< 26 October	28 October >

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. Article contains no more evidence of notability than that deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbanteCart (capital C in name). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abantecart[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)).

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

Non notable open source software failing WP:NOTABILITY. Recreation of the previously AfD deleted spam article AbanteCart, which also been speedily deleted a multitude of times. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination above and the rationale on the March 2012 AfD deletion. As before, only the PracticalEcommerce (p)review may provide a WP:RS. Aside from that I'm only seeing a couple of download site basic pages on the product. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is much the same as what I recall of that deleted by the March AfD. Is it sufficiently different for CSD:G4 not to apply this time around, as it did with a previous repost on 13th October (see User talk:Projkov)? AllyD (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note; User Projkov‏‎ is the bureaucrat, administrator on abantecart.com's wiki site; (abantecart.com/document_wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Projkov), and the administrator of the forums as evidenced below.--Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still review I am not sure if I can provide any input here. I have looked at prior delete in User talk:Projkov but I can not find prior article that was deleted. AllyD said that the article is much the same. How can prior deleted article be seen to be sure it is the same? Finally, I found this resource "AbanteCart Shopping Cart Software by AbanteCart". FindTheBest on VentureBeat. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) that I seen was valued in some other similar article. I hope this helps and apologies, since I am new to wikipedia.— Eccommercewisdom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:03, 28 October 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]

Fails as a WP:RS--Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note; It appears there is an ongoing effort to solicit for this articles creation, by AbanteCart

"AbanteCart needs help with wikipedia article"

"Dear AbanteCart contributors or users, We ask anyone who is familiar with wikipedia articles submission help AbanteCart project to be approved in wikipedia. After some time of struggle and internal discussion in Wikipedia our article was removed" on: March 28, 2012, 11:06:22 AM - abantecart, forum Administrator
"I attempted one more time yesterday. Spent 3 hours I tried to follow all the rules for submission and included 3 references and it was still deleted because of COI. Someone else needs to post it. If somebody has some reputation in wikipedia and can help us with posting, please let me know and I will send wikipedia atricle that I have built." - Reply #10 on: October 14, 2012, 02:55:46 PM - abantecart, forum Administrator

Several users have agreed to make attempts at promoting AbanteCart, and we have seen multiple WP:SPA / advertising-only account created for that purpose;(Projkov (talk · contribs), Oscwriter (talk · contribs), Eccommercewisdom (talk · contribs))--Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notablity. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I already realized in the past of COI with my original article. I apologized for not knowing this, and am sorry for this again. Calling me bureaucrat, spammer, advertiser (what else is there) is not nice. After all we run free, open source, non profit development community. I have no connection to the accounts "puppets" mentioned here. Projkov (talk)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlashDrivePros[edit]

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

Blatant advertising of a company with no coverage in independent reliable sources, only press releases and routine coverage. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News archives found reprints of press releases here and here. Aside from that, the other results are unreliable and promotional. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Herald news item in the article is the only coverage in reliable sources. My searches for additional sourcing did not turn up any. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Swister. I found the same sources, certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH for lack of coverage in reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Lab Software[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this company; fails WP:CORP. Only coverage is press releases, routine mentions, and directory listings. Games like Rails Across America might be notable, but notability is not inhereited. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent, reliable sources (WP:N), and WP:NOTINHERITED from its games (which themselves are of questionable notability for an encyclopedia). This 2010 IGN article reads like a press release, and these RPS articles don't establish notability for the company. czar · · 17:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's a source review:
- A small story in Wired about a release of one of their games. It's about the company mostly, in the context of the game, and quotes the CEO. This is a reliable source. But it's a short story and doesn't have much material that would be of use in an article.
- A podcast on Gamasutra.com, in which a couple executives are interviewed. This isn't really a secondary source, as it's an interview, and it's for the most part about a game, not the company.
- Other than that, all I can find are a variety of press releases, announcements of patches and game launches, etc. Nothing, in short, that can be considered a reliable source for the purposes of notability.

Doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH requirements, unless more evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. --Batard0 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 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 redirect to June 2011 Peshawar bombings. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asfandyar Abid Naveed[edit]

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

Merged this article and Shafiullah Khan with June 2011 Peshawar bombings. A separate bio on each journalist lacks notability and shifts the focus away from the suicide bombing incident. Crtew (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to June 2011 Peshawar bombings - His only achievement of notability would probably be the June 2011 bombings, so it's better to redirect. However, this Pakistan Tribune article provides additional details about his life but, as mentioned, the bombings would probably be the only shot at notability. Google News archives provided additional news articles mentioning him here, here and here (French). SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect. Notability not established, though as a victim, the subject merits inclusion in the article related to the event. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The sources found clearly show there is verifiable sourcing for one event: the bombing in which he was killed. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and in any case, his role in the one event is not significant enough for a separate article as described at WP:1E. --Batard0 (talk) 19:08, 3 November 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 merge to U.S. Route 377 in Texas. None of the keep voters have shown evidence of significant coverage and many are basically admitting that the article is non-notable, but we should keep it indefinitely because the ideal merge target doesn't exist. If List of Texas state highways shorter than one mile is created in the future the history of this article will still be here and it can be merged there too. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Highway Loop 118[edit]

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

Fails WP:USRD/NT and WP:GNG. The route is 0.209 miles long, and there just isn't a lot that can be said about it that is actually notable. Open to the possibility of merging somewhere else. Rs chen 7754 22:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a related routes section on U.S. Route 377 in Texas. I don't have an issue with having information about this route, but I agree that it fails GNG. –Fredddie ™ 22:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either a related routes section for U.S. Route 377 or some kind of list of routes shorter than one mile whenever it is created. The information should be presented, but not as its own article. V C 22:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Torn. Passes WP:USRD/NT as part of a primary state highway system (Farm to Market Roads are the secondary system, not the loops/spurs), but is in the significant gray area in the GNG. Has notability, but is it significant? Has sources, primary and secondary, which are reliable and independent. But Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information, either. But if this isn't notable, how does this compare to Delaware Route 9A, M-143 (Michigan highway), Pennsylvania Route 958, New Jersey Route 187, Washington State Route 117, or County Route 168 (Sullivan County, New York)? 25or6to4 (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at WA 117, it seems that there's at least some notable information in that article, beyond descriptions of sidewalks and scenery. --Rs chen 7754 21:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Create List of Texas state highways shorter than one mile and merge Loop 118 and any other short routes there. Dough 48 72 15:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as main contributor. I request that the GAN be failed, I do not feel the article is appropriate right now. Per 25or6to4, this route about equally significant to several other similar highways of about the same length. Merging this route to List of Texas state highways shorter than one mile would not work, as Texas has over 100 highways that would need to be redirected to the list, so it would be way too long. Oak Street has existed since the late 1800's, before Roanoke was even established. In 2005, Roanoke began improving Oak Street in a huge, several hundred-thousand dollar revitalization project. Oak Street itself is notable, and Loop 118 could be merged to Oak Street (Roanoke, Texas) possibly. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Merge to Oak Street article. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 18:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Oak Street is notable enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 22:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the list, the list can always be split by classification (regular, Loop/Spur, FM, etc.). Maryland has a less than one mile list that is split by number. Dough 48 72 02:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, with no prejudice against merging. The information should be somewhere, since it's part of a primary state highway system, but there's probably never going to be all that much to say about this highway. I like Dough4872's suggestion to create List of Texas state highways shorter than one mile, since I'm guessing Texas has a lot of these sorts of roads based on the size of its highway system, and neither U.S. Route 377 in Texas nor List of state highway loops in Texas is an ideal merge target. If the list gets too long, it can be split up by number or highway type, like Maryland's list. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete I'm sorry, but there is no way that a road that spans two blocks and has no unique or interesting features or history should have a stand article. It's a back street, otherwise indistinguishable from all other back streets save that it happens to be a state road purely out of convenience. Trying to argue that it meets the GNG is rather silly, IMO. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to move this page to my userspace, so I can further research it and expand it. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 22:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, without prejudice to merge to a list of "routes less than one mile" as indicated in the future. I'd avoid a merge to the US 377 article unless it can be shown that this is a former routing of that highway (which many of the loops/spurs on the system are). There are quite a few of these routes on the state highway system and they do de facto pass WP:USRD/NT (and thus should be included in some fashion herein), but there isn't much in the way of secondary sources to expand upon them, especially when the only major intersections are the endpoints. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Fredddie and I oppose the creation of routes less than (some arbitrary length - be it 1 mile, 2 miles, 5 miles, 32.7 furlongs, a half-marathon, not further than the eye can see - all of which have no real-world meaning or consequences) type articles; why not routes less than 100 miles and clean the whole category? . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you aren't advocating for the deletion of California State Route 52, which clearly has enough sources even though it is under 100 miles. The issue is having enough to say about the route; very short routes have this problem (typically under 1 mile), but there are definite exceptions. --Rs chen 7754 18:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ditto the article on the Capitol Loop in Lansing, Michigan. There will probably never be a good arbitrary minimum length for an article on a highway, and they all have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. That said, the <1 mile lists have been a good thing for dealing with examples in some states, but not in all. Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice for a possible merge in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, suggest further merge discussion may take place on the article's talk page, so that such talks can proceed at a more leisurely pace, as there's clearly some confusion above about where a proper merge might be, and even if such a measure is even warranted, at all. — Cirt (talk) 05:31, 4 November 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 redirect to School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen. except Osoyoos Secondary School MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okanagan Falls Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school that doesn't pass WP:GNG. No encyclopedic information at all, really. TBr and ley 22:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

