tomica's comment being in violation of either of those. Statυs (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " I still think this article has enough information to stand of its own" - WP:VALINFO violation. "Their relationship was notable and affected their careers" - WP:ASSERTN violation. SplashScreen (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where's the elaboration I asked for? Statυs (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing else for me to elaborate on. You were confused as to why Tomica's arguments broke these two policies (maybe you didn't read them?), so I presented relevent quotations which match Tomica's argument and illustrate why he has fallen foul of these policies. Just what do you expect to see from a Torquay hotel bedroom window? SplashScreen (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relinking and quoting what the user said again isn't elaboration. Show me in each policy where those comments are a violation. Statυs (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? I think that should be clear for everybody else. SplashScreen (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I asked you for it. When linking to polices, you should specify how exactly it is against policy. It is not a requirement, but surely if a user asks you to do so, you should. Statυs (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think this is a good example of a topic which seems 'notable' at the time, but ultimately fails to demonstrate long-term notability. We're talking about an 18-month romance here, with few to no lasting consequences. I don't think that's a subject deserving of its own article. There are also BLP issues here: I'm not entirely comfortable with articles which focus on the personal lives of living celebrities and their failed relationships. I'd be fine with (say) Relationship of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, since they're both dead, but one like this is more problematic. Robofish (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment above. It did have a lasting effect on popular culture, and that's just the most obvious effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When I first saw this article existed, I thought it might be justified as the (possible) origin of the celebrity-couple-portmanteau meme. But the article isn't about the meme; it's just an exhaustive retelling of every step of the relationship, offering very little argument about why anyone today should care about any of it. A briefer summation should be (and probably already is) included in Affleck's and Lopez's respective articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an argument for improving the article, not deleting it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not if there aren't multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources regarding the "origin of the celebrity-couple-portmanteau meme". SplashScreen (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... [13] [14] Statυs (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So the first article is a trivial mention of just one sentence about "Bennifer" and the second is another quick sentence followed by two quotes of what two non-notable randoms think of the duo. Not forgetting that both sources fail WP:V as Pickfair was where this trend started. So, how do these sources guarantee that the article is notable? SplashScreen (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked for a verifiable, reliable or independent source stating that "Bennifer" was the origin of the celebrity couple name. I gave you it. You never asked for an in-dept essay about it. Statυs (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you have not provided sources that match that description. SplashScreen (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Huffington Post and Fox News are not verifiable, reliable or independent? News to me. Statυs (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well anyone with the minimum knowledge of Western culture would know that Fox News is EXTREMELY unreliable, but both sources are unreliable in this case as the information they provide fails WP:V. SplashScreen (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (In response to The Devil's Advocate) No, I don't agree that we should keep this article which is entirely about a non-notable topic, on the basis that if it were completely rewritten with an entirely different focus, that new focus might justify keeping that new and entirely different article. If you, or anyone else, would like to write an article about "Bennifer" that justifies the topic's notability, deleting this currently-existing article should prevent absolutely no barrier to doing that. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have sources and material to work with here. Deleting this would require editors to go back and find all the sources and write all the material. Here we can make adjustments and review sources to more quickly remedy the issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are lots of news stories about Bennifer: It's official: Bennifer is no more, Intimates React to Bennifer Breakup, Bennifer: A Five-Year Anniversary Tribute, etc. The article may Benni(fer)fit from a rewrite, but the term is unquestionably notable. It won't wither and die (much as many of us would like it to). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tabloid and celebrity gossip reports of a relationship does not mean that said partnership should have its own Wikipedia article. SplashScreen (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources which are pointed by the user are perfectly reliable per the Wikipedia policy. — Tomica (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be so, but what value do they add? How will they be used to erase all the many problems that myself and other editors have raised? This is pure WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Ben Affleck is notable, Jennifer Lopez is notable. Their relationship is not. SplashScreen (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously that is your personal opinion, however not all think like you here. And I don't see that editors that voted for deletion of the article raised some major issues. It is just in my opinion. — Tomica (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well who else's opinion would it be? SplashScreen (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Opinion of all the users, both, who think it should be kept and deleted. — Tomica (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As Clarity and Devil both stated, the article is in need of a face lift. But that is not a reason to delete an article. The nominator should also read WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles, which is required of him. Statυs (talk)

• Keep: the topic is of extreme notability. The couple—not only were extremely influential and notable during their run—popularized the combination of names for other couples, and sort of became the "start of something" if you get what i mean. Most points mentioned are very important and while this article isn't perfect it most certainly should not be deleted. −SoapJar 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When are we going to have a proper, policy-led debate on the state of articles such as this without WP:WEASEL phrases like " were extremely influential and notable during their run"? SplashScreen (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another example of a blip on the celebrity radar screen whose content should be (but probably already is) in the articles of the two elements of this amalgamate. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2012 (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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 06:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Freak Out Ever[edit]

Greatest Freak Out Ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The article's conspicuous lack of sources appear to contradict its wild claims of viral video notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we AFDed this back in 2010, and it doesn't appear to have picked up any additional notability since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. Youtube is not a reliable source. --Artene50 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous nomination. It wasn't and still isn't notable. Till 07:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (Reluctant) delete: I initially thought there might be some hope for this article, but this didn't survive AfD then, and it won't survive it now. Google Books hits are a few sentences at most, Google News archives hits are also brief and do not give any analysis. While this video is well-known among viral video fans, it seems that only the most viral of videos receive that kind of attention that warrants an article (Charlie Bit My Finger is probably the best example). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Verifiability, not truth - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notable (and probably unencyclopedic). Does not meet the General Guideline and has no reliable sources supporting it (and surely won't have). —Hahc21 15:34, 8 July 2012 (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 Snowball Keep as per unanimous and overwhelmingly positive consensus, which has very quickly rejected the idea that these particular episodes do not meet this website's threshold for notability. Plus, the article has references to major media sources. A bold non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Gives Back[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Idol Gives Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete - whilst some episodes of television series are independently notable, this set of episodes is not. What we appear to have here is a short passage about the differences from regular episodes of the programme followed by and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of sponsors and participants. There is no out-of-universe context that indicates that these episodes are more notable than any other American Idol installments. As well as lacking WP:NOTABILITY, the important aspects of the events appear to have been covered at American Idol, American Idol (season 6) (specifically American Idol (season 6)#Idol Gives Back), American Idol (season 7), American Idol (season 9) and List of American Idol episodes. The surplus here is mostly fluff. SplashScreen (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPLIT and WP:SPINOFF for why and how duplication of content is normal and acceptable. Anarchangel (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliably sourced articles passes both WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. Aspects (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE is a style guideline, so whether it passes that or not is rather irrelevant. Of course it contains reliable sources - American Idol will be covered by reliable sources just for being American Idol. What we're here to ascertain is whether these episodes are particularly notable due to coverage that goes above and beyond that of other installments. It does not. SplashScreen (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Passes" was perhaps not the best possible wording, but EPISODE shows some reasoning on the subject of Notability. I do not believe that "'particularly notable" is a requirement anywhere for anything. Anarchangel (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(response to SplashScreen) The reason I used WP:EPISODE is because you referenced it when you added the notability tag, [15]. I would have simply said it passed WP:GNG, had I not seen that edit. Aspects (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG through significant coverage in reliable sources. Till 07:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Nobody is claiming that the episodes are not notable, just that they aren't notable enough to receive their own article. SplashScreen (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough sources to establish notability, too long to merge. Articles on episodes are allowed when the episode has sufficient coverage. I'm unfamiliar with the idea of "notable but not notable enough for Wikipedia" which appears to contradict WP:N. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me - although information can be notable, it is almost always not notable for individual Wikipedia articles. The notable information here is "three episodes of American Idol were called Idol Gives Back, which donated money to charity" - this belongs under the notable banner of List of American Idol episodes. The rest is, by and large, indiscriminate cruft. There is a distinction between something being notable and it being independently notable. SplashScreen (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"notable banner"? What does that even mean? Thermonuclear explosion then, is not independently notable, because it is only what an Atomic bomb does? Anarchangel (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. I mean in the sense that The Becoming (Grey's Anatomy) is not notable, but Grey's Anatomy (season 4) is. The same argument applies here. SplashScreen (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, it is an Argumentum ad absurdum. My point was that comparisons are not enough to eliminate notability. You would have to go back in time and stop CBS, NBC, ABC News, etc, from writing those stories. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe so, you have applied it poorly. The reason this subject is notable is not because it is an episode of a TV show, but because it is an episode which has received substantial independent coverage from many mainstream media outlets. Had that particular episode of Grey's Anatomy received similar independent coverage, I would likewise deem it to pass the GNG independent of the parent show. Ravenswing 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The closing administrator may wish to read this. SplashScreen (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Early close as Keep at last AfD with 11 Keep votes to 1 Delete (which is three of a trio of warning signs of WP:SNOW, although the closer did not mention this). This article now is cited by sources like CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, Variety, and USA Today, as well as a slew of other independent reliable sources. ->humor-> I should mention that I have a vested interest in this article closing as Keep, as I like to think about American Idol and the implications of its existence as little as possible; if it is Kept again I will be less likely to have to look at another deletion nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep nearly unanimous prior AFD (admittedly an old one), loads of good sources, an audience of millions, and 185 MILLION raised for charity (more than many countries' GDP), indicating substantial real-world impact. I'm not even an Idol fan but frankly, it's kind of ridiculous seeing something like this listed for AFD among the garage bands and kids' webcomics... TWICE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm in much the same boat as Starblind. I personally dislike Idol rather strongly, but this is keepworthy. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: American Idol is a redolent heap of flaming suck, but there is no question whatsoever that this particular segment meets the GNG going away, and as such, other subordinate notability criteria or style guidelines are irrelevant. Frankly, I don't know what the nom was thinking with a claim that it fails WP:N, and strongly suggest that he reviews it to gain a clearer understanding of its provisions. To quote: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline ..." To quote the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I fancy that MTV News, TV Guide, MSNBC, Variety and CNN would constitute reliable sources in damn near anyone's book. Ravenswing 18:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This isn't just a series of episodes, its also a charitable campaign. Statυs (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nominator (Nobody is claiming that the episodes are not notable), who possibly wanted a WP:Merge discussion instead.  The Steve  06:40, 3 July 2012 (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 closing: no need to delete, just change back to redirect -- this duplicates material in the Elliot Carver article to no useful end. -- The Anome (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carver Media Group Network[edit]

