< 29 September 1 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn gwickwire | Leave a message 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Colonies[edit]

Middle Colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems it would be better merged into Thirteen Colonies or another article, instead of seperating them like this. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Middle Colonies" is the term of choice by historians for 100+ years. The Middle colonies are grouped together because of similarity and they differ sharply from the New England and Southern colonies in terms of culture, politics, economics & slavery. For details on this see Wayne Bodle, "Themes and Directions in Middles Colonies Historiography, 1980-1994," William and Mary Quarterly, July 1994, Vol. 51 Issue 3, pp 355-88 in JSTOR and Douglas Greenberg, "The Middle Colonies in Recent American Historiography," William and Mary Quarterly, July 1979, Vol. 36 Issue 3, pp 396-427 in JSTOR Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 1 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The result was Withdrawn gwickwire | Leave a message 23:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Colonies[edit]

Southern Colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates an existing topic, could be merged gwickwire | Leave a message 22:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 1 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) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double stomp[edit]

Double stomp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Prod removed without substantial improvement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:05, 1 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) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 5. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 14 September 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) 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:40, 22 September 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, Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 30 September 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) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gordon (magician)[edit]

Paul Gordon (magician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a published magician who does not seem to meet the qualifications for either WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:AUTHOR. Nothing directly evident on Google, GNews, etc., that would qualify for presumption of notability under WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 September 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) 20:42, 30 September 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) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ContactDB[edit]

ContactDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't really see anything that makes this company notable. The article is vaguely promotional in tone and I can't find any substantial coverage of the company. Ducknish (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 September 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) 20:38, 30 September 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) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Madhuban 90.4 FM[edit]

Radio Madhuban 90.4 FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability Volunteer run local radio station, no independent WP:reliable sources. Google not showing anything significant - lots of youtube and facebook but not much more noq (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 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. This can be undeleted if suitable sources can be found. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huvrat ehl echeik[edit]

Huvrat ehl echeik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure about this one, but I can't find any reliable sources to establish the existence of, or any information about, this settlement. An editor keeps reduplicating the article at various romanizations of the Arabic name, with no sources and with a number of "facts" about this supposed place that are belied by the sources cited and are unverifiable in any sources that I can find. The place is named—as Houvratt ehl echeikh and other variations of the name—on some Panoramio pages of photographs, but I can't find any reliable sources, independent of WP itself, that would allow the article to satisfy WP:V, nor can I find the place labeled on any online maps. The place may in fact exist; but without sources, there's no way to determine anything that would allow one to write a credible article about it. See also WP:ANI#Competence problem? Deor (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mentioned the Panoramio photographs in my nomination. But they aren't reliable sources of information about a location, are they? And as I pointed out at ANI, the Arabic WP article was created by the same editor that's been posting multiple articles here. Deor (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a google satellite photo at that location. Except for not showing a name, it is reliable, I think. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the content of the article such as this one consists almost entirely of the name and location, and we cannot even verify the name, that seems highly problematic all around. we have evidence of a cluster of houses, and thats about it.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gooing to google maps and shifting the view a bit (the coords in this wiki article are off to the east), I found more pictures [7] The place is apparently also know as "EL houvra". Tijfo098 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings seem to be just outlying buildings of Guerou. Mapping in this part of Africa is extremely poor; the Google satellite view is reliable but no map overlay (ie. placenames, roads) should be trusted as a basis for an encyclopædia article and they certainly don't demonstrate notability. I would go so far as to say that the Panoramio photos were probably created by the same person who wrote the article under discussion here (compare the photo timestamps to the editor's contribs). bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this will be my last comment, as I'm not really trying to press a deletion here (other than because there are no sources), but that marking of the supposed place on Wikimapia was definitely not there yesterday. Make of that what you will. Deor (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're mistaken about who edited Wikimapia on that [8]. It was a month ago, not a day ago. And it was edited by "wolfg"

User level: 6 Experience points: 1120756 (next level on 1500000) Rank: 277 Real name: Wolfgang Sex: male Spoken language(s): French, English, German About: An other time you found here only my love letter "remember wad ad dahab", but I will add: Please send me a message if I was wrong! S'il vous plaît envoyez-moi un message si je me trompais! المرجو ترك رسالتكم إذا كنت مخطئا! Registered since May 29, 2011

Make of that what you will. He doesn't look to me like the uncommunicative and clumsy Wikipedia editor who started this stub. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 1 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) 22:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mushindo Kempo[edit]

Mushindo Kempo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article with no independent sources about a made up martial art with no indications of notability. All the article says is that this art was created--I'd have put it up for CSD but I didn't think it fit any of the categories (people, organizations, etc.). Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted because there is no independent verification of Mushindo Kempo other than that created by Terry Dukes/Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio, and several reliable sources suggesting that the martial art is (a) invented and (b) not notable. Wushinbo (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 30 September 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 G11. Anbu121 (talk me) 08:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoona[edit]

Ahoona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to comprehend what this is. Looks too much Original research and a bit promotional. Anbu121 (talk me) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concept is new, but I don't think the page represents research at all.

I really loved the article. The concept looks new and very interesting. The page looks well written and has a lot of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttaron123 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a researcher in decision making. The idea of using crowd sourcing is new. I can add another reference for a paper tat is about to be published in December 2012. Wikipedia should be the forum for new ideas. Otherwise it will be dated. Keeney RL (2012) Value-focused brainstorming. Decision Anal. 9(4) pages TBD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.198.172 (talk) 00:33, 1 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 Newry#Education. There is consensus for a redirect, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, primary schools outside of North America are usually redirected to the lowest-level locality, which in this case is Newry. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Colman's Primary School, Saval[edit]

St Colman's Primary School, Saval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub-sized article about small primary school with no notable feature. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 1 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 as a copyright violation. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Management in Bhagavad Gita[edit]

Management in Bhagavad Gita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic essay; an earlier prod was removed by the creator. This has the appearance of a copy&paste, but I don't think it is -- I think it was constructed by copying material from several web pages and reorganizing it -- some sentences at least are reproduced nearly verbatim though. The main point, however, is that this is not encyclopedic and can't be made encyclopedic without being rewritten from scratch. The topic may form the basis of a valid article, but it wouldn't have any resemblance to this one. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:43, 1 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 Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puakenikeni[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Puakenikeni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable release per WP:NMUSIC. The only chart included (which would be the saving grace) is disallowed per WP:BADCHARTS. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 1 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 Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supervillain (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Supervillain (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable release per WP:NMUSIC. The only chart included (which would be the saving grace) is disallowed per WP:BADCHARTS. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:23, 1 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 no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoolStreaming[edit]

CoolStreaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable streaming research project, apparently based out of cse.ust.hk. All the references, in the English and Italian articles and all the references in google appear to be written by people associated with cse.ust.hk or commercial operations using this trademark. No evidence of independent coverage. Lots of the non-independent links talk about it being in 'beta' so it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:34, 23 September 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,  HueSatLum 13:51, 30 September 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 Tanka in English. The general consensus is that the sources presented in this discussion are not suitable to prove the notability of tanka prose. They either don't have significant coverage of it, don't pass WP:RS, are primary sources, or are not independent of Woodward and the other authors mentioned. There is wide agreement that the topic as it is does not warrant a stand-alone article, but it is less clear whether the page should be deleted outright. I see no clear agreement on either whether the page should be merged somewhere or deleted, or on where the best merge/redirect target would be.