There's also more I'd like to nominate in Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia category as well as other related categories (eg: Category:Elementary schools in Alberta), but there's just too many to list here. Most of them are most likely non-notable, like these, but some may be, I doubt it though, so I also believe most of those, if not all, should be deleted. After all, there was also a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain View Elementary School (Nanaimo) before. TBr and ley 22:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the wrong venue to eliminate categories — see ~~WP:MFD~~ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Carrite (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to nominate categories. I was saying that articles that are in that category should be also deleted. TBr and ley 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect All - per consensus for typical elementary schools. Delete if no valid redirect target can be found.~~ Carrite (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the school district parent articles (an example: Okanagan Falls Elementary School to School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen). Per Carrite, the convention is to redirect elementary and middle school articles.--xanchester (t) 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per consensus. Buggie111 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And keep the secondary school, missed that in that wall of article titles. Buggie111 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all except Osoyoos Secondary School (Grade 8 - 12) which shopuld be kept.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Osoyoos Secondary School and redirect the others per accepted practice. No reason to suppose that this school can't meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Osoyoos Secondary School per longstanding consensus for high schools. Redirect all others, per same rationale. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss 6[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 19. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage by Indian media Mid-day,CNN_IBN, Hindustan Times, Daily Bhaskar, India Today, Deccan Chronicle, NDTV, MSN, Times of India etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (x1000) Keep: It's a Major reality show. Major. Major. La Major. All the copyvio content has been removed. There has to be a separate page for it. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 07:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources (in the article as well as mentioned here by Redtiger) to support a standalone article --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable show! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but irrelevant. This discussion must focus on whether a particular season of the show is notable. Remember that notability is not inherited. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the links posted by Redtigerxyz u might get to know how notable season 6 is.-- I'm Titanium ^chat 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed it. I meant Bigg Boss 6 is a notable show. I don't need to mention that Bigg Boss the series is notable. This can be merged to main article, but, I think then it'll make it too long. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And ya, though I don't watch this show, I regularly watch is being discussed in Times of India- the newspaper I read. Discussion on even the minute details of the show makes me believe the show has got the speed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Titto's talking about this --> [1] -- I'm Titanium ^chat 10:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the main article Bigg Boss. The given state of article has nothing much encyclopedic that deserves standalone article. Encyclopedic stuff in it would hardly fit in a para. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think these British, US, Australian, Pinoy versions of Bigg Boss have much in common with the encyclopedic content you are talking about? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Put these articles up for deletion for the same reasons and then you'll see what an uproar you'll initiate. And Dharmadhyaksha I would ask you to not chicken out this time around like you did in the Jhalak Dikhlaa Jaa case. Take a step bro if you are so passionate about wikipedia. Make the change.-- I'm Titanium ^chat 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it only once. If the closing admins and others find it reasonable enough, they will act accordingly. If its falling on deaf ears, i am wise enough to not strain my throat.
And one more time for you; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable season of a major TV show, and is covered widely in the entertainment-related meda. Meets general notability criteria easily.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article still has some problems (namely, copyright infringements and fancruft) but notability and reliable sources aren't among them. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest dealing with those problems? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright infringements no longer constitute the majority of the article; the remaining ones are already being processed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The fancruft can simply be removed if and when a consensus is reached to do so. There's already a ((plot)) maintenance tag on the page and an associated discussion on the talk page. Anyone who agrees that the "plot" information is too long can say so on the talk page and/or boldly remove the superfluous details from the article. (Someone already tried to do this but was immediately reverted by User:Imtitanium, so perhaps it's best to establish consensus on the talk page first.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tag will go in few days, without any change to the article. Then November would come and same tag will be placed as November 2012. The cycle repeats till good editors are fed up and find something else where their editing actually counts. The article DOES NOT CHANGE. You have now got experience with cleaning many copyvios on Indian TV shows. How many times did you have to return back to the same article?
Btw, i had asked one question at the deletion review which was unanswered as the review was soon closed. Would "Barack Obama on social media" been cleared from AFC had all his tweets been mentioned in the article? Would biography of some celebrity been cleared when their daily schedule was mentioned? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you predicted, the maintenance tag was removed today without explanation. I've restored it and hope the matter will continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Inconvenient though it may be, this is how we have to deal with such problems—we can't delete a well-sourced article on a notable topic simply because it attracts problematic edits. We have various tools, procedures, and venues in place for dealing with these problems—maintenance templates and talk pages for flagging and discussing content issues; dispute resolution for settling content disputes; and warnings, blocks, bans, and page protection for preventing disruptive edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say delete, even in the 1st AfD. But i agree with the 1st AfDs result of merging with the main article. Howsoever seemingly noteworthy the show be, the quality of the article doesn't warrant separate article. I agree that such issues can be solved on discussions. Is that your conditional keep then? But who is gonna do that? I can't do that as i don't watch this show. And i don't wish to watch it for the sake of cleaning it. Are other regular editors and Keep voters gonna do that? I doubt that.
I know that AfDs are not meant for cleanup. But we have a good option of merging the encyclopedic content and shredding all trash.
(Btw, i also know that merging and redirecting doesn't really work. But i won't say how out loud here. I don't wanna leak that bitching strategy these passionate editors follow. I would hope that it works this time.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly a notable series.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a popular reality show in India. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Opponents seem to be arguing WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. AfD is not cleanup. I am satisfied that, with the proper improvements, this article can be made into a fine article. If you don't like the quality of the article, fix it, don't nominate it for deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable series and the season has already started. Ryan Vesey 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep individual article up to the end of season and later merge with the main series. This Big Boss season 6 wiki-page is important source of entertainment for those unable to follow daily.--Sankalpdube (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly said, this article is for entertainment and gossips. And welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your first edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please state clearly the gossips you have come across in this article so that everyone can discern your point of view. One more thing, How random is this that this account has only one edit and that too on the article's nomination. And coincidentally you come along and give it a thumbs-up. We really should investigate whether this account belongs to you or not, Dharma. LOL. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 10:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How random is this that this account has only one edit and that too on the article's nomination.

Not the rarest thing in Wikipedia. You may find the first edit in RFA too. But, still it surprises me everytime! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! That irony/sarcasm font is really needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:38, 3 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vandervis[edit]

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

Non-notable person who got elected to a position that doesn't grant notability. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is notable in Dunedin and has attained significant media coverage. Wipkipkedia (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, non-notable position, non-notable person, the fact that he's notable in a town does not grant him worldwide notability. Buggie111 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change per Schwede and Dweller. Buggie111 (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fall below the level required. - SimonLyall (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand why everybody else (other than the article's creator) has voted delete so far, but this guy is so outspoken that he gets regular coverage in The Press, which is published in Christchurch and is not a Dunedin newspaper. The article at this point makes no attempt to demonstrate notability, though. I'll put some references on the article's talk page as a starting point for expansion. If the decision is to remove the article, I suggest that it be userfied. Schwede 66 20:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as should easily meet notability with more detail, as per Schwede66. NealeFamily (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass WP:GNG, which trumps POLITICIAN --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass the GNG, if you consider Talk:Lee Vandervis. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article with references from National news agencies and more information. NealeFamily (talk) 01:54, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Mitchell[edit]

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

This article claims some impressive sources: the New York Times, Wired, Scientific American. Unfortunately, none of these sources actually mention Lewis Mitchell. As such, I believe this article fails the general notability guideline as well as the notability guideline for academics. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added his appointment as the Edward Lorenz Postdoctoral Fellow in the Mathematics of Climate, a prestigious position from the Mathematics Climate Research Network. I believe this qualifies for "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." This can be seen on the sidebar of http://www.mathclimate.org/ under network tab. IheartDA (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)IheartDA[reply]