Carver Media Group Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Originally a redirect, - padded out a little bit by an IP - no real substance of an article. Suggest go back to redirect.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:47, 1 July 2012 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers[edit]

UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No evidence of notability; I prodded it in 2011, but just noticed the prod was removed by the original editor. . DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2012 (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) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability very doubtful for a single chapter of a student organization. References are in the school paper, organs of the parent organization, and two articles in the local paper, one of which is very passing. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (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} 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete As per WP: GNG. It's not notable and the school paper is not a reliable source. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real evidence of WP:N The references are secondary. --Artene50 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG and lack of independent third-party sources. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly it fails GNG as, per Artene, all references are secondary, so it cannot demonstrate notablity as such. Also, as it has 8 sources covering a single statement, there probably won't be more sources to add. Regards. —Hahc21 15:36, 8 July 2012 (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} 20:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Influence (mixtape)[edit]

Under the Influence (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable mix tape, all sources attributed to... tumblr. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2012 (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) 00:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources don't indicate notability. Little interest in saving it it seems.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (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} 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's plenty of coverage of this release, e.g. [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to Michig's links. Coverage in 2 major newspapers' websites and other sources. These days mix tapes can be as notable as traditional albums. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig. Very surprising!  The Steve  06:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michig's findings. The nominator should be reminded of WP:BEFORE, specifically D. Statυs (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, the Tumblr account used in the article is the official blog of Odd Future Records, the label who released the mixtape. For confirmation, it is linked on their official website. Statυs (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, good job Michig for digging deeper into the subject. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Odd Future per WP:NALBUMS - "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". SplashScreen (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the NALBUMS ans the findings exposed here on the discussion. Regards. —Hahc21 15:37, 8 July 2012 (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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 06:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Baddeley (actor)[edit]

John Baddeley (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Minor figure who is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The IMDB list on his career is not long. He's probably a minor actor. --Artene50 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• WEak keep -- Since we do not allow performance by performer categories, I think we must allow the lists into which they get listified. I would however be happier if there were more indication of what he had done apart from voice-overs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (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} 20:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless you're Hank Azaria or Mel Blanc, primarily voice actors don't get much press. Baddeley is no exception. I don't see any solid references, nor sufficiently notable roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of verifiable sources, therefore failing WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 July 2012 (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 lack of reliable independent sources about the topic is the deciding factor. Fram (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archetypal cosmology[edit]

Archetypal cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This appears to overlap with the AfD here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archetypal_astrology. I would have applied CSD but there is no relevant criteria. I don't see the concept meeting WP:GNG. It appears to be a fringe viewpoint only amongst a small group with some revisionism to make it look like a more ancient tradition as it is being used to describe the ideas of Shakespeare, Kepler and Geothe who were all dead before Jung was born so I don't see how it could draw on Jungian ideas. This appears to conflate two distinct topics which use the same terminology. It also violates WP:FRINGE throughout by not reporting the mainstream perspective and giving an uncritical description of astrology viewpoints and techniques and would require a rewrite from scratch, it is unlikely that such mainstream sources exists though due to the obscure non-notable nature of the topic though. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The mentions of Shakespeare, Kepler, et al. at the end of the article are based on sources that have used the phrase "archetypal cosmology" in describing certain parts of their work, but it doesn't refer to the "archetypal cosmology" described in the article. To the extent that the article has a well-defined topic, it's exactly the same thing as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archetypal_astrology, which has already been deleted. --Amble (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent addition of new sources that don't have anything to do with the topic of the article confirms my suspicion that the article doesn't really know what it's supposed to be about. If it's just about any example of the words "archetype" and "cosmology" occurring near each other, then it can safely be deleted. If it's about Tarnas's ideas, then (if anything) it should be recreated at archetypal astrology. Either way, I can't see that this article has a coherent topic that can be distinguished from the topic of the former archetypal astrology article. --Amble (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The topic of the article is a cosmology which is constituted by archetypes. Tarnas believes in this doctrine, as does Nietzsche, Kepler, and other figures. Reliable sources have been produced which backs up these claims. That opponents of this content dismiss these sources is simply par for the course. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the topic is any example of the words "archetype" and "cosmology" occurring near each other (which is not a cohesive topic at all). The archetypes used by Kepler, for example, have no connection to Tarnas et al. There is no "this doctrine" that both Tarnas and Kepler believe in. --Amble (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear that that statement is correct (since Kepler, like Tarnas, seems to have believed in astrology), and it is also not clear that it would matter, even if it were correct. The materialism of, say, Lucretius and the materialism of Richard Dawkins are undoubtedly very different things, but they can both be discussed at materialism. Obviously Tarnas, living in the 21st century, does not believe the same exact thing as Kepler. But practically any article on a philosophical theory will have a long and varied history involving different conceptions. But nobody argues that the dualism article should be deleted because Descartes' dualism is not like Plato's. Dualism is a theory that divides something into two parts. Archetypal cosmology is a cosmology which conceives of the world as consisting of archetypes. — goethean ॐ 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is inconsistent with the text in the article. For example, on Shakespeare it looks like someone just googled the word and added what came up: [24] the snippet doesn't show a context of the usage that applies here, in fact the snippet from google books shows that the writer is describing the world that Shakespeare has created for his fictional work! Furthermore, jung, jungian, and astrology, and astrological are not mentioned in the book from the search, which is odd considering the description of what the topic is, is apparently: "It uses astrological techniques to study the significance of planetary cycles and alignments, and draws on fields such as Jungian depth psychology, Greek philosophy, and mythology to formulate a unique cosmology or world view which recognizes that existence of archetypal principles and their significance for human experience."

Also, if there is two definitions of what Archetypal cosmology is, with one being a modern fringe term and the other being an older more generic term. Surely then the modern fringe usage is completely undue for this article per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories. The fringe term has been given more due weight than the other distinct usage of the term! Since, this is the majority of the article the answer is still deletion, bearing in mind the other usage hasn't been shown to be notable (or existent) either. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are changing the subject. I'll presume that you concede the point about Kepler. — goethean ॐ 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From reading it I see no connection of Kepler to the topic either and it does not meet the above explanation of the concept which is in the article. It's not even clear from the source on Kepler what meaning of archetypal is being used (or is it like the Shakespeare case as well, googling a word in google books and picking any sources that return a match?). It seems that the Kepler usage more likely refers to the style of usage as shakespeare and is distinct from Tarnas, and we are just combining mentions of Archetypal and Cosmology by OR to create a distinct topic: look at how often the word archetypal is used and how little corresponds to "archetypal cosmology": [25]. Take your pick, what is Archetypal Cosmology, a modern fringe theory by Tarnas et al based on astrological and jungian ideas or a different older belief, or just a novel combination of words? Note also, the differing definitions of Archetype includes Shakespeare as an example for use of the word unconnected to jungian ideas: [26]: "William Shakespeare is responsible for popularizing several archetypal characters"! IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler's archetypes are based on Plato, while Tarnas' are neo-Jungian (and Jung's archetypes are, of course, in turn influenced by Plato). So what? It doesn't mean that they are unrelated, or that I am making shit up. To insist that this article be about one historical period and not another flies in the face of accepted Wikipedia precedent and widespread practice. Again, please visit the pages on dualism, monism, or materialism, and note the extremely wide variety of usage — sitting there in the same article, like cats sleeping with dogs!. Go protest on their respective talk pages that Lucretius and Democritus have absolutely nothing in common with Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, (Or, better, that the Yin and Yang has nothing to do with Descartes) and that therefore, one or the other must be removed from the article. I have a feeling that your correspondents will find your argument just as bankrupt as I do. As User:AxelHarvey perceptively noted below, your perhaps over-enthusiastic usage of WP:FRINGE to remove content from Wikipedia is not really compatible with articles on intellectual history, which are free to describe any number of historical theories, views and perspectives. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of materialism or dualism, we have outside sources to show that such a topic exists and that various thinkers in different eras are associated with it. In the case of archetypal cosmology, we have a Google search for two terms occurring near each other, resulting in a grab bag of ideas and people that have no clear relationship to each other. That's the difference. It gives the strong impression of trying to make archetypal cosmology appear more impressive, notable, and respectable by shoehorning in a few extra famous people on very flimsy grounds. --Amble (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fringe topic. Major source is an infrequently published online fringe journal. Get rid. Famous_dog (c) 13:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely fringe, it's time to start purging wikipeidia of this kind of mumbo jumbo. Timingthegrove (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't purge "mumbo jumbo". We remove non-notable and unfixable articles per guidelines and policy. In fact, removing notable articles on pseudoscience would be actively against the encyclopedic mission of wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Timingthegroove has perceived the matter accurately. Only a fool would think that it is an accident that users interested in enforcing a strict reductionistic ideology on Wikipedia gang up to vote articles such as this one out of existence. — goethean ॐ 01:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The problem is not that the topic is fringe, but that it lacks notability outside of a minuscule fringe group and is sourced almost entirely with unreliable in-universe fringe sources with no reputation for fact checking or editorial responsibility, or of any credibility or standing whatsoever in the real-world scholarly community.