I am closing as "redirect" because it seems a reasonable compromise between the desire to preserve the content expressed by the merge !voters, and the concerns expressed over the sourcing by the delete !voters. Content from the history may be merged into other articles, but extra care should be taken that any merges satisfy WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:PRIMARY. I have chosen to redirect the article to Tanka in English, as to me that seemed the most suitable of the merge targets suggested. However, this is not intended as a final decision, and editors may choose a different target if they think it is more appropriate. If there is any disagreement about the target, or if any editors think that the redirect should be deleted altogether, a new discussion can be opened at WP:RFD. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanka prose[edit]

Tanka prose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article discusses an obscure neologism without citing any reliable sources. It was apparently created to promote said neologism. Does not meet WP:N. Describes an obscure modern poetry form/movement, and all the sources cited are primary sources, written by members of the small, apparently non-notable movement in question. Article itself fails to establish the notability of its subject-matter, and since it only cites primary sources is apparently original research. Appears to have been substantially edited by only one user. Said user, when repeatedly prompted, refused to cite reliable, secondary sources, but has admitted elsewhere that it is unlikely any such sources exist. I have tried extensively to discuss this issue on the article talk page with said user, but have only met with personal attacks. The minor literary movement described in the article clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, and even the primary sources it cites are poorly-researched and make ridiculous claims that the movement has existed since eighth-century Japan. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My concern is that the sources cited are not reliable, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They are not learned articles, and they discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, an area in which I am a specialist. The phrase "tanka prose" does not appear in any specialist literature on the subject, and I have already demonstrated how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term uta monogatari, which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to nikki bungaku. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no false information is put on Wikipedia, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose [19]. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following observations are relevant to the proposed deletion of Tanka prose.
1) The article existed from 2008 until the present without significant alteration and without substantial objections being lodged toward its content or notability by anyone until done so by User Elvenscout742.
2) The article discusses a contemporary English-language literary form that is partly inspired by early Japanese literature but is independent of it; the writers of this form, by and large, are also practitioners of Tanka in English just as writers of Haibun, by and large, are also practitioners of Haiku in English.
3) Such articles as Haiku in English, Tanka in English and Haibun also discuss contemporary English-language literary forms partly inspired by Japanese literature but ultimately independent of it. Said articles cite as their sources, as does Tanka prose, items drawn predominately, if not exclusively, from the literary small press (whether print or online) and, in fact, they discuss some of the same authors as are discussed in Tanka prose. The user who has submitted this request for deletion has worked likewise on at least two of these same articles (Tanka in English and Haibun) without lodging any objection on their Talk Pages or elsewhere as to the notability of said subjects and without asserting that they represent original research; this latter circumstance suggests the application of a separate standard, by User Elvenscout742, for the article Tanka prose.
4) User Elvenscout742’s claim that the article “appears to have been substantially edited by only one user,” were it true, would be irrelevant to the issue at hand but this same user’s active editing role on the article, over the past few weeks, contradicts his own representation. To reconstruct the history of these edits, however, one would have to review the edit summaries of not only Tanka prose but of Uta monogatari as well. User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose page to Uta monogatari on or about Sept 12 and the history of the edits for the original Tanka prose article, 2008 to present, are archived therein.
5) The judgments offered by User Elvenscout742, as regards the literary form and/or movement of Tanka prose in his proposal for deletion above, are apparently offered with bias, their goal being to discredit the article by painting the associated form/movement as “obscure,” “small,” “non-notable” and “minor.” User Elvenscout742 does not offer any insight into how he arrived at these conclusions and, indeed, elsewhere has not disguised his antipathy for the subject or for its participants. That no writer of tanka prose appears on the New York Times Bestseller List is conceded but the same might be said of English-language writers of haiku, of tanka, of haibun, of gogyoshi and, indeed, of writers of many other contemporary literary forms that have Wikipedia articles.
6) User Elvenscout742’s characterization of the term “tanka prose” as an “obscure neologism,” like his claims about the literary phenomenon it describes, reflects his personal opinion and nothing more. The term is clearly defined in the sources that the article cites and in the article in question. Critics and artists often coin new terms to discuss new literary phenomena; that a term is a “neologism” should not alone disqualify it from Wikipedia, particularly when the nomenclature, as in this case, has acceptance within the English-language tanka community. This term, which User Elvenscout742 elsewhere has described as “inherently oxymoronic,” parallels various well-known literary terms in construction, e.g., “prose poem,” “sanbunshi,” “haiku prose” or “haiku story” (see the writings of the Welsh poet Ken Jones), or “waka-prose complex” (see Jin’ichi Konishi, A History of Japanese Literature, Volume 2, p. 258). User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose to his rewrite of the page as Uta monogatari; the same user translates “uta monogatari,” accurately enough, as “poem-tale”—an oxymoron whose construction mirrors that of “tanka prose.”
7) User Elvenscout742’s assertion that “when repeatedly prompted” this user “refused to cite reliable, secondary sources” is patently false. His request for sources touched upon that portion of the original article and of the rewrite that discussed the Japanese literary background. In the revised article here, citations from scholarly sources were provided for every summary offered of the Japanese background. However, User Elvenscout742, who admits that he has yet to consult any of these sources, promptly deleted the material in question and did so merely upon his imputing bad faith here to this user.
8) As evidence of User Elvenscout742’s idea of what it means to “request sources” from a fellow editor, I offer his entry here where he offers a laborious list of scholary and literary sources and concludes somewhat triumphantly: I have cited better-known and more widely available books written (or translated with introduction and notes) by both Konishi and McCullough, and no one has demonstrated that either of these authors have ever used the phrase "tanka prose" in their writings. Any more questions?
I offer two observations on the above. First, neither the article under discussion here nor the sources it cites claim that the term “tanka prose” was ever employed by ancient Japanese poets or by modern scholars of Japanese literature; the term refers to the contemporary English phenomena and so User Elvenscout742’s supposed debunking proves nothing, unless it can be said to demonstrate his inability or unwillingness to read with comprehension and without prejudice the subject article and its cited sources. Furthermore, while “tanka prose” may be fairly characterized as anachronistic when speaking of ancient and medieval Japanese literature, so too may such modern Japanese scholarly nomenclature as nikki bungaku or zuihitsu, concepts unknown to the early poets. Second, I wish to highlight the sneering rhetorical flourish of User Elvenscout742’s conclusion, “Any more questions?,” which is inconsistent with the civility due a fellow editor but rather carries the tone of a patrician addressing his menial. I draw attention to this because User Elvenscout742 alludes in his proposal above to the personal attacks that he believes he has been subject to.
9) User Elvenscout742, as late as Sept 26, was offering this user a compromise which would retain the current page that he now seeks to delete. In doing so, he did not raise the questions of notability or of original research that he now raises. It is fair to infer therefore, despite User Elvenscout742’s denials in his Comment above, that the fundamental problem is one regarding a dispute over content. This user on two occasions asked for time to review User Elvenscout742’s proposed compromise but, in each instance, before he could do so, User Elvenscout742 posted further demands and personal attacks.
10) The body of the article, as originally posted, numbered less than 700 words. I’ve been compelled, by User Elvenscout742’s innumerable postings on the Talk Pages of Uta monogatari and Tanka prose and by his countless edits, to devote several thousand words to this article’s defense in the past few weeks. His criticisms and objections are frequently shifting. This dialogue, if it may be so called, has been largely uninstructive and has become a hindrance to participation here nor do I believe that it represents the spirit of cooperation that is supposed to be a standard at Wikipedia.Tristan noir (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 1) That the article existed since 2008 is irrelevant, since your version of it from that time up until last month claimed to be about classical Japanese literature, and thus eluded deletion as a non-notable poetic movement for a long time. Your personal attack against me is irrelevant -- I removed your false claims to "tanka prose" existing in ancient Japan from the article, and you have tried to reinstate them several times in order to justify this article's existence.
2) Your views on what "tanka prose" means are irrelevant to this discussion, as you have thus far failed to add any reliable sources to justify the existence of the article. I have already pointed out that, unlike haibun, "tanka prose" has no Japanese equivalent and is inaccurate/oxymoronic as a term. The content of the haibun article may or may not be inappropriate, but references that justify the article's inclusion in Wikipedia do exist; such an argument has no place here, though.
3) Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for a discussion of why your above argument is invalid. The article at Tanka in English was started recently by me, mainly to keep material on modern English "tanka" from overrunning an article on Japanese literature, which it has almost nothing to do with. Haiku in English, whether or not reliable sources are already cited, has been discussed extensively in reliable, academic sources (one that happens to come to mind would be the chapter on haiku in Gideon Toury's 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond). That Haibun is comparable to your "tanka prose" is ridiculous -- the former term has existed in Japanese academic circles for centuries, and there is no reasonable argument for the article's deletion.