Criterion 2 is for awards such as the Nobel or the Fields medal. Can you provide any sources to establish that this fellowship is particularly prestigious? - MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A postdoc appointment isn't a prestigious academic award. The MCRN doesn't seem even a prestigious institution; I don't see any tier-1 universities in their network. The references to Science, New York Times, and even Wired are just fake; as nom mentions they don't refer to the subject. I can't find any independent, reliably sourced, third-party coverage. That is not particularly surprising for a recent post-doc. Churn and change (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that the criterion for notability are just higher than I thought. Thanks for your time in making sure that all the pages up here are for only the most notable scholars. Cheers IheartDA (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)IheartDA[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and BIO. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. Additionally, Claims that "Recent media attention for this work has been widespread..." supported by multiple fake references is clearly questionable, perhaps even WP:HOAX.--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any sourcing indicating that he meets WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a competent professional/academic is not a basis for notability. WP:GNG is not met.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:55, 3 November 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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a Fix[edit]

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

Non-Notable program. Google and Yahoo search no disternable results. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mere assertion it is not notable is not all that persuasive. The article cites reliable sources, indicating its notability. As an older program, not all reliable sources will be available online. In any event, it was notable in its time, and notability is not temporary. As for the lack of Google results, merely typing "in a fix", a very common phrase, is unlikely to produce "disternable" results. However, if you put the words in quotation marks and add "TLC", you will see that there are many hits specific to the program. Agent 86 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage exists although it is behind paywalls. Although the article details are not available, the article titles certainly do indicate that the show "In a Fix" is the primary subject. See: [10], [11], and [12] as examples. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 30 October 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 redirect to Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenkai (aka Astral Voyage)[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this album is notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. If deleted, there should probably be a redirect to Kitarō discography. Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. This is just a track listing. --DAJF (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead, as per all the others as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kitarō discography. Not notable enough to have an article of its own. A mention in the discography article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:33, 2 November 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 redirect to Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daichi (aka Full Moon Story)[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this album is notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. If deleted, there should probably be a redirect to Kitarō discography. Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. This is just a track listing. --DAJF (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead, as per all the others as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kitarō discography. Not notable enough to have an article of its own. A mention in the discography article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:33, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Abraha[edit]

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

Doesn't establish WP:Notability, links are to youtube and what appears to be a blog. Good faith search did not produce any others. Previous PRODs declined. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should take into account that the subject sings in the Tigrinya language for a primarily Eritrean audience, and internet coverage in Eritrea is poor. Of a population of 6 million, only 200,000 have internet access of any kind, mostly via cellphones. However, the many image and video results that show up on a search, and the fragments of discussion in English, indicate she has performed at many large concerts and dominates the Eritrean pop scene. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth. She is mostly certainly notable in Eritrea and Eritrea and Internet don't exactly go hand in hand.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both of the above. I'd be curious if there are any Tigrinya-language links, though - it's not a language I know. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:14, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glozman[edit]

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

WP:Notability, promotional, unsourced BLP, previous external links were removed for WP:LINKSPAM. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable bio. A search on the web shows only Facebook and Linkedin - so reliable sources are unlikely to be found. It has almost entirely edited by one user (Boca Raton) and CantorGlozman and fails on WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PROMOTION. Kooky2 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to find anything to suggest that this person is notable. Even a wide search under the name with no limitations brought up nothing I would say is usable. There's a very slim possibility that he could have results come up in a foreign language, but considering that he came to the US in 2007, if he was that notable then he'd have at least 1-2 usable hits in English by now. I seem to remember this guy being speedily deleted or something to that effect at some point in time? For some reason I remember seeing this come up in a speedy or AfD scenario.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan gating[edit]

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

delete, doesn't appear to be a term in common usage a search does show some but looks to be slang. — Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted? It is a term that every company that wants to have its own page in any social networking site should be familiar with. Which every entrepreneur should know for their success in social platforms. (copied and pasted by HiaB after refactoring my comment.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aishwaryaa Ravi (talk • contribs)

Delete. No attempt made to show that anyone uses the term, still less that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any useful evidence that any expert lexicographer thinks this term exists. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a real term used in the Social media industry, especially in regards to facebook. While there are lots of blogs[13] and howtos[14] and press releases[15] about the concept, I can't find enough mentions in reliable sources currently to show this as passing WP:NEO. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 14:27, 30 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant House[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural listing based on a decision at DRV to relist this for further discussion. As the DRV closer I take no position in this debate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, copying from the Uzma Gamal's comment at the deletion review, I see some reliable sources:

Siobhan Roberts (February 7, 2004). "Who needs a speed bump when you've got a white elephant? 'One of the practical things it's done is slowed traffic down on the street ? a lot'". Globe and Mail. p. M3.
Kate Harries (May 6, 2004). "Art by the yard; Search for the perfect garden sculpture leads to an odyssey through Ontario's arts community 'We allow for a measure of craziness when it comes to my gardening purchases,' writes Kate Harries". Toronto Star. p. J1. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
Alana Wilcox (November 30, 2005). The State of the Arts: Living With Culture in Toronto. UTOpia series. Vol. 2. Coach House Books. p. 351. ISBN 155245178X. OCLC 699812267.
Zosia Bielski (August 12, 2006). "Home on the strange: odd abodes celebrated: Shunning orthodoxy". National Post. p. A10. Retrieved October 16, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
Nathalie Atkinson (June 2, 2007). "There's no place like home". National Post. p. 4. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)

Probably the relist was correct, but I can't see a different outcome for this. Cavarrone (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there seem to be more than enough reliable sources named by Cavarrone and listed in the article. The odd fact that the article itself is sprinkled with possibly unreliable sources does not change this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because it makes the news does not make it notable. Being written about in a news paper happens every day for many man made things (same story regurgitated over and over). And the fact as seen here the names is used by a famous sculpture - that is not just a lawn ornament.Moxy (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When something makes the news, over the course of 4 years in succession, in different newspapers, it is hard to treat as a flash-in-the-pan or nine-days-wonder, which Wikipedia rightly shuns. Art available for the public to view, which attracts comment in multiple reliable sources over the years, clearly passes our WP:GNG test. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its called "An Elephant in the Room" not "The Elephant House" - cant believe not one person here has even looked at this fact. As for WP:GNG - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.Moxy (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this topic passes WP:GNG, in part per the sources listed above by User:Cavarrone, and also per some in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, it passes WP:GNG and should be kept. ʈucoxn\^talk 01:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, per Chiswick Chap. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources have been found proving it is notable. The closing administrator did the right thing last time by ignoring that one editor who constantly insist that you need hordes of sources, that two aren't enough. Dream Focus 08:17, 1 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Leonard Park[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not seem notable. A Google Books search for James Leonard Park shows several books he has written, all of them published by Existential Books, which has not published anything by other authors and does not seem reputable. The article cites a book called Lessons from Sedona, which discusses his work briefly, but it itself is published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company. The article also claims that he teaches at the University of Minnesota, but the university's website lists him as an alumnus. Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added two reliable independent sources that discuss his life in some depth. The New York Times confirms he was a teacher, probably retired from teaching now given his age and life philosophy. The relevant text from the Chuck Hega source I posted an extract in Talk:James Leonard Park. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:36, 17 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom, thanks for finding these sources. The New York Times article cites Park as an example of a person living almost entirely on Social Security, which unfortunately does nothing to establish his notability as a philosopher. On the other hand, it seems like the Chuck Haga articIe does deal with him as a philosopher, so it does start him down the road to notability. But it's just a start, and he has a long way to go before he meets the threshold. At any rate, I can't fully judge Haga's article since I haven't been able to find the full text anywhere; by any chance could you post the link? -- Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Haga article is in a commercial database accessed behind a paywall so no outside link but I posted the relevant text in the article talk page. It makes up a good portion of the article. I didn't want to post the rest for copvio concerns. The NYT article and the Haga article shows that multiple independent reliable sources chose to interview him for a quote as an expert or representative person on this subject which adds to his notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:28, 27 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 12:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs do not establish notability, fails any applicable notability guideline you care to choose. (WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, etc). Hairhorn (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched some more for the Haga article and found a link to the paywalled original on the website of the Grand Forks Herald. An article in the Grand Forks Herald confirms he is employed by that paper, strongly suggesting the article was origally written for it. So, we have a total of one reliable source citing Park as a philosopher: a column (not a news item) in general-interest newspaper with a circulation of less than 35 000.