The main source used is not an independent source, but a self-promotional brochure published by the originator and chief proponent of the subject of the article, Richard Tarnas, who is listed as the "senior editorial advisor". According to the "journal's" own website, it's mission is:

"Archai is dedicated to furthering the research orientation and methodology established by Richard Tarnas in Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View (New York: Viking, 2006)." [[27]].

This self-promotional material is deceptively disguised as a "scholarly journal". I found no evidence that any sort of scholarly editorial or peer-review takes place, or that the "journal" has ever been cited by real-world scholars.

The only time reliable sources are used is in the last sentence. Or rather, they are egregiously misused to imply that the appearence of the words "archetypal" and "cosmology" (or something similar) in the source has something to do with the topic of the rest of the article in order to give the subject of the article an air of "legitimacy", in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK.

I could find no evidence at all of notability based on reliable secondary sources. My own rather extensive Google, Google Scholar and Google Books search turned up nothing whatsoever in the way of reliable sources that can be used to establish notability. This is strong evidence that the real-world scholarly community has never considered the topic of the article worthy of serious discussion, and that the topic is not notable outside of a tiny mutual adoration society of fringe proponents. Limited notability with a small fringe group of adoring admirers cannot be equated with notability in real-world scholarly discourse.

The article contains nothing of encyclopedic interest to a readership like that of WP because it contains no information provided by recognized experts in independent reliable sources.

Perusing the votes below reveals that the sourcing and notability problems have not been seriously addressed, except with variations of WP:CENSORSHIP, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, WP:ITSNOTABLE and, sadly, plenty of WP:ADHOM and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Cries of "censorship" and "bias" are absurd because, as I said, articles on fringe topics are certainly welcome here on WP, provided they are reliably sourced. This one, though, appears to be completely unsourceable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Updated Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contains nothing of encyclopedic interest to a readership like that of WP.

This gets to the nub of the issue, which is: let us prevent readers from seeing things which contradict our ideology. Each point of your argument depends on your personal definitions of "fringe", "reliable", "scholarly", etc. Plenty of sources exist, as everyone involved in this conversation knows. So we disqualify those sources on ideological grounds. And then we opine about what Wikipedia readers should be allowed to see. This is an ideological exercise. — goethean ॐ 00:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, significant coverage in reliable sources has not been shown. No critical reception is available either because of the non-notablity of the article, WP:FRINGE can never be met by this article and nor can WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Whether the article concerns a "fringe topic" or is even "absolutely fringe" is irrelevant and not a legitimate reason to "get rid of articles". WP does not have a censorship policy against fringe subjects; it only has policies that need to be adhered to in these topics, such as not making a fringe theory appear more mainstream or notable than it is. I have given the article some light editing to remove these concerns. With regard to notability, archetypal astrology has a very significant number of adherents and the influence of Tarnass is becoming increasingly important to astrologers. It would be easy to locate many reference to the concept within astrological literature and I've added a couple of refs to independent works which discuss the ideas outside of the astrological perspective. I've also attached the article to the Wiki Astrology Project. It's a great shame that no notice was given to the astrology project members about the proposal to delete the archetypal astrology page. There is a need to link to pages like this from various other pages belonging to that project, in order to give a resource for fuller explanation where these terms appear. Now that the archetypal astrology page has gone, the importance of this page to the astrology project has risen - these sorts of explanations are important. I see no remaining problems on this page, and no reason now not to close this discussion speedily, with a 'keep'. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the sources you added? You added two sources. The sources you added don't use the word Archetypal astrology/cosmology and don't seem to be about the concept. One Anthony Freeman, 'A Daniel Come to Judgement? Dennett and the Revisioning of Transpersonal Theory', Journal of Consiousness Studies, 13, No. 3, 2006, pp.95–109. refers to Dan Dennett as: Dennett’s popular image is of an archetypal reductionist, prominent member of CSICOP (the highly sceptical Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), and card-carrying atheist." That is the only usage of the word Archetypal in that article from what I can see. The other "J.N. Ferrer, Revisioning Transpersonal Theory p.115 (New York: SUNYPress, 2002)" does not mention astrology and appears to use archetypal in a variety of uses, and at one stage referring appears to refer to Archetypal psychology. This usage has no direct connection to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of superficial and flawed assessment is this? You remove two references to offline journals 45 minutes after they were entered into the article (on a Sunday, mind) claiming they don't use three particular words. Perhaps you meant that the titles didn't include those words? Is that how you usually decide which references to prune off articles covering topics which you don't like? I have reverted your removal of references added to the article during AfD. It is outrageous the way you unilaterally go and remove evidence that all participants of this discussion should be allowed access to and be able to assess for themselves. I've also reverted a second removal of references by you which were accompanied by the rather assuming edit summary "I think everyone accepts that this conflates to disparate usages of the word," also made while the AfD was in full progress, __meco (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offline? Assume good faith. The article and book are online: [28][29]. They don't discuss Archetypal astrology and thus they are irrelevant. (and you can see above for comments that it's already been noted that Kepler and Shakespeare etc are just grafted into the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apology for doing you wrong. Your recent nomination for deletion of Stanislav Grof didn't consolidate your standing as a level-headed contributor and did play a part in my judging you. I relied also on the fact that these references were introduced without linking to the existing online journal. I can't think why that wasn't done. I have now read "A Daniel Come to Judgement? Dennett and the Revisioning of Transpersonal Theory", and I can accede your contention that this article does neither mention nor discuss the phenomenon that is the subject of the nominated article. As for the other reference, I am unable to retrieve p.115 of that book from Google Books. How were you able to do that? Now, all of this does not detract from my demand that the article must not be pruned of references (good, bad or irrelevant) during the AfD process. We need all available data to be able to make the right decision, and well-meaning editors removing information from the article which they deem inappropriate is a level of assistance that isn't constructive at this stage. The irony of trying to "improve" an article which is considered plainly deletion-worthy should be acknowledged as well in all this. __meco (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The search feature allows you to find references to specific words and shows relevant snippets, even in pages which can't be viewed in full. There is no use of relevant words. Try to explain archetypal cosmology without using any of the words archetype, archetypal, cosmology or astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is well referenced. Claims that these references are irrelevant and inapplicable seem unlikely and tinged by editors with known biases. __meco (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC) (Retracting my vote. __meco (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Please comment on content, not contributors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The arguments to delete this article are circular in nature. Any source which discusses the topic is dismissed as fringe. Fringe is defined, of course, by the same editors who have decided that this article needs to be removed. If a new source for this article was discovered tomorrow, that source would by definition be fringe, because only a fringe source would discuss a topic as distasteful as this. Round and round we go. — goethean ॐ 15:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please comment on content, not contributors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 1 July 2012 (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} 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Zachariel. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Has a reliable source said that Archetypal Cosmology is a pseudoscience?  Archai is covered in Google scholar.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  I didn't understand the significance of this AfD and the one for archetypal astrology until I saw the snow and speedy keep for Stanislav Grof, who is one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology, has both an MD and a PhD, and spent 14 years at the Esalen Institute as a scholar in residence.  This article by Grof takes on the exact issue of scientific skepticism of astrology as it relates to Archetypal Cosmology, which "was rejected not on the basis of scientific proof that its premises were false".  The article also gives the perspective that archetypes were part of both the Greek philosophy and Jung's work.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you recommemend does not meet WP:RS by a longshot. It is not an independent source, but a self-promotional brochure published by the originator and chief proponent of the subject of the article, Richard Tarnas, who is listed as the "senior editorial advisor". According to the "journal's" own website, it's mission is:

"Archai is dedicated to furthering the research orientation and methodology established by Richard Tarnas in Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View (New York: Viking, 2006)." [[30]].