4) The article, two days after you started it (during which time the only other edit was by a bot to remove a link you had inserted), was 4 paragraphs long [20]. The article immediately before I removed contentious information and moved the page was 5 paragraphs long [21]. The latter paragraph was a copyedit by one user [22]. Every other edit by a user other than you was, in terms of overall article content, minor.
5) Please refrain from making personal attacks and ad hominem arguments here. The sources you have cited are non-notable, and most of them contain ridiculous claims about ancient Japanese origin.
6) The term is a neologism. It has never appeared outside of the obscure sources you cite. You have demonstrated elsewhere that you do not understand Japanese -- the term uta monogatari is the closest Japanese equivalent to your "tanka prose", as uta is synonymous with tanka and monogatari is the most prominent classical Japanese word for a prose narrative. The fact that uta monogatari do not exclusively feature "tanka", per se, is irrelevant, as both your article and your sources include the Kojiki and the Man'yōshū under this blanket term, which is inaccurate given the content of those works (tanka is one of the numerous genres of poetry appearing in both).
7) The sources you cited were taken out of context. They do not use the phrase "tanka prose" once. I asked you several times ([23] [24] [25] [26]) to cite reliable sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose" in relation to classical Japanese literature, or refrain from discussing classical Japanese literature out-of-context. You ignored me each time, instead making repeated personal attacks, and continuing to cite irrelevant sources.
8) You used weasel words in your article, so as to very strongly imply that these reliable sources used the phrase "tanka prose" in reference to classical Japanese literature. You did this in clear violation of our previous compromise. I also need to point out here that I proposed a compromise with you so that I could clear Wikipedia of ridiculous claims about my area of expertise, and you and I could go on editing without interrupting each other. I did not, however, admit at any time that "tanka prose" merited a Wikipedia article. I just didn't want to get involved in a dispute. Your use of the word "sneering" in reference to my comment is an uncivil personal attack, and your comment is entirely irrelevant to this deletion debate. You have made similar irrelevant comments throughout our previous disputes. My criticizing your edits to an article, and pointing out specific inaccuracies in the sources you cite, are not personal attacks. Neither is my citing of valid, reliable, academic sources. Your consistently ignoring the substance of my comments to make ad hominem attacks, however, is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and is irrelevant to the current discussion. [27] [28] [29] [30] Even if you consider my wording to be aggressive or uncivil (I have been restrained in my critiques, though, unlike you), at least I have consistently focused on article-content. Also, nikki bungaku and zuihitsu, regardless of their specific etymologies, are established terms used in hundreds or reliable sources on classical Japanese literature.
9) This is another irrelevant personal attack. As stated above, at the time I offered you the compromise (well over two weeks ago), I was not actually doing so because I believe your article has a place on Wikipedia. I was deliberately ignoring Wikipedia policy on notability and original research, so as to avoid a dispute. Your article on "tanka prose" does not belong on Wikipedia, but I wouldn't really care, if it didn't make ridiculous, bizarre claims about Japanese literature. [31]
10) Your ad hominem remark is duly noted. The overwhelmingly majority of your "thousands of words" have been irrelevant to the topic at hand, and have been based largely on ad hominem arguments and your opinion that I am uncivil. Last time you made any kind of substantial argument related to content was here, and that comment was riddled with mistakes and misrepresentations. Comments about how much personal effort one has put into an article or a debate are irrelevant, but I think it's safe to say that I have a better case than you do here, as well. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preminger, Alex and Brogan, T.V.F. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 981. I went to Amazon and did a "Look Inside" search and it came back with 0 hits for "Tanka prose". Am I missing something?
  • Woodward, Jeffrey, Ed. The Tanka Prose Anthology. Baltimore, MD: Modern English Tanka Press, 2008, pp. 13-14 - this is self-published on LuLu (can't link direct due to LuLu blacklist) and thus it fails WP:RS. The journal Modern English Tanka is also self-published.
  • "Tarlton, Charles" - published in Haibun Today which is a journal published by.. "Woodward, Jeffrey" (self-published), not a RS.
  • The article by "Everett, Claire" in Atlas Poetica is an interview with "Woodward, Jeffrey", who wrote the self-published material above.
  • "Lucky, Bob" in Atlas Poetica - Independent author, independent source (I believe). Discusses tanka prose and community in depth.
  • These two sources in the ref section: Santa Fe, Simply Haiku - they are both "Woodward, Jeffrey" articles. Simply Haiku is another interview with Woodward; Santa Fe is an edition with Woodward as guest editor.
  • Source by "Goldstein, Sanford" and "Smyth, Florida Watts". These books were published before the term Tanka prose existed or was in common use (I believe). It appears to be cites to poems the article is considering as Tanka prose, appears to be possible Original Research.
  • Sources by "Reichhold, Jane", "Kimmel, Larry" and "Ward, Linda Jeannette". These appear to be links to some poets but unclear if these sources use the term "Tanka prose" or more importantly establish the notability of the term with significant discussion of the term.
  • Based on the above, the "Lucky, Bob" Atlas Poetica article seems to be the strongest for AfD purposes. I'm concerned by the vast number of sources that come back to "Woodward, Jeffrey" in one way or another, who is a self-publisher, and the lack of academic sourcing. It has the appearance of an insular genre. That is OK but is it notable? If we discard all the Woodward-connected sources as being 1. self-published or 2. interviews (self-created content) or 3. guest editor (self-published), what is left is the "Lucky, Bob" article, which is not enough for a Keep. If however we keep some of the Woodward articles, such as the two interviews and the guest editor, it might be enough for a Weak Keep. My leaning is to Weak Delete because if you discard the Woodward-connected sources, there isn't much left, which is a sign of lack of notability beyond the publications of a single person. I did a cross-database search of over 50 commercial databases (JSTOR, newspaper archives, GALE records, etc..) and came up with 0 hits on Tanka prose. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claire Everett is the "Tanka Prose Editor" of Woodward's Haibun Today[32], if that means anything. Also, the publication that ran the interview in question was Atlas Poetica, which is self-published by D. Garrison. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Preminger and Brogan are cited in reference to the unrelated term "prosimetra". Their not using the phrase "tanka prose" makes sense, since they also appear to predate the coining of the term. You're not missing anything. ;-)
Also, Lucky is not an independent source. Of the ten references he gives, six were written or edited by Woodward, two are interviews with Woodward, and one is written by Patricia Prime, one of the interviewers. The last one is an article in German that doesn't use the phrase "tanka prose" or the corresponding German "Tankaprosa" once. Except in the references -- because it cites the English Wikipedia article. In any case Lucky and most of his sources are published by Modern English Tanka Press, a self-published work by one D. Garrison. Even if Lucky himself is not personally linked with Woodward, he is hardly an independent source. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published? – I want to address User Green Cardamom’s comments about the article’s sources and, in particular, his/her determination that certain of the sources were “self-published.” I was surprised by this statement and so I reviewed WP:SPS to determine if “self-published,” within Wikipedia, had a meaning other than that of common acceptance. I did not find that it did, for the guideline there states: “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media ... are largely not acceptable.” The OED defines a self-published author as one who has “published their work independently and at their own expense.” If I turn to Self-publishing, I read that it “is the publication of any book or other media by the author of the work....” It would seem that WP:SPS, the OED and Self-publishing agree; all place emphasis upon an author paying to have his work published or upon an author, without intervention of a second party, printing his own work.
Green Cardamom wrote: “Woodward, Jeffrey, Ed. The Tanka Prose Anthology. Baltimore, MD: Modern English Tanka Press, 2008, pp. 13-14 - this is self-published on LuLu ...and thus it fails WP:RS. The journal Modern English Tanka is also self-published.” He/she (I’ll presume “he” for ease of future reference) is calling into question three items here: the two cited articles by Woodward and the anthology edited by the same author. He remarks that these works are “self-published on Lulu.” I’m not certain how this conclusion was arrived at but perhaps I can offer some clarifications. Lulu is a print on demand supplier, like Lightning Source, CreateSpace, Replica Books and various others. From Print on demand: (POD) “is a printing technology and business process in which new copies of a book (or other document) are not printed until an order has been received.... Many traditional small presses have replaced their traditional printing equipment with POD equipment or contract their printing out to POD service providers. Many academic publishers, including university presses, use POD services to maintain a large backlist…. Larger publishers may use POD in special circumstances, such as reprinting older titles that are out of print or for performing test marketing.” The point to be made here, however, is that use of a POD supplier cannot invariably be equated with self-publishing. Many literary, university and commercial houses now employ POD.
The Tanka Prose Anthology was published by MET Press of Baltimore. This is a small literary press owned and operated by Denis Garrison, a well-known educator and writer of haiku and tanka. The publisher is not a vanity press; his backlist includes titles by such widely-read poets as Michael McClintock, Alexis Rotella and James Tipton as well as works by professional translators of Japanese poetry (Sanford Goldstein and Amelia Fielden), and even a book by Japanese literary scholar Michael F. Marra. His list also includes various anthologies, The Tanka Prose Anthology among them. Denis Garrison was also editor and publisher of the quarterly journal Modern English Tanka (2006-2009). That journal, while printed via Lulu, was distributed, like MET books, via many channels and not solely through Lulu distribution.