The New York Times article Green Cardamom mentioned does quote him, but only as a man on the street, not as an authority on any subject, let alone philosophy. The only paragraph in that article that mentions him having anything to do with academics runs:

"Others see Social Security as a way to keep going, perhaps in a simpler way. James Leonard Park, an eccentric former Methodist minister who retired in 1968 at age 27 with $5,000 in the bank, has taken this approach to another level. Until he started collecting Social Security at 65, he lived a bohemian life in Minneapolis on about $2,000 a year. Most of that came from teaching adult education classes on voluntary simplicity, though he said he has written 15 books."

For Wikipedia's purposes, Park is not notable. Period. —Neil 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone would find more sources because he seems like he could be notable but it doesn't look like any more sources have shown up. Notability doesn't have to be national, probably this a regional persona who was better known in the 70s-80s, probably sources on microfiche somewhere in county libraries. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible; I didn't know Haga's article existed until you found it. But given what we have, I agree that this article doesn't make the cut. —Neil 16:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two references now in the article New York Times 12 Sep 2012, Grand Forks Herald February 13, 2011, is all I found as well when looking for "James Leonard Park". Those two articles provide some biography information, but not enough to put together a biography article per WP:GNG. I didn't find anything about his major work, Our Existential Predicament: Loneliness, Depression, Anxiety, and Death. There might be more under James Park or Jim Park, but there's no easy way to look for that information and you probably would need to know where it is first. His website[16] does not list any press coverage. However, James Leonard Park would know of each press coverage he received and if he posted those at WP:AfC, there might be a way to get an article in Wikipedia on the topic. Journal of Heart Centered Therapies September 22, 2001 might have inspired his Our Existential Predicament: Loneliness, Depression, Anxiety, and Death book. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:51, 3 November 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Kitchen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Kitchen), still fails WP:GNG. Not notable; no reliable sources (and being quoted does not mean "featured," as the article reads.) -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't know. He seems to have had a decent amount of additional coverage since the original AfD discussion in 2006. He got a couple paragraphs in the New York Times, was featured in this CNET article and had previously been in Computer World. I think this qualifies as meeting the WP:GNG threshold, but only just barely. Should be edited for NPOV. --Batard0 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 12:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. He's mentioned in NY Times May 26, 2011, Associated Press September 12, 2011, FutureLawyer March 11, 2012. Doesn't add up to enough source material to meet WP:GNG. His appearances on TV were brief and didn't generrate more than a sentence or two of comments. An early reference is Defense Technology International, September 1, 2010, Volume 4; Issue 8: "Everyday events show the extent of digital vulnerabilities. ... "It makes you wonder if this is happening in other devices," Hak5’s Darren Kitchen said on the CNET technology podcast "Buzz Out Loud." The podcast went on to discuss the appearance of USB stick-borne control system malware aimed at Siemens system configurations at utility power plants." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:25, 27 October 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SureClick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

According to [[17]]

"If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."

Neither Amgen nor Wyeth Pharmaceuticals is large enough that merging this would be problematic.

Specific products should not have stubs created for them.

"Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing for a merge/redirect? If so, where? With 2 manufacturers it's not immediately obvious how to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the product should not have its own page per the Notability standard I cited. If the product MUST remain on Wiki (which is questionable) it should be merged with one or both of the companies that produced it.ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 12:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A first mention of the product is Chemist & Druggist June 11, 2005, then some press releases, then Ventura County Star September 8, 2006, then the remainder through 2011 are press releases, most of them oddly announcing the release of the SureClick product. The Wikipedia article links to a source mentioning "A precautionary recall of Amgen's Neulasta SureClick injection device."[18]. There is not enough reliable soruce material on the SureClick topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:40, 27 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McMurray[edit]

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

Not notable. No real assertion of notability. One obituary ref establishes that he is the stepson of an actress and the other is a simple directory listing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being unrelated to Fred MacMurry is no reason for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Made quite a few movies, according to IMDb ([19]). Article is of bad quality, but not beyond salvation. The Banner _talk 13:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, obvious Keep, surely passes our guideline for actors, multiple notable roles that span from seventies till nowadays, just take a look at his "what links here" page [20]. Cavarrone (talk) 07:29, 22 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An early mention is in New York Times June 7, 1980. This January 23, 2007 press release mentions, "The in-depth segment also features current TV Actor Sam McMurray (over 150 appearances including Friends, King of Queens and The Tracy Ullman Show}." His mom was in acting.[21]. So was his stepmom, Lesley Woods.[22] In 2001, he was known for "The Sopranos," and "Raising Arizona"). There's not enough independent reliable source information for the topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, your analysis of sources is definitely minimal, we have more than 300 articles and several thousand of book sources about him. And it is not well clear on which basis you have chosen these sources, as we have definitely better sources about him, such as a biography by All Movie Guide ([23]), a portrait in the book "Guide to Character Actors" by Tara Ariano (that looks like significant coverage), an interview to Providence Journal or an interview to Monsters and Critics about his role in Lake Placid 2. Secondly, as he is an actor, we should not consider just GNG but also analyze if he played multiple significant roles in his career to pass WP:NACTOR standard. And he had, just to make some titles, a major role in The Tracey Ullman Show ([24]), a major role in Stand By Your Man ([25]), a major role in A League of Their Own([26]), a major role in Likely Suspects ([27]) a role of weight in Raising Arizona ([28]), a role of weight in Stone Cold ([29]), a major role in The Munsters' Scary Little Christmas ([30]) and so on, and the significance of these roles is verifiable by reliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources might support a List of filmography for Sam McMurray Wikipedia article, but not a biography article topic for Sam McMurray. The source material needs to cover life events Sam McMurray using enough prose from which to write a Wikipedia biography article on the topic per WP:GNG to justify a biography article. List of filmography and a biography are two separate topics and a List of filmography meeting WP:GNG does not mean that a biography article topic for Sam McMurray meets WP:GNG as well. Given the amount of times he has appeared on TV and film, you would think some news story writer somewhere would wonder who is this person and what is his life story so as to produce third party reliable source coverage on this life. Yet, nothing has turned up. Sam McMurray's publicity people could easilty get Variety or other trade papers to write about McMurray. That would help his career, so it's not clear why his agent, publicity people, manager, etc. want to keep his life a secret. However, Wikipedia is not the place to generate such biography content. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument totally ignores our WP:NACTOR guideline, and that is a legitimate opinion, but just a personal opinion and goes against a well-established consensus in AfDs related to actors. And indeed we have several biographical sources, like the "All Movie Guide" biography or the book "Guide to Character Actors" (that is basically a printed encyclopedia), that, despite of you are keeping on ignore them, are significant, reliable sources, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject as prescribed by WP:BASIC criteria. We have already enough sources for a little stub, and probably more are available offline. It is not clear what kind of sources about McMurray's life you are asking for. Yes, he was never involved in sex scandals, he is not a disciple of Scientology nor he made talking about himself for gossip of any nature, and the main part of the coverage about him is about his work and his performances, so, is this a fault? Cavarrone (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed this, but I missed the fact it had only been relisted today, so I'm going to reopen it - not least because someone else wants to give some input. However, at this time, this could only be closed as "delete", because the fact is that the nomination was on the grounds of notability. Notability is to be seen in lots of secondary, non-trivial, discussions of the subject (see WP:GNG). No one in the debate has indicated any evidence of such to refute the nomination. Uzma Gamal pretty much demolished the sources that have been provided.