The material is deceptively packaged as a "scholarly" journal. There is no evidence that any sort of scholarly editorial or peer-review takes place, and the "journal" has never been cited by real-world scholars. Being listed on Google Scholar is no indication of a publication having any sort of credibility or standing in the real-world scholarly community.

As for the author having a Ph.D. and an M.D., that is also immaterial because he is publishing outside of the normal academic peer-reviewed pubication system. Lots of good scientists, even some with Nobel Prizes, have kooky ideas that they publish in fringe journals. This does not add to the notability of their ideas, though, unless independent scholars in the real-world scholarly community seriously discusses them in real academic publications.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC). Updated Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Notability seems to be questionable at best, and since we already have a better developed article about Psychological astrology I see no good reason to keep a standalone article for "Archetypal cosmology". Creating articles for every term that has been coined in astrology amounts to giving undue weight to fringe concepts within a fringe field. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "...there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover...".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

["Association for Psychological Astrology" "Journal of Archetypal Cosmology"] as a Google search only gets 7 hits, so I think that merging Archetypal cosmology and Psychological astrology would be WP:SYNTH.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  I concur with goethean's last comment. Extreme "fringiness", if taken as a legitimate excuse for deletion, would entail the removal of any topic - scientific, literary, artistic, or otherwise - that was not popular to some degree. Certain details, e.g. references, may need to be cleaned up but that is a different matter. Axel (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is where my thoughts were leading also. If you were to write an article on Kepler's cosmology, no one would care, or even notice. But when you write about contemporary astrology, you enter the culture wars. — goethean ॐ 01:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of notability on a fringe theory is greater than WP:GNG, see the relevant part of the fringe guidelines, Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.". That is the bar. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any reliable academic sources that consider this journal to be "fringe"?  If so, just exactly how do they state it?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable academic sources that consider it in any shape or form. Note that the article states that it is based on astrology and astrological techniques. Astrology is a fringe subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what we can say is that The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology has existed since 2009 and there have been no sources cited showing academics objecting to their lack of academic discipline.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't say that, because we have no source, so original research. It would also be blatantly dishonest. The only reason no one has objected to their lack of academic discipline is that no one has bothered to comment on it at all. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the source is reliable according to WP:V, not on us to prove otherwise. ALL sources are "guilty until proven innocent" by our policies. And no "proof of innocence" exists for your source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us"?  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Are you trying to build consensus?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence to be more precise.  Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's still dishonest because it conveniently conceals the fact that no one has ever bothered to comment on the "journal" at all. And it's irrelevant anyway, because we need positive proof that the "journal" is considered reliable by in the academic community. This is not a court of law, where innocence is presumed until proven otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to prove that the journal is considered reliable by the academic community. This article concerns a topic defined as fringe, and fringe subjects are allowed to be explored on pages that are dedicated to those subjects. If the ideas were known to be accepted by mainstream academic sources they would no longer be fringe, but mainstream. The use of reliable sources is only required when "describing the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner". Read WP:PARITY: "views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on [say] creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice misinterpretation. The burden is on YOU to prove that the source is reliable by WP policies. No one said that the topic has to be accepted by the mainstream community, but that it has to have been commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it by high quality independent reliable secondary sources. "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles".WP:PARITY means that we can use high-quality non-peer reviewed mainstream sources to criticize a fringe topic. It does not permit low-quality non-independent fringe sources like this. You also obviously didn't see the part about "other measures of notability". That means mention in high quality independent reliable secondary sources. In-universe notability does nothing to establish notability here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but claiming that "no one has bothered" is not objective, because you don't know one way or the other.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This idea of "dishonest" has no place in an academic discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your opinion that we use WP:V to identify reliable sources?  WP:IRS is a guideline called WP:Identifying reliable sources.  WP:V is content policy that is used to determine what material we allow within an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be a court of law, but we use the force of reason, and we use evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Do you have any proof that anybody in the mainstream academic has bothered to substantially discuss Tarnas's concept of archetypal cosmology? Without that, you don't have an article per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories.

2) It's dishonest by any measure. And this isn't an academic discussion. It's a discussion about WP policy.

3) Of course we use WP:V to establish the reliability of sources. WP:IRS is an extension of WP:V.

4) There is no evidence that this source is reliable. You haven't provided any. Nor has anyone else. And "unreliable" is the default verdict here on WP.

and 5) The source also fails because it's not independent. According to its own webpage, it was founded explicitly to promote Tarnas's concept of archetypal cosmology, and Tarnas is listed as a "senior editorial advisor".

The source clearly fails to meet our policy requirements, so further discussion is pointless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As we have established, being a fringe topic is neither here nor there so long as the policies are appropriately applied. A commitment to include more explanation and reference to the use of the term as it applies to others such as Kepler would fully satisfy the concern about the topic having been discussed in reliable secondary sources, since these are not lacking (for example). As someone who owns Kepler's Harmony of the World and has studied it with interest, I would say that there is a clear connection of ideas, although they have been expressed in different ways. It would be good to have a page which explains the different ways the term has been used, when, and by who, and the ideas that are being represented by it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is precisely that such sources are lacking. I see no indication that a source that describes Kepler's cosmology as "archetypal" is talking about anything related to Tarnas's ideas. In the absence of any reliable sources that connect these various people and things, the article is (and will remain) a concretion of original synthesis. You may conclude that there's a connection, but others may not (or do not); that's why Wikipedia requires sources before it can make such a connection. It's just not the case that Wikipedia can say anything about anything "as long as the policies are appropriately applied." Sometimes the policies (and the broad principles behind them) mean that Wikipedia remains silent. If there are in fact credible sources that establish a connection between the various things that this article tries to link together, now would be the time to bring them forward. --Amble (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Amble. That would be OR and SYNTH. There are no reliable sources that tie Tarnas's and Kepler's ideas together in any way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, self evidently the WP:FRINGE guidelines which discuss issues related to notability throughout, do matter for AfDs on fringe topics (btw WP:GNG isn't policy either, it's a guideline too). Also you appear to have chosen the only source that appears to exist on Kepler and archetypal cosmology and say that there is lots more? I note the google books search which was used to locate the Kepler source: [31]. It turns out there is only one book which significantly mentions this: the one you link above by Martens. The two of the other three references which return matches are the same book review of the book you showed (the other is a dissertation).

But that's besides the main point which is, it doesn't even fit the description of archetypal cosmology which is in the article, you are connecting disparate things when no reliable source makes the connection. What we have is sources which match a similar name when googled and then dumped into the article alongside fringe views by Tarnas and Co. As a result of this approach, we have people like Shakespeare where the source mentions Archetypes in a fictional world. Then we have the sources you added about Daniel Dennett where the only mention of the word "archetypal" is to say: "Dennett’s popular image is of an archetypal reductionist" (archetypal in this circumstance means "Very typical of a certain kind of person or thing"). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any sources which link Democritus or Lucretius to Daniel Dennett, but they are both discussed at the materialist article, because they are both materialists. I'm not aware of any sources which link the Yin-yang to Descartes, but they are both discussed at dualism, because — you guessed it — they are both examples of dualism. The policies that you are concocting here would devastate many articles if applied uniformly rather than selectively. And again User:IRWolfie- avoids the example of Kepler, presumably because it contradicts his point. Kepler cannot be banished as "fringe", and yet Kepler's archetypal cosmology is similar to Tarnas'. — goethean ॐ 21:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the one that seems to mention Democritus, Lucretius and Daniel Dennett: Materialism: an affirmative history and definition [32]. There are others. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the connection as Goethean does - but the point I was making has been missed: the page should explain the use of the term according to its different uses; hence I would like to see the content on Kepler developed a little, to show how the term is used by authors who describe Kepler's ideas (demonstrations from google books more on Google scholar and here are others on the web - there are plenty of reliable secondary sources on this point, as I said.