The relevant point, however, is this. An author who successfully submits an essay or poem to a literary journal that is edited by a second party is not self-published unless such a journal were to stipulate that acceptance of that author’s work required payment of a fee (vanity publishing). The same can be said for a book mss. that is submitted to a small literary press; Author X, upon acceptance of his mss. by Publisher B, cannot be reasonably described as self-published unless, again, a fee is involved. Therefore, a proposal to discard, upon the grounds of self-publication, the two Woodward essays published in Modern English Tanka or the Tanka Prose Anthology as published by MET Press has no proper foundation. On the same grounds, designating the Tarlton essay or the Everett interview as self-published is objectionable; contributors to Haibun Today, Atlas Poetica or the other journals mentioned by Green Cardamom do not pay to have their works published; they submit them to a second party (editor) who is free to accept or reject the same.
I apologize for having to go on at such length about this matter. Some final minor points of clarification for Green Cardamom: 1) the citation from Preminger & Brogan is for the entry in the New Princeton to “prosimetrum,” i.e., any composition that combines prose and verse; 2) citations to Goldstein, Smyth, Reichhold, Kimmel and Ward were merely historical citations to direct the reader to earlier published examples of tanka prose; I felt it necessary to offer the references lest anyone accuse me of making up said poets and/or their writings.Tristan noir (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again I must point out to you that Goldstein and so on, just like the ancient Japanese sources you claim as "tanka prose", can only be called by that name on Wikipedia if they have been so-called in reliable secondary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response We've made progress. Tristan noir has established which sources (he believes) creates notability and which do not. An updated list follows, each source given a number.
  • (1) All Jeffrey Woodward sources. According to WP:NOTE: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
  • (2) Lucky, Bob (Editor). Atlas Poetica Special Feature: 25 Tanka Prose (July 2011) (the other Bob Lucky source is a Woodward source)
  • (3) Prime, Patricia. “Irresistible Constructions: a tanka prose essay,” Modern English Tanka V3, N1
Tristan noir, can you confirm? I could not find any more, most sources fall under Source (1) which is counted as a single source since they are all related to Woodward: interviews, journals, or articles by Woodward. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Confirmed, Green Cardamom, with the possible exception (or addition) of the Ingrid Kunschke item at TankaNetz. Though not cited in the article as it now stands, there are also independent book reviews of The Tanka Prose Anthology available in the English-language tanka & haiku press, e.g., one in Ribbons (the Tanka Society of America's journal), another in Simply Haiku, another, I believe, at the Haiku Oz site (Haiku Society of Australia), and perhaps others.Tristan noir (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Independent references to The Tanka Prose Anthology:
Nominated by Grace Cavalieri, host of public radio’s “The Poet and the Poem from The Library of Congress,” for Best Books for Winter Reading, 2008
Reviews of the anthology online:
1. J. Harpeng, Haiku Oz: The Australian Haiku Society (Oct. 14, 2008)
2. Robert Wilson, Simply Haiku V6, N4 (Winter 2008)
3. Jane Reichhold, Lynx XXIV:1 (Feb. 2009)
4. Ingrid Kunschke, TankaNetz (Oct. 2008)
Reviews of the anthology in print only:
5. Tony Beyer, Kokako 10 (NZ: April 2009), pp. 51-53
6. M. Kei, Ribbons: Tanka Society of America Journal V4, N4 (Winter 2008), pp. 44-47Tristan noir (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The unreliable, self-published material cited in this article having been reviewed in equally non-notable, self-published works does not prove that the subject is notable. The book itself having been nominated for an award does not make the book a reliable source of information. No one has claimed that the book itself does not exist -- I made it clear that I have read portions of it here. The problem is that the term existing in one author's works and the works of those closely attached to them, does not mean it should get its own Wikipedia article. Also, the fact that the article cited the book over two weeks before the book was published clearly indicates a conflict of interest. (The publisher's website, at /shop/jeffrey-woodward-ed/the-tanka-prose-anthology/paperback/product-3493914.html with lulu.com before it gives the date as 5 September 2008.) elvenscout742 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - those are "references" for the book. But this discussion is about Tanka prose, not The Tanka Prose Anthology (book). If you want to argue the book itself meets WP:NBOOK then you should have that discussion at WP:AFC, though I would point out that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all blog-style self-published websites and might not be considered reliable sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Tristan, the problem with those reviews is they refer back to Woodward, they are not independently discussing tanka prose but simply review Woodward's book on it. The spirit of the Notability rule is that you need two multiple sources that are not from the same person, to avoid precisely this problem where a single prolific person is able to establish notability. That is why we have the rule for two multiple sources from different people. Those book reviews should group into Source (1) with the rest of Woodward, for notability purposes. I'll wait to hear your response before moving on, as we need to establish this concept. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Understood, Green Cardamom, and fair enough, though the independent reviews do indicate acceptance of the term “tanka prose” within the literary community in question, one point-of-contention here as is, unfortunately, the novel definition of self-publishing that seems to be a shared obsessive theme on the part of two of the participants in this discussion.Tristan noir (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response The above is a needless and irrelevant personal attack. The reviews do not show a prevalence of the phrase "tanka prose" in the literary community. At least one of them spells it "tanka-prose" (hyphenated), differing from Woodward's usage. And again, they only demonstrate the notability of the book, if even that -- they do not justify the terminology in the book. Also, no one has yet explained how the article in question cited a book by Woodward that had not been published yet. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, yet another WP:SPA who, upon finally realising he has no valid argument, resorts to personal attacks. I'm shocked. It's such an original strategy - I've only seen it 148,976,254 times before! Ha ha. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respond Tristan noir. Ok I have your acceptance on that point so here is the updated list of four possible sources, two some number of which are needed to meet the notability guidelines:
According to WP:NOTE they need to be 1. "Significant coverage" 2. "Reliable" 3. "Secondary Sources" 4. "Independent of the subject" -- Can you confirm that there are no missing sources and you agree about the NOTE requirements? Basically it looks like we have a matrix of 16 decisions: 4 sources x 4 requirements. For example, referencing 4.4, it would be about Ingrid Kuschke's independence of the subject. So we can say that 4.4 is OK there is no problem there. 4.3 is OK, it is a secondary source. 4.2 - Contention since the source doesn't recognize tanka prose as a genre, just uses the words tanka and prose. 4.1 is probably OK. Would you agree with this assessment? Green Cardamom (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I understand & agree, Cardamom, about the NOTE requirements. Your assessment of the Kunschke item seems fair. You asked if there were other missing sources. I haven't been able to consult it yet but User Warden offered another source (see below), previously unknown to me, where he wrote: The paper A History of Tanka in English uses the phrase more than once, e.g. "journals devoted to tanka prose and haibun appeared in the early 21st century". That item also should be taken under consideration.Tristan noir (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's definition of a source, the publisher of a work counts as a source. By this definition, 1, 2 and 3 all coming from the same publisher (Garrison/METPress) could also affect their reliability. Prime and Woodward have clearly been in direct contact with each other on numerous occasions, given the interviews cited, and Lucky has written numerous times for this same publisher (Woodward is also his principle/only source). elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4.1 is also problematic, for the same reason as 4.2. The article discusses the genres of uta monogatari, nikki and tsukuri-monogatari (The Tale of Genji), all of which are notable, independent genres, and are discussed elsewhere on English Wikipedia. The article does not give significant coverage (any coverage, except a link to this Wikipedia article) to the tanka prose movement. Therefore, claiming the article is a discussion of "tanka prose" would be original research. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct the Contention is really centered on 4.1 .. if 4 is a reliable source or not almost doesn't matter since 4.1 is a problem. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The key point to consider seems to be this: the article/argument in the article's defense has used external, apparently reliable sources, but these sources are general discussions of prosimetra, particularly classical Japanese prosimetra. They do not use the phrase "tanka prose" once, because it is a neologism apparently coined after the independent sources were published. There are, of course, hundreds of reliable sources that discuss Japanese prosimetra, such as uta monogatari and nikki, and I have pointed to them already. Discussion of these works does have a place in Wikipedia, but those places already exist in other articles. 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 3.3 all fail, it seems. The neologism "tanka prose" appears exclusively in a single source, being the publisher MET Press, apparently a non-academic, unreliable source that publishes through Lulu. I say they are non-academic, since they seem to routinely ignore the vast majority of Japanese scholarship. Their authors, in particular Woodward (who is still the only true source of information in the article), have a habit of making ridiculous gaffes in their discussion of "tanka prose in classical Japanese literature". I have listed just a few of them here. Keene (1999), Konishi (1993), as well as virtually all general works on classical Japanese poetry contradict Woodward and the other authors on numerous key points. The other "authors", though, all seem to get their information from Woodward. They all seem to ignore the etymology of the word tanka, which is an adjective-noun compound already, and has never been combined with other words to form longer compounds. The synonymous term uta has, but they are apparently not aware of this. There seems to be no significant editorial oversight to prevent errors such as these from creeping into MET Press's publications. MET Press only publishing through Lulu is explained by this -- it would be difficult for the works they produce to be published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, because of their tendency to make glaring errors, reliance on a single author-source (who also publishes through MET Press/Lulu) and tendency to dismiss legitimate historical scholarship in their coinage of new terms. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another point that I appear to have largely neglected up until now: Tristan noir claims that neither his article nor any of his sources claim tanka prose existed in ancient Japan. An examination of the editor's blurb for The Tanka Prose Anthology on Lulu's website clearly disproves the latter point: The Tanka Prose Anthology is vital evidence of the first flowering in English of an ancient Japanese genre [...] whether the time is contemporary and presently unfolding or archaic and retrospective, the revival of the ancient medium of tanka prose has proven equal to the immediate task. This first-of-its-kind collection draws upon the work of nineteen poets from eight different countries. The introduction offers a detailed survey of the genre’s history and of its evolving forms while an annotated bibliography directs the reader to related literature. Why is tanka prose so novel? Because it is so old. The introduction, which "offers a detailed survey of the genre's history", claims the Kojiki and the Man'yōshū as the earliest examples of tanka prose (Woodward 2008, p.10). The Kojiki is not a work of prose fiction -- it was written as a quasi-historical document/propaganda piece in favour of the imperial family's claim to absolute dominance of Japan, and quotes old folk songs from around the country to support its claims (from B.H. Chamberlain's translation of the Kojiki). The Man'yōshū, similarly, is not a unified work of prose fiction. It is a poetry anthology, containing poems composed over several centuries, and while its compilation remains mysterious, it was probably compiled by numerous people over several decades (from Keene, 1999). The original version of the article before I edited it clearly made similar claims [33], and Tristan noir's rewrite did as well [34]. The rewrite cited "McCullough" and "Konishi/Miner" to justify this, but neither of those sources use the phrase "tanka prose", because no reputable source on Japanese literature does. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not my biggest concern - my biggest concern is that the same person is, in effect, responsible for 16 of the 19 "references" for the article. Each is either his own commentary (including in non-RS blogs) or his publication of other people's work via his "journal" (still, really, also a blog - just published as a "journal"). There also seems to be some serious WP:OWN issues coming from one particular WP:SPA (the creator of the article). Given the regularity with which that WP:SPA likes to cite the same single source over and over again (and given the remarkable similarity between the writing style of the article and that of the blogs in question), one has to conclude that there are some serious WP:COI issues that need resolving. If the two are not one in the same then I can only conclude they are very, very closely connected. This essay comes to mind, as does WP:OWNSITE.
Having done a search, the same single-origin sources keep coming up. I couldn't find a single unrelated source that gives the subject significant coverage. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The problem is entirely based in the terminology. The historically attested material (the material discussed in the McCullough article you refer to) is already discussed elsewhere. Merging this content into another article has already been attempted, but the WP:SPA involved in this dispute is intent on the use of a particular terminology, but this terminology does not appear in any reputable literature. It is also not accurate, as "tanka" refers exclusively to modern literature/a specific genre of Man'yōshū poetry. Therefore, discussion of the title is all that really matters. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title changes are made using the move function not the delete function. And I have found a counter-example to your claim that this terminology does not appear in any reputable literature. The paper A History of Tanka in English uses the phrase more than once, e.g. "journals devoted to tanka prose and haibun appeared in the early 21st century". Warden (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that might be correct, that paper isn't a great example (in my opinion) - it's published by the same small group of people at MET Press who are responsible for almost all of the existing "references" and it cites many of those in that same small group of people. As far as I can tell, there is a small group of people (very small) who have (in essence) invented a particular style or phrase not widely recognised by others and are now citing themselves to softly WP:PROMO their idea using Wikipedia. I still think there might be some serious WP:OR going on. I don't think merging or renaming would be appropriate anyway - except for the single-origin-style references in the article, there seems to be no other sources to support the use of the term in any "widespread" sense so a merge into another article might become a WP:WEIGHT issue. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to point out again, in addition to Stalwart's remark, that many of these sources, as well as both pre-edit versions of the Wikipedia article[35][36], claim (rather sloppily) that the term encompasses almost all of ancient and medieval Japanese literature. Hundreds of reliable sources on this area do exist, and it appears none of them have ever used the term. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you cite is self-published by the same individual who published most of the other sources. It is clear that the authors of most of these sources know nothing about the history of Japanese literature. Also, please examine the edit history of the page. I tried to move the article twice ([37] and [38]) to what seemed like its proper location. A merge into either uta monogatari or nikki bungaku would be fine with me, as long as no false/misleading information is placed in those articles, link overkill/advertising is kept to a minimum. But the fact is that the single-purpose account that created the page appears unwilling to settle for anything less than a full article devoted to this topic, complete with numerous links to the websites of this small group of personally-connected authors in question. In addition, no independent sources that use this terminology have shown up, and none ever will, because the term is inaccurate. Of the hundreds of reliable/independent books and journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. that discuss tanka, and also discuss combinations of tanka and prose, none have used this term. Based on the history of what has gone on on the talk pages of this article and uta monogatari, it should be obvious that both the creator of this article and the other SPA who formed a tag team have a conflict of interest. Without speculating on the real-world identity of the users in question (there is evidence in their comments on the talk pages, though), their loading the pages Tanka in English, Tanka prose and Haibun with largely irrelevant external links should make this clear. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In re User Elvenscout742’s allegation immediately above as to “the creator of this article” forming “a tag team,” I refer the other participants here to a review of the close coordination in timing, tone and content of the postings by User Elvenscout742 and User Stalwart111.Tristan noir (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response That is a personal attack and a ridiculous claim. Stalwart and I have never dealt with each other before this discussion. We just happen to both agree that the sources cited for this article are extremely shaky, and the article seems to have been created as a promotion tool. Your calling in an external WP:SPA who you clearly know in the real world, solely in order to make personal attacks against me in the previous dispute was a Wikipedia:Tag team. This is a deletion discussion. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tristan noir - Wow, really? You're going to resort to sock-puppetry allegations? You do understand that regular edit-conflicts are actually an argument against sock-puppetry because the two users must be logged-in at the same time (impossible if you are editing with two accounts from the same computer). Besides the fact that accusations like that are borderline harassment, they are also not very clever without some research. For a start - I am based in Australia (and say so regularly) and I clearly do not speak Japanese (which the other user does). The tone is the same because you are obviously mistaken and we are both making that point. Another user has done the same. But if you really want to test your luck, go and open a WP:POINTY case at WP:SPI - more than happy to respond. LOL. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User: Stalwart111 and I also both have extensive edit histories, that as far as I know have never crossed over with each other, making sock-puppetry almost impossible. Also, when I accidentally posted a comment from a second account in the past[39], I immediately declared it. Both myself and Stalwart are established Wikipedians with a vested interest in not breaking those kind of rules. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reputable authors occasionally using self-publishing resources to publish material without the hassle of going through editors and so on, does not mean that it is not self-publishing, nor does it mean that all sources published by MET Press are reliable. The fact that you are now referring to those works here is evidence that, if anything, MET Press must have been all too happy to publish those works. Those authors' notable works all went through established, reputable publishers, many of which (universities) would be unlikely to publish original works of fiction, even by respected authors. Your appeal to authority is, however, completely irrelevant to this discussion, however. If you want to create an article on Marra or his work, go right ahead. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as I said above, I don't think it "invalidates" the sources, per se, but I also think we need additional sources to help verify the claims from the notionally self-published ones. At the moment we have three "sources" that are not directly from the one single source and those aren't great. WP:SPS is pretty clear about what is appropriate and what is not. We can use self-published sources if the person publishing them is considered an expert in their field who has been cited as an expert in other independent, reliable sources. But even those are line-ball cases. The fact that the "publisher" has published works for other people is really quite irrelevant. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woodward clearly is not an expert on Japanese literature, at least. His academic background (according to the MET Press website) is in linguistics and political theory, and his writings have consistently contained egregious errors regarding the history of tanka. He misspelled the names of important tanka poets in ancient Japan ("Ariwara no Narihara", "Izumi Shikubu") [40], he thought the Hyakunin Isshu (a 13th century work and the most widely-studied classical poetic work in Japan) predated the Kokinshū (a tenth century work and the first imperial anthology) [41], etc., etc.. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution[edit]