If this is to be kept, someone needs to demonstrate that there are multiple sources engaging in non-trivial discussion of him and his roles. Showing he's been mentioned in lots of g-hits etc change nothing.--Scott Mac 17:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to have had a career that is sufficiently significant to warrant an encyclopedia article. Coverage includes The Albany Herald (starring role in Likely Suspects), Los Angeles Daily News (starring role in same show, presumably), Beaver County Times (starring role in Baker's Dozen), Los Angeles Times (starring role in stage play Tom and Jerry), Chicago Tribune (major role in The Tracey Ullman Show), and there are books that cover him such as Friends: The Complete Guide and Hey! It's That Guy!: The Fametracker.com Guide to Character Actors. --Michig (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Friends: the Complete Guide"? Author seems to be "bada bing". This book is, in fact, apparently listed nowhere outside of google books [31] and looks suspiciously like a Wikipedia compilation.--Scott Mac 18:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes that book looks dubious, but the other sources are easily sufficient to demonstrate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding that book specifically, it was published by PediaPress, so it is highly likely to be Wikipedia content. Chris857 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [32] Wknight94 ^talk 19:07, 3 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFire (film)[edit]

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

Denied prod without explanation. Concern was "Unreferenced article with no evidence of meeting the notability criteria for unreleased films". I echo this concern and having not found any sources, this may be a hoax. BOVINEBOY2008 12:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my earlier Prod rationale. AllyD (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could almost be done speedily given the lack of content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly not notable and given that the name of the original editor looks like it's a filming house, I'm going to guess that this is a purely promotional edit. It hasn't even started filming yet, assuming it ever will.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing showing up on this particular Dragonfire on a search (as opposed to other "Dragonfire" films). No coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources to get us notability. Churn and change (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a hoax to me. No serious investor is going to give you money to film in all those exotic locations if the film features a Bond knockoff called "James Bob". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Really? There is absolutely zero coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James Bob, eh? More seriously, this has no cast, no crew, no director, no release date, no coverage in even unreliable sources and no chance of being a real film. The creator's namesake, Rattlesnake Pictures, doesn't appear to exist in any capacity either. At best, this is WP:CRYSTAL. More likely, this is a pure fabrication. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 30 October 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saanvi venna[edit]

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

Her death even got some coverage in India, but we can't keep this article as per WP:NOTNEWS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing notable about this particular 10 month old child. Her death is sad and unfortunate, but it is a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted. This murder is not the same as most other murders. How often have you heard of a neighbor and family friend kidnap a baby and kill? Among the Indian community in the US, this is a really rare event. An Indian targeting another Indian family friend living in the same apartment complex. The ransom asked for, is also not that high. From how the murderer did this, it is truly weird. Even after accepting his guilt, he asked the cops to inform to the media, that his wife gave them the hint, so that she can collect the $30,000/ reward. I think when more details about the motive would come out when the trials start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaprabhakar (talk • contribs) 09:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - In reply to the above, I am no expert but isn't it well known that a lot of kidnappings are by people who know their victims, which includes neighbors? In any case, this is just news, sad, but not notable. -- Patchy1 01:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Tragic, perhaps, but I see no evidence that it belongs in an encyclopedia at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 1 November 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 redirect to Miss International. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International 2013[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, there is no substance. Wikipedia, as with the encyclopedias of old, should focus on things after the fact. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too early for such article (very little info is available as of now. GrayFullbuster (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss International seems the obvious outcome if a standalone article isn't merited (which it isn't). --Michig (talk) 08:10, 3 November 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. Scott Mac 21:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drums (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable comic series. The references are either unreliable soureces or leave a lot to be desired. There is no specific comic book notability guideline AFAIK so I take my guidance from WP:NBOOK. Contested PROD by an IP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources aren't as many as I'd like and it didn't get nearly as much attention as some of the other indie comics that have come out in the last few years, but I think I managed to scrape together just enough to pass notability guidelines. Bloody Disgusting seems to have fallen all over themselves to report on it, but other than that it mostly got a lukewarm reception.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY: User:Tokyogirl79's improvements to the article have qualified the topic's notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 3 November 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Xardel‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dominique Xardel

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

Non-notable as per WP:BIO Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to be best known as a French academic. He was Director of ESSEC "one of the foremost business schools in France". He was also Editor~~-in-Chief~~ of the European Harvard Business Review which is a prestigious academic journal. He was most active in the 80s and 90s pre Internet in France so the sourcing online will be difficult, but a search of JSTOR shows a lot of hits as he has published many academic papers and/or referenced by others. WorldCat shows 74 of his books are available in libraries (in various languages [and editions - he has about 14 book titles] (italic text added later)). Picking one title The Direct Selling Revolution shows it to be in 135 libraries, so he has a lot of library exposure. I think the weight of evidence is this is a notable scholar in business management and marketing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His works, including that book, appear to be very very sparsely cited. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet notability requirements as an author (see WP:AUTHOR) and has received negligible coverage by secondary sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not "best known" for anything. I see no source that refers to Xardell as former editor in chief. He has not published 74 books either; the WorldCat listing contain many duplicate entries and translations of existing titles, and many of the entries listed look like very obscure books of no obvious importance. The 6 sources cited in the current BLP don't come anywhere close to demonstrating notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've re-written the article from scratch including new sources and quotes for sources that otherwise are difficult to access, as a courtesy for verification purposes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not come even remotely close to qualifying as notable as per WP:AUTHOR, not to mention that almost all of the author's (obscure) works were written in French and have little if any relevance for English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see the claim is that he meets WP:ACADEMIC, rather than WP:AUTHOR. Personally I don't think meeting WP:ACADEMIC has been sufficiently shown. Mainly because I haven't seen clear signs of a major academic impact. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that if the argument for notability were based on WP:ACADEMIC rather than WP:AUTHOR, the subject still would not meet the rquirements. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in 2006 an article in the Hindu stated Prof. Dominique Xardel, who is the Assistant Dean at one of Europe's most prestigious business schools Essec in France,[33]. The school's official website would list his current position. Dream Focus 07:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His name does not appear on this faculty list for ESSEC.[34] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has an active faculty page at ESSEC and the source below says he is current there. If you want to verify it why don't you call the University or email them to confirm. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he is not listed on the faculty page, it would be more accurate to say that the entry you found is an inactive faculty page. But either way, having a faculty page, active or not, does not help to establish notability as per WP:ACADEMIC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, the faculty list you found is not up to date. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the college's faculty website list -- what more definitive source is there? Xardel has allegedly been at that institute since the 70s, so I fail to see any validity to the argument about the site being out of date. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is based at ESSEC but we also know he teaches at different schools around the world. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is his career history (Google translation):

1960-1977: Various management positions in companies such as Union Carbide, Julhiet Group, Unilever, Union Express and Time-Life International
1978-1988: Director of the ESSEC
1981-1990: Editor of the Harvard-Expansion
1984-1991: President of the European Association of Intercultural Management
1988-1991: Director General of the International School of Business
1992-1999: Director of Marketing at ESSEC Ms.
Since 2001: Director of International Development, ESSEC

According to WP:ACADEMIC #6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" which might be applicable to 1. Director of the ESSEC or 2. President of the European Association of Intercultural Management or 3. Director General of the International School of Business. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(also I would encourage readers to see this version of the article which contains additional information deleted by Rhode Island Red). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He does not qualify even under criterion #6, which states:

"Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g. being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)."

His associate deanship at ESSEC would not qualify -- it is specifically precluded. His alleged directorship of ESSEC would not apply because ESSEC is not "a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center, which is not a part of a university". His alleged presidency of the EAIM would not qualify becuase the institution is not "a notable national or international scholarly society"; in fact a Google search did not provide any evidence that an organization by this name ever existed.[35] The "International School of Business" would not qualify either because it is not a presidency or chancellorship, and the institution does not seem to be notable (I couldn't even find any mention of it on Google[36]). Furthermore, the subject has received negligible coverage in reliable secondary sources, except perhaps for passing mention in a couple of old articles (and passing mention is never sufficient for establishing notability). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESSEC would probably qualify as "a major academic institution" (WP:ACADEMIC #6) of which he was Director for 10 years. According to the New York Times, ESSEC is "one of France's most respected graduate business schools."[37] According to our very own Wikipedia article ESSEC is "one of Europe's top business schools." It says "Director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)" - ESSEC is not a branch of a University, it is independent. The quotes above show it to be "highly regarded", and could find more if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument fails as well. ESSEC is a college, not an independent research institute, and Xardel did not hold "the post of President or Chancellor" at ESSEC, so he does not satisfy criterion #6 in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC #6 says: "director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center". Director (check). Highly regarded (check). Academic research center (check). ESSEC Business School is a graduate school, one of the Grandes Écoles, which teaches PhD's how to do research which means graduate-level research activity (papers, seminars, etc). As John Z says below, a Grandes Écoles is a big deal. The Financial Times ranked ESSEC the 6th top business school in France [38] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read more closely please and try to focus on the key details. I’ll repeat again, criterion #6 says “director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)”. ESSEC is not an independent research institute; it is a business college. Criterion #6 would require that Xardel hold/have held the position of President or Chancellor at ESSEC, which is not the case. Secondly, Xardel’s official CV shows that he was not even sole director of ESSEC; he was merely “Director of International Affairs” for the MBA program.[39] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was Director of the ESSEC from 1978-1988 [40], his current position is different. His online CV doesn't even start until 1989 so obviously it is incomplete and not a good source for determining prior to 1989. We know he was working at ESSEC prior to 1989 from multiple independent reliable sources. The school does primary research with support from the ESSEC Research Center, created in 1963, in other words ESSEC is a research center. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another of his publications is ISBN 2227320400 Le Bonheur d'être homme: entretiens avec Dominique Xardel of interviews with the French Worker-priest Jacques Loew french wiki article . Xardel is also an amateur pianist who cofounded Festival Les Amateurs !. A French Grande école is a big deal, major positions not likely to go to nonentities.John Z (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A dead link and an internal reference to a WP article with no sources. Swell. Perhaps you can sell the case for notability to French WP; he's clearly insufficiently notable for inclusion in English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to a number of sources [41][42][43][44] , Xardel was "Editor-in-Chief of the European Harvard Business Review (Harvard L'Expansion)". This would pass WP:ACADEMIC #8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." "Editor-in-Chief" is rédacteur en chef. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, none of the sources you provided are WP:RS, and an independent secondary source would be required in this case. Secondly, his resume states that he was simply an "editor" (whihc does not qualify based on criterion #6); not editor in chief (and there are many inconsistencies between the entries listed in his resume and the entries floating around on these sketchy looking websites. Lastly, the publication in question is called "Harvard L'Expansion", not "European Harvard Business Review", and I see no evidence of that the publication is notable. Overall, another failed argument. This individual is clearly not notable so why are you grasping at straws? Are you affiliated with Amway? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of ~~deleting~~ editing Amway content on Wikipedia. ~~You are on some sort of anti-Amway crusade (perhaps for good, I dunno, but it's part of your edit history).~~ I on the other hand have a history of being actively engaged in dozens of AfDs because I enjoy saving articles by giving them every possible opportunity by doing the hard research. I don't care if this article is deleted, I've never edited an Amway or MLM article on Wikipedia before. I care that this article is given a fair shot and opportunity ~~and not ramroded by someone with an anti-Amway agenda.~~