As someone whose main editorial interest is the development of better quality content, I realise how important it is to have pages that can be wiki-linked when certain terms arise in other articles - where those terms might be used in quotes, for example, or brief explanations that are not able to detail the meaning of the topic properly on the linking page. So unless WP has now become one page short of another entry, I see many good reasons for this article's inclusion and development. (But I've made my point, and it seems to me that everyone else who is also contributing comments repeatedly has made theirs too.) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zac, seriously, just look at the links you are showing. The only positive matches for Kepler and "Archetypal Cosmology" are the ones I have shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The somewhat elementary point that I was making is that the validity of including both Democritus and Dennett in the materialism article (or of including the yin-yang and Descartes in the dualism article) does not depend on your happening to find both mentioned in a reliable source. Your argument above (that no reliable source mentions Kepler's and Tarnas') implies that it does. There is no Wikipedia policy that dictates that they need to be mentioned in the same source. — goethean ॐ 01:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all immaterial without reliable independent sources to establish the notability of Tarnas's views. No independent reliable sources, no article. Period. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 02:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then name them. You haven't so far. Nor has anyone else. We can't take your word for it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In the ten, thirteen days since this AfD was posted, nobody has yet produced any high-quality reliable independent secondary sources to establish the notability of this topic per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories. Nor has anybody produced any evidence supporting the faintest hope that any such sources will be found. The only sources produced to establish notability so far have been low-quality, unreliable, in-universe or self-promotional pseudo-academic ones that have never been discussed by anyone outside of the fringe community. Without reliable independent secondary sources, any further discussion is pointless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Updated Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They've been determined to be "low quality", etc., etc., etc., etc., by a group of editors...oh, what's that you say? It's the same people who are voting that this article should be deleted? That seems...somewhat subjective, arbitrary, and based on personal beliefs rather than any pre-established Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DV - if you haven't been able to see the links to references already given, it's no surprise your selective vision impedes your reading of WP:PARITY. But it's clear this discussion is stuck in stalemate, with no new points being made, and no other parties contributing fresh opinions -- Zac Δ ^talk! 04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must be completely blind, then, because I still can't see the part about some clown's "theory" being notable just because the clown and his buddies say it is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zac, your references don't mention or discuss the concepts of this article, for example these two [33]. Meco above, who voted keep, has checked and agreed that the first of these refs (the first one is readily available in full, the second isn't but relevant snippets can be seen) does not support the text it is meant to verify and has nothing to do with this topic. Similarly with the Shakespeare reference, it is talking about archetypes in literature, a different concept applied to fictional works. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is being linked to the topic by this author [[34]], printed by this publisher: [35], a publisher who advertise the magical healing properties of stones as well, this source is not reliable for stating that "The phrase has been used to describe the ideas of ... Goethe" as is in the article. Furthermore, the text isn't even verified by this unreliable source, the source says "Archetypal cosmology and biology seek to find what Goethe called Morphotypes". The fact that all of these references were re-inserted after removal is also a good indicator that this sort of synthesis, OR and poor sourcing is likely to continue. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...nobody has yet produced any high-quality reliable independent secondary sources to establish the notability of this topic...

This is an a priori truth. It is not possible for any to exist by definition. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The bottom line is that there appears to be no coverage of this concept in independent sources. (The only sources cited in the article that deal directly with the concept are those associated with Tarnas and his colleagues; the use of the others is either OR or SYN.) The topic thus fails the GNG. Deor (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2012 (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} 20:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikon GUI[edit]

Ikon GUI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This project looks discontinued, it does not even seem to have made a proper release (even if it did, that proves nothing, but still), there are no sources provided, and a search brings nothing but noise. Having said that, I declare that no reliable sources exist to support any claim that could be made in this article. Non-notable. Keφr (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I also tried looking for a source using various Google searches and found absolutely nothing useful. I don't think there's anything out there. Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I would prefer selective merge to OpenGEM if someone comes across reliable source covering the subject in a non-trivial manner (I failed to find such source). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Msnicki and Dimitri. I also made a quick search and found nothing that could properly back up the article. Regards. —Hahc21 15:40, 8 July 2012 (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. The article is unfortunately a copyvio of http://www.pcmag.com/author-bio/michael-j.-miller . I encourage someone to actually write from scratch a proper article, for I think editor in chief of PC Magasine is pretty close to unquestionably notable. vThere is a difference between merely having a significant position in a company " and being in charge of it. What is really scandalous is that it was here for 6 years before anyone thought to check for copyvio, and was exposed here at AfD for a full month before even the nom looked. I consider that the BEFORE part of Deletion Policy requires before coming here not just a check to see if there are references to be found that would support notability , but a check to see if there is a valid reason for speedy deletion. Anything that look like a canned bio of anyone is, in my experience, more likely than not to be a copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Miller (corporate executive)[edit]

Michael J. Miller (corporate executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. The single source in the article gives no assertion of notability, and is nothing more than a very brief mention of a name and position in a "who works for this magazine" section, meaning that this source is not independent of the subject. SudoGhost 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I would say that he is a notable individual, being editor-in-chief of PC Magazine. Granted, it's presumed notability, since a search for him turns-up a lot of primary source material from PC Magazine, because he was the editor-in-cheif. But, he is a significant figure in technology publishing, with a long career. Roodog2k (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a position at a company isn't notable by itself, and he cannot be called a "significant figure" if there's not a single independent reliable source that can show this. This individual fails WP:BASIC, and an article can only be presumed to have notability if it meets WP:GNG, this one does not. - SudoGhost 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a position in a company would be notable if he is responsible for the creative vision of the product created by the company. Since this individual is basically a journalist, I point you toward WP:ARTIST, which covers editors-in-cheif of a journalistic publication. I think this covers him along with presumed notability. Roodog2k (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTIST would still require independent reliable sources demonstrating that one or more of the criteria are met. The article needs independent sources, anything short of that fails WP:N: if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. - SudoGhost 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with the guidelines, 'guidelines' being the key word. I've spent a rather long time searching for any sources other than primary sources, and I'm rather surprised I'm not finding any. Furthermore, I seem to recall that I voted to delete an article about a woman who was once editor-in-cheif of the NYT, a much more notable publication. I may have let my bias affect me here. So, I'm changing my mind. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per discussion above. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete this is the second time, I felt like a person who was important by his title, failed WP:N based on GNG. I think PC Magazine editor in chief is a notable person. I am in shock that he fails WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I just found a result behind a paywall at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=9&ved=0CEwQqQIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoliath.ecnext.com%2Fpremium%2F0199%2F0199-1762976.html&ei=D2XOT6r7C8jq2AXM8PTGDA&usg=AFQjCNHZCpdJyLF38HhLQPM_Bq-s-NH1Yw&sig2=-uC1xYOxIHk7dMZqwymRUw that says "PC Magazine's Editor-in-Chief Michael J. Miller and eWEEK's Editor-in-Chief Eric Lundquist earned honors as the top overall media influencers. " according to PR Newswire - Jun 6, 2002. That is about all I need to support given his title.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PR Newswire has been discussed on WP:RSN multiple times, and the consensus is that it is not a reliable source for establishing any notability. Press releases are not independent, and not reliable. - SudoGhost 20:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think pretty much anyone can do a press release in PR Newswire, kind of like vanity publishing. FWIW, the best secondary reference I could find is that apparently Mr Miller is in the Northwestern University journalism school hall of fame. Roodog2k (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2012 (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) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - editor-in-chief of a big enough magazine. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not based in any policy or guideline, and the lack of reliable sources suggest it isn't "big enough". Articles require third-party sources; this one has none. - SudoGhost 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:BASIC.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} -- Trevj (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refbombing isn't going to give notability to the article. Those links are either not about the subject (failing significant coverage), primary sources, press releases or in other ways not sufficient to establish any notability. - SudoGhost 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read these links, or just paste Google results that showed the name? This one isn't in any way about the subject, but the name just happens to be listed on the side as a host of an non-independent event. That gives no notability. - SudoGhost 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't read all of them word for word. But yes, I assessed them. If you check the order they appear within Google's search results you'll probably note that I pasted them here in a different order (one which I felt to be more useful). Is there a policy which refers to refbombing? And had you seen all of those refs before, during your search per WP:BEFORE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 June 2012‎

Using different search terms will yield then in different orders, but the order of the refs aren't relevant. You didn't read the references that you use to assert notability? You assessed this press release from PR Newswire as an independent source? Or this one where the author says "I worked with Michael in 1988 when he was my boss at InfoWorld" as independent of the article's subject? In what way do these links satisfy WP:BASIC, when they aren't even independent of the subject? Why would you list a company bio to support a "per WP:BASIC" argument when WP:BASIC requires a source to be independent of the subject?

WP:REFBOMB is an essay, not a policy. However, that doesn't mean it isn't relevant; quality is infinitely more important than quantity. Of the links you provided, not a single one is a third-party reliable source that's independent of the article's subject, and because of that none of them demonstrate any notability. - SudoGhost 07:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

1. REFBOMB is included in ((Essays on building Wikipedia)) under the 'Inclusion' section rather than 'Deletion'. It's referring to article space, not deletion discussions, where multiple references are often listed by editors who are trying to demonstrate notability without necessarily having the time to edit the articles themselves.
2. I'm not suggesting bunging all of the above refs into the article in one place, just after his name or something. I note Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately shores up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit.
3. I'll examine the sources in more detail here if I find the time, if no one else does it before me, and if the discussion is not closed beforehand. I count just 4 of the 12 refs which you specifically claim are unsuitable.