I took the liberty of collapsing some of the above content - especially the sections that degenerated into personal attacks. My aim was not to remove particular points or content or remove anyone's contribution to the discussion. I have tried to keep those paragraphs that provided a primary / initial opinion un-hidden. The content remains in place - it was not deleted. Be assured - closing admins will read all the content, including collapsed material. My aim, in good faith, was to focus everyone's attention on the primary issue (as summarised by Green Cardamom) - that of the sources provided in support of the article. If you feel your contribution has been unfairly or inaccurately collapsed, please either move my collapse templates or raise it with me - I will happily move them. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the collapsing as you can't be a judge in your own cause. Warden (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I agree, and I apologize for letting the above dispute get a little out of hand. Let's focus on whether the sources are reliable. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine by me - the sock-puppetry rubbish is just a smoke-screen for a lack of cohesive argument anyway. Lets run through the four (or five) sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The below discussion uses a shorthand such as "4.2" which refers to Source 4 in the list below, and WP:GNG point #2 (Reliable). Thus, "Pass 4.2" is shorthand for "Ingrid Kunschke source passes WP:RS"
  • (1) All Jeffrey Woodward sources (including book reviews). According to WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
Even counted as one source, I can't see how these would be considered independent. They are all essentially by the same person who has, for all intents and purposes, "invented" the style in question. A good portion of them are self-published and (as I have said above), while that doesn't invalidate them, no-one seems to be able to find reliable secondary sources to back them up. On balance, I think these should be considered primary sources, at best. Fails 1.3 and 1.4 of your matrix. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complex source since there is a variety of items including Woodward-self-published books, Woodward interviews published in other journals, book reviews of Woodward publications. For the purposes of notability, all of the references to 'tanka prose' are the end product of Woodward (expressed directly by him or repeated by others in credit to him or through his publishing). Woodward is not independent of tanka prose, rather central to it. Thus as a group it fails 1.4 (independence). The sources individually may pass or fail different notability criteria but too complex to untangle since they all fail 1.4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can call a white dog black as often as you like but the dog will still be white. POD, like old-fashioned job printing, is a manufacturing process; both are for-hire contractors to commercial and small press literary houses, to institutions (universities) and self-published individuals. The test of self-publishing, as common definition and the Wikipedia guidelines agree, is whether or not the author directly pays a second party to publish his work. A book or article that is not self-published follows this pattern: Author A submits to editor/publisher B who (without a fee from the author) accepts and contracts the printing service to POD/Jobprinter C. This pattern applies to Random House, Princeton University and to MET Press (as well as its journal, Modern English Tanka). The concerted effort to marginalize the writings here discussed as self-published, despite plain evidence to the contrary, is unsettling. If you were to take this discussion outside of its present cloistered confines and place it, say, at a PEN International Congress, an Independent Book Publishers Association Conference or a Council of Literary Magazines and Presses Conference, the remarks made here with respect to self-publishing would be met with incredulity, if not open laughter.
I’ll also have to take issue with Stalwart’s assertion that the source being discussed here “invented" the style in question. We’re not dealing with a literary style, first, but with a literary form; the many practitioners of the form in question have individual styles. The larger point, however, is this silly claim that the form in question was one person’s invention. Like the somewhat desperate recitation of the mantra self-publishing, the facts are simply not in accord with Stalwart’s assertion. If Woodward invented anything, it was not a literary form but a descriptive phrase to identify it. This is clear from his “Introduction” to the Tanka Prose Anthology: “Japanese criticism, ancient and modern, offers no comprehensive term that might encompass the many forms and styles that the wedding of tanka and prose admits. Instead, the terminology employed in the scholarly literature is form-specific, addressing not the genus but the individual species…. The first problem to address in defining tanka prose…is nomenclature. Whereas Japanese waka practice and literary criticism provide no precedent, the analogy of tanka plus prose to the latter development of haibun does. The term haibun, when applied to a literary composition, most commonly signifies haiku plus prose “written in the spirit of haiku.” Haiku prose or haikai prose would be an apt English equivalent of the Japanese word, haibun. Upon the same grounds, tanka prose becomes a reasonable term to apply to literary specimens that incorporate tanka plus prose….” That the form precedes his coined term is clear from the independently published record; the article here proposed for deletion and the anthology present numerous works that pre-date the Woodward source and that were published wholly independent of him. For these reasons, I disagree with the assessment of Stalwart and Green Cardamom that this source fails 1.3 and 1.4.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That writers' clubs and the like have different standards is established, and perfectly acceptable. This website is a place for tertiary information based on prior legitimate scholarship to be posted. That MET Press is not an academic printing press is obvious. If such publishers do go through Lulu, that is also fine. But that the references you have cited all ultimately come from the same source (Woodward), who is apparently allowed to print whatever he wants through METPress/Lulu, is a serious issue for inclusion here. The quote you provide above from Woodward's book is, as I have discussed elsewhere, ridiculous and offensive. He admits to having coined the term "tanka prose" himself, unilaterally dismissing a millennium of Japanese scholarship, without providing any legitimate academic basis for his assertions. (Again, he clearly does not speak Japanese, and his only academic background appears to be in political theory and linguistics, so his unilateral assumption of the right to override all Japanese scholarship is questionable.) The quote also contradicts your earlier assertion that "tanka prose" is a translation of the old Japanese word wabun (和文, "Japanese-language writings). elvenscout742 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if he invented the "style", the "form" or just the "phrase" to identify it (which might then be considered a neologism). What matters is that there was an element of invention by Woodward (he put the words together) which means we then need secondary sources to verify non-Woodward use of the phrase. See WP:NEO. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, most of the sources cited for this work come directly from Wikipedia (note WP:WINARS), but more specifically are the same Woodward "references" above. Aside from the fact that copy-pasting references from WP wouldn't be considered particularly scholarly, the site in question is essentially a blog with "guest editors" comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. For all of those reasons I contend this isn't really a reliable source. Fails 2.2 and 2.4 of your matrix. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has some independence but Lucky Bob also has connections to Woodward. According to WP:GNG (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." Concerned with reliable source it's uncertain what vetting if any was done for this paper. Since 'literary genre' is a scholarly topic we can expect to have at least some "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Fail 2.2 and 2.4 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, before being able to discuss notability, I’m called upon, by the preceding comments, to first address points of misapprehension or misrepresentation of fact. Stalwart states unequivocally that (a) the site in question is essentially a blog, and (b) that it has “guest editors” comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. The site, in fact, is the online home of a hardcopy journal, Atlas Poetica. The guest editors are independent of the journal proper and they edit only those special features found here. I made a quick count and found that 12 guest editors are listed there. Most can be demonstrated to have little or no connection with this first source.
Cardamom’s comments raise two other problems. He insists that literary genre is a scholarly topic which, indeed, it is. But genre is first and foremost a literary topic, like questions of literary form, and the writers of said forms, and not scholars, are the first persons to encounter this topic and to struggle with its definition. I say this to insist upon what I believe is an important point: that in discussions of living or contemporary literature, as over-and-against historical literature, those writers engaged in the form are the first witnesses and first scholars, if you will. The user who proposed the article on tanka prose for deletion consistently confounded these matters, insisting upon judging a modern English literary phenomenon by criteria drawn from Japanese scholarship. Writing communities, whether or not scholars are alive to the fact, tend to be relatively small, so much so that most parties, large and small, have some acquaintance. One might look only to the history of American poetry, for example, and review the complex of personal relationships between Ezra Pound, William Carlos Williams, Marianne Moore, and H.D. or the similar web later between members of the Beat Generation. For these reasons, it should not be surprising that writers who share common goals, such as those involved in tanka prose, may know each other just as do (and I apologize for the shocking comparison) the fellow professors of a university’s English Department. I offer these remarks to explain why I believe that Cardamom’s citation of WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are inaccurately applied in this instance. Therefore, I dissent from the opinion of Stalwart and Cardamom above and assert that the source passes muster of 2.2 and 2.4.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tristan's characterization of Atlas Poetica as a journal is inaccurate. It comes from the same publisher (D. Garrison/MET Press) as all the other sources cited. This publisher has demonstrated that it has somewhat lax standards of scholarship for something claiming to be called a "journal". Woodward's writings, as well as all the other writings based solely on Woodward, demonstrate this. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site in question is a self-published blog and the author's own introduction to the site effectively says as much (though in German - Google translate is not great but it's enough to get the gist). It's certainly not a scholarly journal in the technical form of a blog - it's a stock-standard, my-thoughts-for-the-day type blog. I would contend it probably passes 2.4 but fails 2.2 of your matrix and possibly 2.1 given the term "Tanka prose" seems to be used speculatively, in the sense that even the writer doesn't seem to accept that the term is commonplace, just that it has been used. But that part is in English (not the author's native German) so I'm hesitant to over-interpret the meaning. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be more inclined to say it fails 3.4 as well. The author, Prime, has personally interviewed Woodward on several occasions, and Modern English Tanka comes from the same publisher as all the other sources. In order for the term to be truly notable, it should probably need to have been discussed in independent works that do not come from one publisher alone. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might fail 2.4 because in the paper Patricia mentions a connection to Woodward. It also fails 2.2 since it's not academically vetted and we are dealing with a scholarly topic (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Not every source must be strictly academic but we need at least some evidence of the genre's acceptance in the academic world. 2.1 might also be a problem but I will leave that open. So fails 2.2, 2.4 and maybe 2.1-- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart, above, seems to have confused the Kunschke source in German below and the Prime article in Modern English Tanka here under discussion. That is the only sense I could make of his statement that the PDF version of a printed journal (MET) was a blog. Again, we face the same misrepresentation of fact, viz., that an article by Author A accepted by Editor B is somehow self-published and thereby disqualified; that the author Prime is acquainted with the first source (Elvenscout goes so far as to claim that she has interviewed Woodward on several occasions; one occasion is cited in the references to the article; I challenge E. to offer evidence to support his hyperbole) and is thereby disqualified. And we have again what I take to be an unreasonable expectation, that is, that a literary topic’s proper authority is academic scholarship as over-and-against the writings of poets and literary critics. It should be obvious, from my remarks, that I’m in the minority and dissent from the above opinions on the issue of notability.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I apparently saw the same interview cited differently in two different places, and assumed they were two separate interviews. Prime's failure to correct Woodward's ridiculous assertion in that interview about the Hyakunin Isshu, however, might disqualify her as a reliable source on tanka history, anyway. The article claims, as does Woodward's book, to be rooted in classical Japanese literary scholarship, but the fact that no scholarly sources have shown up to support the use of the neologism "tanka prose" seems to indicate otherwise. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prime is the "Reviews Editor" of Haibun Today, of which Woodward is the "Founder & General Editor" - see the publication's Facebook page. Interviews aside, working for the same publication would not be considered "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This too, just in case you can't see the Facebook version. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Has been analysed above and I agree it probably fails 4.1 and 4.2. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed above. Fails 4.1 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me including this in your matrix given the original author has contended that it should also be considered which I think is only fair (I have included it as number 5, so the matrix extends to 5.1, 5.2... etc). As I noted when this "source" was original put forward, it is published by the same people as those who publish a good number of the sources in the "Woodward" category 1. I would contend on that basis that it fails 5.4 of your matrix. I would contend it notionally fails 5.2 given it is published (via the same self-publishing house as many of Woodward sources) by the same person responsible for publishing source 2 - Lucky was writing for Kei's blog as a "guest editor". We know the author in question is a blogger who, in this instance, has turned his hand to writing a slightly-more-scholarly style of essay, published by the same group as other "sources", citing many of the same small group of "authors". On balance, I would contend it fails 5.2 and 5.4. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source has some independence but also connections to Woodward. According to WP:GNG (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It also has the same issue of reliability since this is an academic topic and there is no clear scholarly vetting process through peer review or submission to "well-regarded academic presses" (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Fails 5.2 and 5.4 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization by Stalwart of the author of this item as a blogger who, in this instance, has turned his hand to writing a slightly-more-scholarly style of essay is deserving of contempt and has no place in this discussion. Beyond that, Stalwart chants his tired refrain (self-publishing) and spices that with further evidence of his bias by placing words like “sources” and “authors” in quotation marks. His clear attempts at character assassination are self-evident. Beyond this venom, he says nothing coherent or persuasive about notability. I offered my reasons above, under Lucky, item #2, for dissenting from Cardamom’s specific application of WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP to these items. I disagree for the same reasons here.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks here. If you have a counter-argument, make it. Otherwise refrain from posting these ad hominem comments. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a vote, so your saying "I disagree" does not mean anything unless you give reasons. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sayre’s Law? Indeed! I protested earlier about a perceived coordination of effort by two users in this notability discussion. They promptly protested and proclaimed their innocence. It has come to my attention, however, that the same users have been conducting a parallel private communication on the subject of the article here nominated for deletion and upon their future plans for actions regarding the article and / or its sources. This material is not irrelevant to (a) demonstrating their clear bias and their coordination of activity as regards our discussion here, and (b) their possible COI with respect to the sources that support the article under discussion. Their remarks can, and should, be read at User talk:Stalwart111 here [1] [2] [3] [4] and User talk:Elvenscout742 here [5] [6] [7].Tristan noir (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing inherently wrong with (open) discussions outside for the purpose of answering policy questions, gather information and coordinate opening new cases elsewhere. I reviewed the above conversations and it looks like normal discussion about rule application and so on, don't see malicious intent or bad faith efforts at work. If you see something specific let us know. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "private" about that conversation at all - it is in a public userspace. Not only can you see it but it is open to non-editor members of the public. Your silly suggestion is, I think, an admission on your part that you have absolutely no valid argument that the sources in question allow this subject to meet WP:GNG. Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:FOC. Besides which, if this style is not-notable enough to meet WP:GNG (I had never heard of it before) how could I (or anyone other than perhaps Woodward and his team) possibly have a COI? You should read WP:COI - that personal attack doesn't even make sense. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*KeepMerge - the term is shown to exist, but to be very thinly sourced, so I'd go for a merge to Tanka as a brief section there. there do seem to be sufficient sources here. If we spent this much effort on the article, it'd be a WP:GA by now... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 15:27, 8 October 2012[reply]
Chiswick chap, where are you now suggesting we merge it into? I have already tried to include a small amount of the seemingly verifiable information in the article Uta monogatari, but Tristan noir insisted that this topic deserves its own article. In reality, "tanka prose" as a concept does not exist except in the unreliable sources already cited, so it can't be effectively merged into any of the other articles without introducing WP:WEIGHT issues. elvenscout742 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which two sources pass? We identified 5 potentials in the list above. It would be great to see your rational if you have the time, this is a complex case. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can never be a good article because it is a made-up term that is inaccurate/offensive to the academic community in question (Japanese literary scholars) and is only (will only ever be) used by a small number of non-specialists. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our policy that "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics.". Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not part of academia. Warden (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second part of the statement you quote says that article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology. Common usage does not recognize the phrase "tanka prose", and it only appears in a very small number of sources that claim to be academic journals. The fact is that no one, specialist or otherwise, favours this terminology, and the topic itself does not actually exist apart from the writings of one person and those connected to him. The article was also clearly written by someone very close to this person. This page is and always has been in blatant violation of WP:ADVERTISEMENT, as it insists on claiming that Jeffrey Woodward is essentially the only reliable source on Japanese literature (everyone else has got it wrong in their terminology) and quoting an extensive number of links to his website and the website of those linked to him. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In re Elvenscout’s statement immediately above about “sources that claim to be academic journals”: this is consistent with his misrepresentation of fact throughout his arguments on this discussion page. He has examined (or so he claims) Modern English Tanka, Atlas Poetica and the other journals cited either in the references to the article nominated for deletion or in the list of book reviews cited in this discussion. He is aware that all of these journals are independent literary journals that publish poems and essays; they are not, nor do they claim, to be academic journals associated with any foundation or institution. Furthermore, as regards “common usage,” the term “tanka prose,” in fact, is in use within the literary communities that these journals represent as was evidenced by the list of reviews, for example, selected from journals other than the aforementioned as well as by casual but frequent reference in editorial statements, announcements and so on within the said journals, including Ribbons, the official periodical of the Tanka Society of America; that the term can be employed in passing and does not require further explanation in said publications can be taken to indicate common understanding and common usage among the readers of the various publications in question. As for E.'s flimsy citation of WP:ADVERTISEMENT, it should be recognized for what it is, some not-so-subtle wikilawyering. Tristan noir (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texts should be written for everyday readers refers to the Wikipedia text, not the source text! Please read WP:RS: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. That's a direct quote. Here's another: Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (WP:SOURCES). Tell us why this article about Japanese literature should not rely on academic scholarship again? Hey I'm easy, I don't need every source to be peer reviewed. I just need something from the academic community, anything. There is nothing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ribbonss website doesn't appear to use the phrase "tanka prose" with any frequency.[42] Mr. Woodward also doesn't seem to be held in particularly high regard.[43] There seems to be an assumption that just because someone (obviously not a specialist in Japanese literature) wrote a review of a book without criticizing it for the same reasons I did, does not mean that the term Tristan noir is trying to promote has any kind of wide usage. I told Tristan noir way back when this debate started that it is possible to create one's own Wiki to promote made-up literary genres, but Wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I may have been a bit unclear in my initial AfD posting -- this is a notability problem that is related to but separate from a previous naming dispute that took place at Talk:Uta monogatari. The term existing within the primary sources cited in the article at the moment was never really in dispute -- the problem is that it is not, at least right now, notable. So in short I agree with you, this is about notability, not naming issues. ;-) elvenscout742 (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(This is elvenscout742 on a new phone. (@@;) )Do you really think that what the tanka in English article needs now is more poorly-sourced/inaccurate/promotional material? There is nothing discussed in this article that deserves inclusion in Wikipedia, in its own article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.249.241.103 (talk) 07:06, 13 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 2009 Indian Premier League. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPL Franchise earnings for 2009[edit]