Back to the sources: Those are reliable secondary sources. Using a primary source CV isn't how we do things on Wikipedia. "Harvard L'Expansion" was the European edition of the Harvard Business Review, it has since changed (no longer French but split into German and some others) but it was certainly notable in its day. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you were offended by my bringing up the possibility of an Amway connection, but since the BLP subject clearly does not meet any of the notability criteria, I was stumped as to why you would keep bending over backwards to keep the article from being deleted. On the flipside, you don't do yourself any favors by saying that I have a history of deleting Amway content (in fact, I wrote a pretty big [and dare I say it, very well written] chunk of the article on Amway) or that I'm on a "crusade" (which implies a POV violation and an assumption of bad faith). So let's just call it even and move on.

Back to the content issues. First, it does not appear that he was ever "editor-in-chief" and the sources you've provided are of low quality. Per policy, primary sources from the BLP subject are sometimes allowable, as long as the material is not unduly self-serving, particualrly when it comes to CV details. The BLP subject's own CV indicates that he was not editor in chief, and this contradicts what's listed in the dubious sources you provided, which incidentally are not WP:RS because there is no evidence of editorial oversight of the contents nor a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Furthermore, WP:ACADEMIC states "it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject", which is also applicable in this case, so even if he were editor-in-chief of this obscure and long defunct journal, the case for notability would still be gossamer thin.

I see no justification for saying that the deletion nomination is being "ramroded (sic)"; quite the contrary -- you've made a Herculean effort to make the slimmest of cases for notability and still haven't succeeded. Deletion is an easy call in this case. But since you don't care if the article is deleted, that simplifies matters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was offended by your suggestion of COI during a content dispute and wrote some things that I have since stricken. I care that the rules are followed, not what the outcome is. There will be more people involved in this AfD before it's over so don't be in such a rush to think it is now "simple", it will last weeks. We have differences of opinion about the sources and rules, that is what AfD is about, fact finding and rules applications. I feel like you are giving me a hard time for researching sources and having an opinion that you disagree with.

Regarding the sources: One source is an academic book publishers website, and the other a professionally published book. These are institutions known for editorial oversight. It's true his CV doesn't say "Chief" but since we don't use primary sources we can't rely on the CV when there are reliable secondary sources. This is a well established principle on Wikipedia, if Mr. Xardel's CV said he was President of Paris University in 1975, you would not allow that information unless there was a secondary source; likewise, it's unfair to cherry pick including primary source info because it's convenient to your argument. There could be reasons why his CV doesn't say Chief, we just don't know, that is why we rely on secondary sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this would have been a smoother process if there had been more input from other editors. I have never seen an AfD with so few participants. All of our arguing back and forth won’t amount to much if we don’t get more input. However, I think if we did have more eyes, this would be a straightforward delete. With all the scouring for sources and scraping of the bottom of the barrel, you still haven’t managed to put forth anything that convincingly establishes notability.

The 4 sources that you insist meet WP:RS are a mile away IMO. This site[45] looks like nothing more than a repost of Xardel’s resume; it’s not an article on Xardel; it doesn’t involve journalism; there is no evidence of any editorial oversight or fact-checking -- it’s a low quality source. The other 3 sites are no better.[46][47][48]

The other issue here is that the BLPs subject’s personal CV posted at his faculty page at ESSEC does not list him as editor-in-chief, and it can't be simply assumed that the other sources trump Xardel's own CV. And lastly, the journal in question is obscure, low-impact, and long defunct; and I see no examples of anything from the journal itself that indicates that Xardel was ever editor in chief. BTW, this source seems to indicate that Jacques Barraux was EIC of L'Expansion during the time when Xardel was allegedly EIC (i.e., 1987).[49]

So, in summary, there is not sufficient unambiguous evidence that he was editor in chief; the journal itself does not seem to be notable; and even if Xardel was editor in chief and even if the journal were notable, he still wouldn't qualify for a WP page because WP:ACADEMIC states: “"it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject". There is a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Anyhow, we've talked this to death already so let's just hope we get some participants or we'll probably have to re-list the AfD nomination. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with your characterization of the sources at all, a Parisian university academic book publisher, a university faculty page and a professionally published book are not a 'mile away' from being RS. But let's not keep repeating, our positions are stated on that point.

This is an interesting source you found[50], it shows a number of things. It shows that Jacques Barraux was Editor-in-Chief of a magazine called "The Company" (L'Entreprise) for the March 87' issue. But Harvard-L'Expansion uses quarterly dates, such as the "Spring 87" issue mentioned in the source, so they are obviously not the same magazine, Jacques Barraux was not Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard magazine, according to this source. The source also calls the Harvard magazine a "prestigious" quarterly which undermines notions of it being obscure. BTW I believe the magazines are still in print and can be seen L'Entreprise and voila L'Expansion - perhaps even the present-day version of the former Harvard magazine. Both L'Entreprise and L'Expansion are owned by the same parent company, L'Express.

Remarkable what turns up with some searching on google.fr. I'm hoping a native French speaker will appear who can help us further. So long as new information is coming to light the AfD will stay open. The process is "smooth", we are doing exactly what should be done: research, investigate, discuss. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Cardamom's arguments above that he meets criteria 6 and 8 of WP:ACADEMIC are convincing. I won't cite all the sources, but I think we can consider things like [51][52][53][54] these reliable enough in combination to establish that he was editor-in-chief of this publication. We can rely on primary sourcing for some of this, as he is unlikely to misstate his position. The fact that one source says he was "editor" is not a convincing argument against the weight of verifiable and reliable evidence that he was editor-in-chief. The editor of, say, the New York Times may call herself the "editor of the New York Times" when in fact her official position is editor-in-chief. Calling oneself the editor of a publication does not preclude one from being its editor in chief. I also find sufficient evidence cited above that he was the director of ESSEC, and that ESSEC is a highly regarded, independent institution. The assertion that it is not a research institution may possibly be the case, but it is clear to me that it is at minimum a graduate institution that is independent, and that it meets criterion 8 in spirit, if not in letter. Now, having said all this, we come to the problem of finding sufficient sourcing with which to write the article. I've searched the French and English sources and am frankly a bit surprised that I'm unable to come up with more information about this person. I can't seem to find any coverage of him in news articles, the mentions in books are brief, and other sources are essentially resumes and short blurbs about his career. The WP:ACADEMIC guidelines are unclear in this regard. They first state that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Xardel meets two of these criteria, and thus must be notable under the guidelines, period. And yet then the guidelines say, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" and further ask us to consider: "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" It's tough to say the answer to this second question is yes. He seems quite accomplished to me, but he doesn't clearly stand out. If he clearly stood out, shouldn't we see more coverage in independent sources? Rhode Island Red's arguments are convincing in that there isn't much in the way of reliable sources to base this upon. With what we have now, I don't see how we could possibly expand it beyond a brief stub with a listing of works; that's all we have that's verifiable. Now, having said all that, I also acknowledge that this person's career took place mainly in the 1970s through the 1990s in France. Taking a look at his resume and the books he was writing at that time, it strikes me as likely that there would have been coverage of him in French sources back then, and that it would likely have been substantial under the WP:GNG criteria. We won't be able to see this coverage online because French newspapers are not in the Google news archives, at least to my knowledge, and it's likely French magazines and academic journals of that era have not all put their archives up online for easy access. It's a guess, I know, and there's no guarantee that this coverage exists, but I feel at this time that we should give the subject the benefit of the doubt because we're not able to search for it properly. Rhode Island Red's arguments are well constructed, but on balance I think the best course is to keep the article. --Batard0 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: changed to keep (from weak keep, so it's rather inconsequential) based on Uzma's excellent source sleuthing. I wasn't able to find any of these myself. Well done. --Batard0 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 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, Sandstein 07:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the actual notability requirements both as academic and author. Cited in Responding to Globalization Aseem Prakash; Jeffrey A. Hart; from Routledge, 2000. The cavil as to whether an "editor" is "editor in chief" is a nice tangent having zero bearing here. Meanwhile "Harvard L'Expansion" does indeed seem to be a publication for HBS alumni [55] making that nit a tad useless. Collect (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -

Significant coverage: New York Times October 13, 1982 (the hidden, rest of the article is all about Xardel ("The school, known as E.S.S.E.C., is one of France's most respected graduate business schools. It is 20 miles west of Paris in the suburb of Cergy-Pontoise. The director is Dominique Xardel." The article then is about Xardel and the school)
Significant coverage: Joyce E. Jones (June 1996). "Xardel, Dominique, The Direct Selling Revolution: Understanding the Growth of the Amway Corporation (book review)". Journal of Consumer Affairs. 30 (1): 283. Retrieved October 27, 2012. - Although this is a book review, the review is written in a way that attributes the thoughts in the book to Xardel. As a result, the review provides biographical material for the Wikipedia article.
Significant coverage: Business Line February 10, 2005
Other coverage: Business Line September 8, 2004. There also is reliable source coverage in the French language.

The topic meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uzma Gamal has found clear proof of the notability of this person. Dream Focus 15:17, 27 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valentino Petrescu[edit]

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

Notability not established with reliable references - does not appear to have fought for any significant titles. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT as he has not fought for top tier organizations.
LlamaAl (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete He has competed on the recent TUF smashes and is a big name on the local UK mma scene. He has fought against current UFC fighter Jimi Manuwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintsfc08 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being "a big name on the local scene" is not enough to show notability. Having once fought a fighter who became notable doesn't show notability either (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Updated (information and sources), Keep I have spent some time adding in useful information and sourcing to the page, and after looking over the page I feel that it just about meets WP:GNG, so for that reason I vote keep. Pound4Pound (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no fights for a top tier MMA organization and only 1 fight for a second tier organization. Fails WP:MMANOT. There doesn't seem to be any significant non-routine coverage about him--not even close to meeting WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject clearly doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters (WP:MMANOT). The fact that he traveled with Cirque du Soleil also doesn't make him notable. Finally, I don't think the sources given meet the significant and independent coverage requirement necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 3 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wilkinson (fighter)[edit]

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

On notability grounds - not fought for any top teir organizations. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MMANOT.
LlamaAl (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. Fails WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 21:24, 1 November 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. Scott Mac 21:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Giavelli[edit]

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

The subject of this article whose main claim to notability appears to be by being an author fails the notability requirements of creative professionals found in WP:AUTHOR. The subject appears to have only written three obscure children's books which were published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, a self publishing and free distribution service from Amazon. Additionally while she is a business person it doesn't appear as she is notable in this regard either as she has only held middle management roles at Fortune 500 companies with several CTO roles at small non-Fortune 500 companies. Holyfield1998 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO and WP:GNG and WP:RS, to name a few. Qworty (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 30 October 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 redirect to Ally Condie#Matched. Michig (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reached (novel)[edit]

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

WP:NN novel to be published in the future. Apparently create by a paid editor to promote the novel's author. Article creator now blocked for creation of inappropriate articles (this article not part of blocking rationale). Toddst1 (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't quite made up my mind yet, but I'm leaning towards delete purely because the coverage so far has been light. This should get more coverage as time goes on, but there's no guarantee of that and I've seen many books with large followings that don't. I'm willing to personally userfy a copy of the article if it's decided that it should be deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and, more importantly, for failing WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Matched or Ally Condie. I've thought about it (and then forgot about it), but Qworty is right- any argument for keeping this ultimately falls under WP:CRYSTAL. It might get coverage when it comes out, but then it might not. That's the funny thing about the YA series. Even when they're popular there's still no guarantee that it'll get enough coverage to merit an entry. I've userfied a copy of this for the time if/when it meets notability guidelines, so for now this should probably either be redirected to the page for Matched or to the author's page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noted that the last novel reached #2 on the NY Times young adult list, so its quite likely this one will make the bestseller list as well. Thus, if this cannot skate by for a few weeks, I would prefer a redirect to Ally Condie over deletion at this point, as it seems quite likely to me that the result of this AfD would be different in a few weeks. I understand that Wikipedia:Notability (books) doesn't directly address best-seller list inclusion, but previous AfDs have treated favorable if its one of the premier lists and a top position is reached.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ally Condie#Matched where the information about this yet to be published book is available in the context of the "Matched" trilogy. If the book garners notice after publication, it is a simple step for any editor to undo the redirect and history is preserved without the need of going through userfication. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 30 October 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 per Wikipedia:Csd#G4 'DELETE' Toddst1 (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Nicole (singer)[edit]

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

Youtube celebrity who does not appear to have garnered the appropriate level of reliable sourcing in independent sources that is required for a wikipedia article. Google is full of her social media and non reliable sources. Google news is just mentions of her performing in other events (i.e. listings). Unless the sourcing is dramatically improved we need to remove this article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Has been deleted in the past month via AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Nicole. Agree with all the delete votes... a case of Too Soon. Also needs some salt. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Salt this entry and the Megan Nicole entry. Given that this is the sixth or seventh time this has been deleted, this absolutely needs salting. It'll just be re-added and waste more time getting speedied or deleted again, leading to the necessity for salting. Best to just do it now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Probably not notable. There are others just like this floating around of course, but the sourcing usually at least looks better. When I created Austin Mahone it had been deleted many times before, so that's not dispositive.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:57, 27 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Machine pistols in fiction[edit]

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

Article reads like original research by synthesis because that is exactly what it is. None of the sources actually discuss the subject specifically. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, I doubt that it is a thorough treatment of the topic. I think it is just Something That Someone Is Interested In but Does Not Fit In With The Rest Of Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apart from the sorry state of the current article which fails to address the subject, this would be better covered under a general treatment of "guns in fiction" Not that I can find similar articles. Though I did find Rayguns in fiction which seems to have risen like a zombie from a 2007 AFD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 29 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Wake[edit]

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

Non-notable comic series. While it is referenced I feel that it is of insufficient notability for WP. There is no specific comic book notability guideline AFAIK so I take my guidance from WP:NBOOK. Contested PROD (by article author). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beyond the USA Today [56] and IGN [57] articles already referenced, there's this MTV piece, these at Newsarama, and several Comic Book Resources reviews [58][59][60][61][62]. Gongshow ^Talk 12:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Click the first and third references linked to in the article. That proves it meets the WP:GNG already. And of course, there is hordes more coverage, as Gongshow has found and listed above. Dream Focus 13:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:42, 29 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Speed[edit]

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

Non-notable radio writer. Fails WP:RADIO. Has NPOV issues. Article appears to be a memorial using unreliable sources posted on Flickr that include scanned personal documents (letter, marriage and birth certificates, etc.): Jane Speed, Writer: From Page to Stage to Screen... to Page Just one short newspaper article source that dates back to 1946. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I hate it when I see a family member spend so much time on one of these without understanding WP:GNG. They pretty much admit as much on the talk page. By all means they should post their "article" somewhere on the internet, but its not for wikipedia. These things can go bad because we can't source it all to reliable mainstream sources to show why they are notable and what about them is notable. The worst cautionary tale is Howard Press. Howard did some noble stuff in his lifetime, but most of it wasn't really sourceable. What was sourceable, though mostly irrelevant to any notability claim, were some criminal troubles he had. Some editors came in and filled the article with this terrible stuff, until the creator begged for its deletion. That's one of the many reasons why meeting WP:GNG is a very good rule.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per basic criteria and invalid criteria. Zepppep (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies....William 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. I wish we could delete it for its lousy writing style: "It was in the late fall of 1948 that she consulted with her long-beloved husband and took the momentous decision to pluck her eyebrows fortnightly." If there's such a thing as a writing gene, he sure didn't inherit it from his pretty mom, rest her soul. Qworty (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a short example of more prose added today by Speed to "improve" the article: "In 1955, the prospect of a third child on the way, coupled with TV's dramatic erosion of the market for radio dramas, conspired to dictate a career change. Moreover, her husband's simultaneous career change - from struggling freelance musician to fledgling computer programmer at IBM - would help subsidize Speed's retirement from radio and subsequent retraining." He sourced it with the funeral service handout. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:08, 1 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Prince[edit]