-- Trevj (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are all unsuitable as third-party reliable sources, the four I specifically mentioned are just the random examples that unambiguously fail to support a "per WP:BASIC" argument because, they are in no way independent, which kind of undermines your reasoning. - SudoGhost 08:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it this is a notable person and a good article. OracleB (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability must be established, saying he's notable doesn't make him notable. - SudoGhost 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Considering that this article has been around for six years it is pretty shameful for WP that it remains such a spamtastic hyperhyping chunk of promotional bloviation. The sourcing is pathetic and the prose frankly should not exist on WP. I have no opinion on the keep/delete question, but for the love of sweet baby jesus, somebody please fix this piece if it's kept. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but re-write, because, contrary to OracleB, this is not a good article. Per Carrite (whose comment is both true and hilarious), this article needs a re-write. Seems that being the Chief Content Officer of one of the larger research publishing firms and Editor in Chief of the largest technology magazine seems notable. AfD is not cleanup but this article needs work. I'll work on it if it's kept. Vertium (talk to me) 03:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by sources, not positions, unless you can point to some guideline to the contrary. Which sources show notability? This article doesn't have any independent third-party sources, which is what all articles require. - SudoGhost 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Just so you're aware, I read all the previous comments and saw your comment above, so no need to repeat it again after my comment. I do not have the time right this moment to dig the citations (it's bedtime here), though his bio indicates that he's received several awards for his writing and editing, which would be notable. I don't see a reason for deleting an article just because it does not have the citations right now, when it's reasonable to believe that the subject of the article is notable. Hence my offer to work on this article if it's kept. Hope that helps you understand my reasoning. Vertium (talk to me) 03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, well what do you know. The entire article is a copyright violation of this website, word for word. If you'd like to work on an article about this individual, it would be best if you created a new one from scratch, ensured that it had suitable third-party reliable sources, and then moved it to article space after the fact. Even if it wasn't a copyvio, it has zero independent third-party sources, and even if his bio claims to have awards, without verification of such by independent sources, it fails even the most basic criteria required of all articles. - SudoGhost 04:08, 5 July 2012 (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. Notability not sufficiently established. -Scottywong| confess _ 15:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CentralFestival Chiang Mai[edit]

CentralFestival Chiang Mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the need for independent sources that assert notability. Concern was: Advert for the Central Mall Group. Too soon Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1. The article has only facts (official source without any ads) about shopping mall which aren't going to change much since project is secured (plan approved, land bought, under construction for months ago1). Even if it were changed we would know and update the article because the company would update the status quarterly via opportunity day2 so it is not advert but only facts.
2. Too soon doesn't change the facts to advert and it only personal feeling too soon.
3. It is useful for everyone. AnaTo (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this meets with our criteria for notability and inclusion at WP:ORG and WP:RS. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are all reliable sources because it is from official one CPN (Annual report, Form 56-1 (like Form 10-K), latest opportunity day presentation1) AnaTo (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source - we can't accept things people or companies write about themselves. You must provide totally independent, in depth, newspaper articles, or articles in the established press or a TV documentary etc. as sources that clearly establish notability for Wikipedia. It's the sources that matter - not whether a company is really important or not Please also see the questions on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one would know real specification of shopping mall because no one can really measure spaces (GLA, GFA), count stores, parking space. so for all shopping malls the WP:RS are from primary source one. the developer would not get anything if they lie about project. AnaTo (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnaTo, primary sources can be reliable, and may be used in articles for facts such as you said, but secondary sources are also necessary in order to establish notability.

Anyway, the subject is covered in CPN unveils plan to invest Bt13 billion from The Nation. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnaTo, as a shareholder in the CPN Group, you have a Conflict of Interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I am currently investigating the other articles you recently created including CentralFestival Hat Yai, CentralPlaza Lampang, CentralPlaza Chiang Mai Airport, CentralPlaza Phitsanulok, CentralPlaza Rattanathibet, and the dozens of edits to other Malls of the central Group, and the many delteted non-free files you uploaded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have long noted AnaTo's contributions to be neutral and verifiable, and have not yet come across one which appeared to be an advertisement inappropriate for Wikipedia. They have been valuable additions to Wikipedia's lacking coverage of major Thai business entities and corporations. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's just one mall, and currently only proposed - it's no more notable than all the individual Wal-Mart stores in the US, or Marks & Spencer stores in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

if you want to compare you should compare with same category shopping malls to shopping malls, discount stores to discount stores. all discount store look all the same so as you said it would wouldn't have notable. but this is not. AnaTo (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The nom is correct,as is AnaTo. In this instance, WP:CRYSTAL may also be relevant. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that what WP:CRYSTAL forbids is unverified speculation, which this doesn't appear to be. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Duplicating the link from my comment above, in case someone might miss it. The subject is covered in CPN unveils plan to invest Bt13 billion from The Nation; it's discussed in only three paragraphs out of fifteen though. The Bangkok Post seems to carry articles mentioning the subject, but they aren't available without a subscription. I don't see any advertising concerns in the language of the article; the only question here is of notability, which depending on discretion may or may not be regarded as established by said news coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I never actually said that there were any clear instances of advertising, but in view of the enormous amount of creations and edits dedicated specially to articles about the Central group or its projects, and other inter-connected Thai businesses, as a self-confessed investor, it is also a clear sign of COI - a possible attempt to draw attention to something User:AnaTo may well financially benefit from. There is also the question of the dozens of deleted non-free images and new images posted to Commons that have also been deleted. Hence the notability issue is only the tip of the icebertg. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As investor you must study the companies before you invest your money in. so in that process make me knowledgeable about thai businesses in the process. I improve all subjects, all articles that I know not just the companies I've invested and contributes to community. That is my only intention so what wrong with it. you can check all my logs to prove that before accuse me please. Show me your evidences already I'm tried of your nonsense accuse. AnaTo (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 18:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if and when better sources are available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (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} 20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Bryant[edit]

Damon Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non notable keystoneridin! (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only sources I could find were passing mentions that he was a producer of the films mentioned in the article, and a couple of quotes of his about Noel Clarke.[48][49] Doesn't pass WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2012 (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} 07:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 18:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. That's all? I was expecting at least one verifiable source. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Subject shows no sign of notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2012 (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} 20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEM 2[edit]

GEM 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Deleted CSD 12 & 11, the article was immediately recreated with a slight clean up. The only source provided is promotional. No claims of importance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't seem to have independent notability. Seems to be more appropriate for a side note in the resepective game's development sections or something... Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 18:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per WP: GNG, as the sources listed are not considered reliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2012 (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. As pointed out, no reliable sources with significant coverage have been put forward. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quelitu (computer operating system)[edit]

Quelitu (computer operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A non-notable Linux distribution, it fails WP:GNG. The only two third-party references cited are a paragraph on the Distrowatch waiting list which is a press release description written by the submitter to the list and a user-submitted item on Famous Why, neither of which establish notability. A search for other sources found nothing other than blogs and other self-published sources. This Wikipedia article seems to be here predominantly to promote the article subject. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking coverage. Offer the creator the option of userfication, as per Wikipedia:Too soon. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO AHUNT (See also Quelitu Talk page):

Opinions Represented as Facts:

Several things in the first paragraph above (Ahunt 17:33, 1 July 2012) are actually opinions represented as facts:

"a paragraph on the Distrowatch waiting list which is a press release description written by the submitter to the list"

"a user-submitted item on Famous Why"

"neither of which establish notability"

FamousWhy:

1) Not ruled as illegitimate by Wikipedia.

2) As already stated, the issue is not who submitted the software (you provide no evidence for who did or that FamousWhy does not search for new software themselves, in addition to what is submitted). What is important is whether they review the software or just post what the publisher submits.

3) The review reads as a review by FamousWhy.com and is introduced by "FamousWhy Editor:" Are you accusing these people are lying? Do you have any any evidence of your allegations?

4) Wikipedia has not ruled FamousWhy to be WP:SPS either. This is just your own opinion. SPS is meant for forums (where anybody can write their own opinion) and 'not-independent' sources like the developers' website in this case. That does not seem to be the case for FamousWhy, which is a big, well-established website, not a forum.

5) FamousWhy gets 60 hits on Wikipedia. Nobody else has had problems with it, INCLUDING YOURSELF when you quoted only the negative parts from its page!

DistroWatch:

1) You offer no evidence for "DistroWatch listing on the waiting list is just a copy of the project developer's statement".

2) There is a Wikipedia ruling on DistroWatch: "DistroWatch alone is not enough...". It is not "DistroWatch [it] wouldn't establish notability...". DistroWatch is not 'alone' in establishing notability, and you offer only allegations and unsubstantiated opinions in support of your case against FamousWhy, which is used in 59 other Wikipedia articles.

Obvious Bias:

Your Revision of 17:27, 20 June 2012 added the following section:

-- Reception --

FamousWhy.com described the installation of Quelitu as "a little difficult for the average user" and also termed installation "a bit tricky". (reference was FamousWhy.com)

1) You pulled the ONLY negative aspect in the review (quoting it TWICE) and OMITTED all of the positive. Was this fair and balanced? Surely you must know about the need to provide balanced criticism and cover both sides of the coin in 'Reception' sections.

2) The quote was also out of context and misleading as you failed to mention that it applied to the FIRST VERSION 2010, not the current one. You revised the section (June 23rd) after I deleted it for being misleading and unbalanced.

3) You did not have a problem quoting negative material from a source (FamousWhy) you believe to be illegitimate!