IPL Franchise earnings for 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list that goes into more detail than is needed in an encyclopedia. A single paragraph covering the pertinent points could be included in the parent article (2009 Indian Premier League). Harrias talk 12:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias talk 12:14, 30 September 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 no consensus. No consensus to delete re-written verstion. The delete votes are stale since they were cast before the article was sourced, leave given to speedily renominate if the current version is deemed deficient. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment (archaeology)[edit]

Alignment (archaeology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominate for deletion Has existed for six years without references. See Talk:Alignment (archaeology): relevant Wikiproject consulted two years ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Alignment). I could find no sources. That was two years ago. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "It exists" is not always a reasonable argument in favour of keeping, but it isn't an argument in favour of deletion. I don't understand what your argument in favour of deletion is. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
however there is the issue that many of the uses of the term "alignment" in archaeology fall into the scope of use of the word as a commonly understood english phrase. eg "alignment of graves" "alignment of roads" - as you can easily verify using a google book seach [45] - attempting to infer a defination from many of these sources would be WP:Synthesis or maybe represent original research..Oranjblud (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re-check I've essentially re-started the article - I would guess the deletion needs to be reconsidered.Oranjblud (talk) 16:41, 30 September 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. Michig (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wile[edit]

Anthony Wile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, self-publisher (of his own book, websites etc). Seems to be a fringe player and has no obvious coverage in mainstream news etc. In fact, the only reliable source that I can find that may refer to him is this. Sitush (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that letting this run its course will be the most efficient path. Don't worry about moving the odd weak article into the mainspace. I've done it too. (And thanks for fixing my missing word above. Appreciated.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 2 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) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follicle Nutrient Deficiency Syndrome (FNDS)[edit]