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

Per Holistic Design's AfD, notability was not established in the company's listed games. notability is not established. PROD removed. czar · · 02:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Cannot find any sources for WP:GNG, all hits seem to be for Merchant Price 2. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll wait for sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the original author of the article. For what it's worth, I wrote it because this is a game I used to be very fond of, and the middle version had a nominal connection to a famous historical figure. Also Talonsoft considered it worthwhile to write a sequel to the game in 2001. Peyre (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article could certainly stand for additional improvements. Not using other articles or topics as the entirety of my opinion, but sequel appears notable enough, as well as the company page (no consensus) on that one. My opinion is that notability is established and can certainly be conveyed through additional articles and news stories given time. Worse comes to worse, I'll pull out the magazines I have from 18 years ago that I know cover this game and capture additional references. Radagast83 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Yes, it's this page doesn't follow WP:YOU, yes it has very few references, but it seems to have been a major release back in the days, and I think it deserves a mention provided that the style if fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyxc600 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"provided that the style if fixed" is not a WP:GNG requirement and adding suitable sources is sufficient. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Wikipedia arguably has too many articles devoted to video games this game was notable enough in its day. Improve the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:22, 30 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Shani[edit]

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

No reliable sources found discussing this individual significantly. Doesn't seem to be notable enough to justify an article. SMS ^Talk 20:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no coverage in news and no reliable sources in a web search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, etc., unless there's evidence of coverage in Urdu, which I don't have the capacity to investigate. --Batard0 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No English evidence to support the article's content or to establish notability, Google News and Books provided nothing relevant. I found a useless and unreliable forum post here. It is certainly possible that additional sources are not English but there isn't a native name available to help widen the search. If a user wants to recreate the article, I strongly suggesting adding it to the Punjabi Wikipedia or Urdu Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 27 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remon Sakr[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. I found no reliable sources, and the only sources in the articles are Facebook and YouTube pages. David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Article does not pass Music notability. No sources found besides youtube, facebook, and soundcloud. Buggie111 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ne Marteros, a song by this musician. David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the talk page

thanks my dear but what i have to do ?? I have an article "an interview with an Egyptian E-newspaper" but there is a problem, this article wrote in Arabic!!

this article is used as a reference in Arabic Wikipedia you can tell me the steps that I have to do because I read Wikipedia steps for publishing a Biography, but I fell disorientation !!

this Musician is really in our Country !! If I want to write anything about him or about his Musical Project "Ne Marteros" It's just for history !!!

if you find something is wrong you can delete it but, if you think that there something I can do to improve, tell me please !!

thanks --Egyptian Pharoh (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Egyptian Pharoh[reply]

An Arabic-launguage source is good (can you provide a link?), but multiple in-depth reliable sources must be provided to show that this musician passes our music notability guideline. Are there any other sources on this musician? David1217 ^{What I've done} 21:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSICIAN. Qworty (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above et nom. Dengero (talk) 11:05, 1 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Edgar[edit]

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

Person considering running for a position that, if elected, still would not pass them WP:POLITICIAN. Being head of a Student union would be a consideration only if that had brought them into significant public attention, which is not the case here. Shirt58 (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On your point about significant public attention, he clearly has significant public/media attention on a local and national level.Wipkipkedia (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "considering running" is not what gives this article notability. He is not just OUSA president but has gained significant media coverage on a range of events/issues above and beyond most other people in a similar position to his. I agree, almost all student association presidents are not notable. Logan Edgar clearly is due to the significant media coverage. Wipkipkedia (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he's gained significant coverage on several issues nationally, then why is the only thing I see on Google campaign videos, news clippings from the school newspaper and a recount of some crime where he was the victim? The article also does not list any of these events/issues. If that is added, I might rethink my current stance. But now, it's just a guy considering running for City Council. Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media Sources: Thrown in the deep end and swimming OUSA president to stand for DCC Presidents win University Council positions New bar for Otago students Students elected OUSA 'committed' to building a new student bar
This article has independent sources (WP:BASIC), a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage (articles go in depth about Logan Edgar) (WP:POLITICIAN). Overall, there is enough coverage. Wipkipkedia (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suggest you expand the article using these sources. Buggie111 (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to, are you swapping to a keep vote? Wipkipkedia (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the information is still not in the article. And, upon further review, I don't see that much media coverage outside of the school paper (only two other websites, meh.). My original post stands, Touchdown, Seahawks!, err, um, Delete. Buggie111 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 03:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 03:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant. HOw much lower can the standard for notability go? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable city council hopeful. Of the two independent sources currently in the article, one is a short bio in a provincial newspaper, and the other is an article in a free urban newsletter; neither indicate any real notability of the subject. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN makes it clear that candidature is not a notable thing, and that notability for holding an elected office does not include city councils. So here we have a non-notable considering standing for a non-notable position. (Being president of a student association is also non-notable.) Please note that notability as used here is Wikipedia defined notability, and not necessarily what any dictionary might say. Peridon (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. This will not end any other way. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Can always be restored if they ever meet WP:NOTABLITY requirements. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have clearly been outvoted. Two points I'll make: 1 I am definitely of the opinion that the current notability guidelines and/or the interpretation of those guidelines are too strict. 2 If you're doing a Google Search be sure to use Google New Zealand and search for pages in New Zealand. Wipkipkedia (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Logan has a bit to go before meeting WP:POLITICIAN. It's a tough life bud. NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 29 October 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 merge to Brenda Howard. Jenks24 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Howard Award[edit]

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

Delete - There are no sources that indicate that this award is in any way notable. The award is already covered at Brenda Howard. Buck Winston (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguably one of the most if not the most notable awards specifically for bisexual people specifically addressing bisexual erasure. This is a legitimate spinout from the Brenda Howard article but could be sent back if that option is somehow more desirable. Certainly no justification for deletion. Insomesia (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the independent reliable sources that establish that this award, given out by a single local chapter of a national advocacy organization, meet the guidelines for notability? Buck Winston (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some are already in the article. This is, BTW, one of the highest profile chapters of the national group but no matter how I add it up deletion is premature per WP:Before. Insomesia (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five of the eight sources currently on the article are from the awarding organization, so are not independent. The other three are announcements of award recipients and don't establish that the award itself is notable. Buck Winston (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was announced in the NYT, LA Times or some other major publication it would be different. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Brenda Howard. Fails WP:GNG - all the Google Books results are mostly from Wikipedia, and there are no gnews results either. I don't think an appeal to WP:BEFORE is justified. And the article doesn't seem to have any references that are both reliable and independent. St Anselm (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merger to Brenda Howard might be appropriate if GNG can not be sustained. No opinion. I'm sure NYC's standup comedian community is delighted with the fact that there is a Queens chapter of PFLAG. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Brenda Howard. Insufficient sources to establish notability for a stand alone article but sufficient for somewhere on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, preserve the article edit history and content in this manner, should further secondary sources arise or be discovered through subsequent research. — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What information from the article qualifies for being merged on the basis of its independent reliable sourcing? Buck Winston (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even primary sources would be acceptable to retain the page history as a merge/redirect. Redirects are cheap. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirecting is a good idea, and I think I'll change my !vote. It's hard to see what content would be merged, since the Brenda Howard already contains a paragraph on the award. Redirects are cheap, but merges are expensive. St Anselm (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, even a simple redirect without the need for outright deletion would be fine by me, should future contributors wish to do additional research for secondary sources in the future going forwards down the road. :) Have a great day! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So a redirect from a name that is six characters longer than its target makes sense? Anyone looking for information on the award by typing in its name would encounter Howard's article first. Buck Winston (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your campaign against the award is indeed commendable but you've yet to show why our readers should be prevented from easily finding it. A merge is called for if a bounty of reliable sources aren't produced in the week-or-less discussion here. Insomesia (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Lacks sufficient independent coverage. Primary sources currently there are sufficient for limited coverage in Brenda Howard. The blogs, of course, aren't helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 1 November 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.