What seems to be happening here is that you resented being criticized (15:24, 22 June 2012‎); you then proceeded to insult me (16:23, 23 June 2012‎) by suggesting I had deleted the section because I did not like criticism. Most people would find this offensive. You are now trying to have the Quelitu page deteled.

Your 20 June entry was biased, 100% ONE-SIDED, and MISLEADING. You should have quickly apologized or stated that it was not your intention to mislead instead of insulting me.

My criticism was that the (short 22-word) entry was "Misleading & Unbalaced". That criticism was PERFECTLY justified and I clearly did not object to criticism. You should not expect others to write your material for you, and most contributors will not waste time modifying something so biased and showing no attempt at balance.

By insulting me, you make this ackward for everybody and are dragging other people into this with the page deletion. In everybody's interest, I am asking that you refrain from further involvement with the Quelitu page and that you withdraw your Deletion Notice. Please do so before July 3rd, 2012.

I am shocked that this could be happening in the first place.

Shame on Wikipedia! Green2424 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well you seem to have hit just about every point at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, plus WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Let's see what consensus is arrived at about this article over the next week as this deletion discussion proceeds. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Articles require independent third-party sources in order to establish notability. User-submitted content is not a reliable source. This article does not meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. - SudoGhost 06:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Green2424's comments, I think some things need to be clarified. "Wikipedia" does not rule on things, but rather we operate largely by WP:CONSENSUS. Concerning your comments about FamousWhy: The review is not "by FamousWhy", FamousWhy.com is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties and Subscribers. FamousWhy is a host for submitted content, not the author of the content. There is no editorial oversight, and according to their own website FamousWhy is not the publisher, all they do is distribute content that has been submitted to them. That's why the source is considered is a self-published source. That's not to say the source is wrong or inaccurate, only that it isn't considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's standards, especially for establishing the notability of the subject.

Regarding the DistroWatch issue, being submitted to DistroWatch doesn't convey notability, why would it? In order to be listed on DistroWatch, a Linux distribution has to exist for a while, that's it (or you could buy your way in for $200, and the fact that advertisers can dictate content means it's not an independent source, and cannot establish notability). However, this isn't even a case of a DistroWatch entry, which wouldn't convey notability anyways. This distro was submitted to DistroWatch, and was placed on a waiting list. Do you know what you have to do to be put on that waiting list? Two things: (1) your distro has to exist, and (2), you have to email them. Either way, this doesn't convey any notability to the article. - SudoGhost 12:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although more should be added to the article. Here are some more references which should help close the deal once included:

- http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/news.php?item.644.9 - http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/news.php?item.679.9 - http://www.ibiblio.org/software/distributions/ - http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quelitu-4-12-04-is-Based-On-Lubuntu-12-04-and-Bodhi-Linux-273854.shtml - http://www.e-linux.it/news_detail/new-distributions-added-to-waiting-list-quelitu --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your links, in order: This is a blog, which is a WP:SPS. This website and this website are both mirror download sites, not independent sources (search WP:RSN for softpedia, for example). This is simply a brief blurb that it was submitted to DistroWatch, with no significant coverage. It's also user-submitted content. None of these links are third-party reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject, and convey no notability to the article. - SudoGhost 18:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with User:SudoGhost, on that analysis. I found all of those during my search for sources and collectively mentioned them in the nomination above as "a search for other sources found nothing other than blogs and other self-published sources." None of these confer notability as required by WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (if I get a vote) I will be adding IMPORTANT new information (evidence) in a couple of days. If you have voted, please visit again this page. It might change your vote.

In the mean time, you should consider that while some sources might have weaker notability, together they add up.

Softpedia is NOT A MINOR DOWNLOAD WEBSITE. It has been around for over 10 years and, "As of December 2008, it was one of the top 500 websites according to Alexa traffic rankings" (quoted from its Wikepedia page!). iBiblio is NOT A MINOR DOWNLOAD WEBSITE: "As an "Internet librarianship," ibiblio is a digital library and archive project. It is run by the School of Information and Library Science and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with partners including the Center for the Public Domain, IBM, and SourceForge" (again, quoted from its Wikipedia page). SudoGhost, frankly I am shocked as some of the the information your provide. Green2424 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:AFDs are not decided by votes, but by consensus, based on the strength of the arguments presented as judged by the closing admin. This AFD should run until 8 July, so feel free to improve the article in the meantime. - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you misread my comment. I did not say either ibiblio or Softpedia were minor download websites, I said they were mirror websites, i.e. they host a place for people to download the iso. Therefore they aren't independent of the subject, and notability is established by sources that have no connection to the subject.. - SudoGhost 19:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I did misread the word mirror. Ibiblio is not just a download site. It is an online library that has some form of oversight (was correcting while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green2424 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ibiblio has curatorial oversight, not editorial oversight. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see how the rr looks like an n, so it's all good. ibiblio's reliability isn't the issue, and it's a wonderful project, but it doesn't convey notability to this article because it isn't independent of Quelitu. - SudoGhost 21:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the deletion notice on the other page (Quelitu) supposed to stay up till this is over? The deadline of the notice is July 5th? I was planning to delete it before that (because I disagree with it) and I am not sure if this is correct given that this process is going on. Green2424 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the delete notice on Quelitu (computer operating system), then yes, it says there. WP:PROD notices can be removed, but WP:AfD notices require a consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD notice on the article page at Quelitu (computer operating system) says in part " this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed", so it will be removed by the closing admin when this discussion is closed. Unless the discussion gets relisted for an extra week that should be on 8 July 2012. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: I see no independent in-depth editorials on topic. DistroWatch's and ibiblio's summary retells the description from the project's home page (the fact that the text is the same suggests the authorship by Waves of the Future). Overall, WP:MILL instance with no indication of compliance with WP:N, WP:PRODUCT or WP:NSOFT. Also note, that the title of the article goes against Wikipedia's common naming scheme for such articles (word "computer" shouldn't be there) and the current text violates WP:NOTPROMO, so deletion is the only choice regardless of topic's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note: the common naming scheme violation you cite is not a valid deletion rationale. That would simply call for a move on the very slight chance this AfD is closed with anything other than delete. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed my point: the combination of wrong title and WP:NOTPROMO violation deem the fate of this article. If it had a right title, one could argue that WP:NOTPROMO issue can be solved with editing; if the text was not plain spam, one could handle the naming issue with article move. In this case neither the text nor the name warrant keeping, so if the community finds the topic notable (which is hard to imagine, frankly), the new text (written from scratch in order not to share this article's spammy content) is needed in another location, which makes this article useless for encyclopedic purposes anyway. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Czarkoff, and the fact that I see only a weak claim of notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEEMINGLY FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS/INFERENCES:

Distrowatch is user-submitted content: FALSE (see below)

Distrowatch waiting list is a press release description written by the submitter to the list: FALSE (see below)

Distrowatch: Quelitu has bought advertisement: FALSE (Quelitu is not on main list)

Distrowatch: Quelitu can dictate content: FALSE (Quelitu has not bought advertisement)

Distrowatch: You only need to email to be listed: FALSE (see below)

DistroWatch: Quelitu text is the same as on ibiblio: FALSE (many websites copy the description from the publisher and modify it: very common).

From http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=submit (SudoGhost's, above): "...would like to have it listed on DistroWatch, you should email us to tell us your project's website. There is no need to provide any details at this stage. We'll take a look at the website and will let you know if we need further information."

This suggests that Distrowatch evaluates distros and decides if they are appropriate for the list, possibly downloads and tests the iso (only 3 minutes to load in VirtualBox), then creates a brief review (i.e. not user-submitted content) for it.

FamousWhy: The review is not "by FamousWhy" FALSE ('FamousWhy Editor' IS CLEARLY listed as author)

FamousWhy: is a ONLY a host for submitted content, not the author of the content: FALSE (for software reviews)

FamousWhy: all they do is distribute content that has been submitted to them: FALSE (see below)

FamousWhy: has no editorial oversight: FALSE

(from their homepage: "All this is monitored by moderators")

(from TOS: "There are no guarantees that your articles will be accepted for publication in our directory")

http://www.famouswhy.com/terms_and_conditions/ (SudoGhost's, above): "FamousWhy.com is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties and Subscribers. The text, images, and software on FamousWhy.com are the property of FamousWhy.com or its suppliers..." Second sentence clearly indicates that some content is FamousWhy's.

mirror: "a mirror site is an exact copy of another Internet site"

Ibiblio is a mirror and not independent: FALSE

Softpedia is a mirror and not independent: FALSE

Softpedia: No example on WP:RSN Green2424 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that FamousWhy's legally binding terms and conditions are...mistaken? I think I'll take their word over yours. Being monitored does not mean editorial oversight, it just means they ensure that items do not violate their ToS (which clearly says they aren't the publisher, just the distributor). That makes it a self-published source, because FamousWhy sure didn't publish it, unless your saying that FamousWhy is lying.

As for DistroWatch, it doesn't matter that Quelitu didn't purchase advertisements. DistroWatch is not a reliable source, because advertisers can dictate content. It doesn't matter that Quelitu did not, DistroWatch itself is what is unreliable. And that's ignoring the fact that a simple name added to a waiting list conveys absolutely no notability whatsoever.

For your mirror comment, I'm sorry but no. They mirror content on the servers hosting the iso, not the frontend website itself. They provide an alternate download for the iso, mirroring the primary download location. - SudoGhost 16:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FamousWhy: It has already been established that FamousWhy claims to own some content in Terms of Use. This is backed up by clearly identifying 'FamousWhy Editor' as author of reviews (there are many of them). They publish many articles submitted by others (as distributor), but they do not accept everything that is submitted, i.e. exercise some editorial control. Who's content are the Terms of Use? Let people decide, now.

DistroWatch: CNN, BBC News, and most websites have advertisers! So does PC Magazine! Users submit news tips or requests for topics to be covered/included. According to your logic, all of these are not notable sources because they have advertisers and advertisers can dictate content. Furthermore, they are user-submitted content because the ideas for many news is submitted by users, for example, a developer requesting by email that they review their software.

Mirror: According to your argument, every website that points to another page would be a mirror of that page. If PC Magazine does a full review of Quelitu and links to the download page, then PC Magazine becomes a mirror of the Quelitu website?

Green2424 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Green2424, but it doesn't look convincing. At least it didn't convince anybody. Still, if you didn't give up yet, please try being a bit more succinct, as the discussion already became difficult to follow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with everything you said. FamousWhy owns "some content", but what the terms says is "The text, images, and software on FamousWhy.com are the property of FamousWhy.com or its suppliers". Also the imporant part is that they are not the publisher of these "reviews", their terms make that plain. A "FamousWhy Editor" doesn't mean that it somehow contradicts their ToS which says that FamousWhy is not the publisher. I am a "Wikipedia Editor", this doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses or reviews anything I write, as it is user-submitted. Unless you can show something saying that the ToS somehow did not apply to that particular page, they are not the publisher per their own legally binding terms of service; it is self-published user-submitted content. As for DistroWatch, the difference between DistroWatch and BBC News is that you cannot buy advertisement with BBC News and thereby dictate what news articles they publish; DistroWatch not only does this, but advertises this "feature" as a way to bypass the usual waiting period for submission. For the mirror, there is a difference between pointing a hyperlink to another page's servers, and hosting identical content on your own servers. That's what a mirror is. - SudoGhost 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Response to Ahunt's Comment (23:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

1) "hit just about every point at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion": Simply not true, just read the reference. It is at best a gross exaggeration, which is not appropriate by Wikipedia standards.

2) WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith.... This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary..." The biased entry+misleading content and insult added up to fairly clear evidence and raised the issue as to whether the Deletion Request was further retaliation.

3) WP:NPA: Your accusation/suggestion of personal attacks against you is unsubstantiated. WP:NPA considers the following to be a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green2424 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 July 2012 (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) Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger-head shoes[edit]

Tiger-head shoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article was PRODed per not meeting WP:GNG and contested by the creator saying it does. The article has only one English source and if it does pass WP:GNG, it's just barely. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just a basic machine translation of the sources shows that the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject has been met. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Nothing wrong with Chinese sources. Notable subject that passes GNG. I will do my best to find an image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is documented in multiple sources such as Craftworks of China. Warden (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the language of the sources is irrelevant for proving notability. The nominator should get a clue when looking at who deprods the article that it is not suitable for an AFD. Clothing is an area of weakness of Wikipedia and this sort of AFD nomination is trying to perpetrate systematic bias against non-English topics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my message contesting the PROD on the nominator's talk page. I should note that while I "created" the article, the main contributor was NNUJ05EvelynPei05090525, who worked on the article as part of a class project. wctaiwan (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As per multiple reasons above. As Graeme points out, clothing is a weak area on Wikipedia and this is a nicely written article on a well-documented topic with scope for illustration and further expansion (e.g. info on the tiger's head hat which follows the same principle). Mabalu (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2012 (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) Till 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Chaochen[edit]

Zhou Chaochen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Is this professor sufficiently notable? The article doesn't show it. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Duration calculus is certainly notable (over 1600 hits in Google scholar) and Zhou is an author of four of the top five and seven of the top ten hits in Google scholar, with citation counts 850, 204, 189, 181, etc. To me that is clearly enough for WP:PROF#C1, and he has done enough other work in this area to distinguish himself from his most frequent co-author, M. R. Hansen. The 70th-birthday festschrift, though perhaps not enough by itself, is also evidence of notability. He's also a member in the Chinese Academy of Sciences; this is a high honor (different from his earlier employment in the academy which is just a job) and enough to pass WP:PROF#C3.
• Keep. High cite counts + Festschrift + CAS membership = clear keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for one of the most notable Chinese computer scientists and a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the " the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists". The article includes the relevant information. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above.  --Lambiam 17:13, 4 July 2012 (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 speedily closed per WP:BOLD, pretty darn sure there's not going to be any chance of deletion, and no rationale was given in the nomination anyway. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martini (cocktail)[edit]

Martini (cocktail) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Grand-Duc (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (Perhaps even Speedy). No rational given for deletion. Article is well sourced. A bit confused why this was nominated. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - no reason given for nomination; none can surely be given, as article is on a notable topic with excellent sources. See WP:SNOW. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. No argument advanced for deletion, no possibility that this is not a notable topic. -Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. I'm shaken that this would be nominated, but not stirred by the lack of any reason being given. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a surprising nomination. I've recommended deleting several promotional articles about new non-notable cocktails. The martini is indisputably notable, due to extensive coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:14, 1 July 2012 (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. ⇒TAP 16:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He Jifeng[edit]

He Jifeng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

(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)

Is this professor sufficiently notable? The article doesn't show it, although I must say that I've been out of the field for too long to have a better informed opinion. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related article (a work that he coauthored with Tony Hoare, whom I do believe is clearly notable):

Unifying Theories of Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. He Jifeng is one of the foremost leading computer scientists in China. I find an h-index of 37 using the Google code citations gadget (using Author: He Jifeng + Other: Jifeng He), which is fairly high for a computing scientist working in the area of formal methods. The impact of Unifying Theories of Programming has been high; among other things, it has spawned a series of international conferences (under the same name).  --Lambiam 21:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Jifeng's best-cited work is with a more famous author, Hoare, but even if we remove Hoare's contributions from the citation record we see citation counts of 128, 94, 88, etc., good enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And the Chinese Academy of Science membership is almost certainly good enough for #3. As for the book, the existence of multiple academic publications whose title follows this one (many of which look like nontrivial reliable sources) seems like strong evidence to me that it's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very clear keep as above. Nominator might care to consider the wisdom of editing in fields that he has been "out of for far too long". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • I was pruning the Category:People from Shanghai category, which was (and still is somewhat) of a mess. I ran across this article that really didn't show notability. That's why I AfD'ed it. I thought that that was the wise thing to do, and I still think it is. If sufficient opinions emerge (as finally so) that it is notable, hopefully someone edits it properly to show the notability. At least, leave a proper record. --Nlu (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • agree with Nlu that listing was the bold thing to do and not inappropriate. Thought the article is a clear keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lambiam.  The Steve  07:15, 3 July 2012 (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} 20:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of TPR Storytelling resources[edit]

List of TPR Storytelling resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is a slightly unusual request, as I am the author of the page. When I wrote this back in 2010, I didn't really understand the general notability guideline, and I am not aware of any sources that could be used to prove notability for this topic. It almost qualifies for speedy deletion criteria G7, but there is one significant IP edit in the history. I'm fond of the topic, but I think the article would probably be better off placed on a TPRS-specific wiki - there's no need to keep it here if it isn't notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as What Wikipedia is not; the list is a directory. Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion that the topic is probably not notable in this form also seems right to me. Cnilep (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons given by the nominator and by Cnilep. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for publishing this kind of information. Kudos to Mr. Stradivarius for recognizing that it doesn't belong here! --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the noms rationale. Regards. —Hahc21 15:42, 8 July 2012 (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} 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satyadev chada[edit]

Satyadev chada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Vanity/spam page. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm seeing no evidence of independent notability here. If kept, it would probably serve only as a vanity/spam page, as indicated by User:MikeWazowski above.  -- WikHead (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom, fails WP:GNG--DBigXray 13:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (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} 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Karmi[edit]

David Karmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't really see significant coverage of this individual in reliable sources. About half are published by his own company, and of the rest, only this mentions him, which hardly counts as significant. Interesting life story, to be sure, just not encyclopedic, per our standards. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article is original research - does not tally with the claimed sources provided. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The best source available is the one from the NY Times where he quoted in his role as developer. Not finding a lot else to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2012 (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 deleted (twice), once by User:Jimfbleak and once by me. WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#A3. matt (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rralzsong[edit]

Rralzsong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

dePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Web content (YouTube only). No reliable sources to be found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2012 (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} 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edewcate[edit]

Edewcate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable company, no reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satyadev chada

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling turned up absolutely nothing useful. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have created a separate AfD page for Satyadev chada at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satyadev chada. Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 July 2012 (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.