Follicle Nutrient Deficiency Syndrome (FNDS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no scholarly references using GScholar and even a general GSearch returns hits mostly connected to a company called Biologix Hair. My suspicion is that this is non-notable, promotional and probably medical quackery but freely admit that my experience of medical/science articles on Wikipedia is limited. Sitush (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:49, 1 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) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Bakshi[edit]

Vishal Bakshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MD of a company. Has passing mentions in newspaper. (Previously deleted under WP:CSD#A3 and WP:CSD#A7. Recent speedy deletions declined.) ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 18:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 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) 20:34, 23 September 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, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:35, 30 September 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) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan of a Fan[edit]

Fan of a Fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artists prominently release mixtapes particularly in the world of R&B and Hip-Hop but there is nothing particularly notable about this one. It doesn't meet criteria for albums WP:NMUSIC or generally. Lack of independent coverage from reliably sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 15 September 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☽ 00:40, 23 September 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) 09:00, 30 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Quinonero[edit]

David Quinonero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a boxer who fails WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his fight record. He has never fought for a major world title and is currently ranked 40th in the world. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 September 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☽ 00:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to go with the Boxing project's criteria which says "A boxer who has fought for or held a non-major sanctioning body title is not considered notable if winning said title is the only reason for notability" and the titles you mentioned are clearly not world titles from one of the 4 major boxing organizations. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 30 September 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) 08:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, did I think for myself? I do apologize. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say that the boxing project's notability standards seem to be way out of step with those for other sports, where, for example we include any association football player who comes off the bench for a few minutes in a match in League Two. By any sensible standard Quinonero's position as a Spanish title challenger and holder of an EBU belt is much more notable than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are also incredibly US-centric and include nothing about amateur boxing. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if fought at the Olympics he'd be notable as an amateur. There's also no indication he ever fought at the world championships which would help the notability claim. Michig, I have no problem with you thinking for yourself but I'm a bit sensitive as a veteran of the MMA wars where some individuals insisted that they always knew better than the project's consensus. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that boxing is a long-established mainstream sport regularly covered worldwide by general mainstream media, whereas MMA is a recently-invented entertainment mostly covered by media organisations promoting events or by dedicated fan sites. I'm a bit sensitive about this subject as a veteran of previous pointy deletion nominations of notable boxing topics by MMA fans upset that their pet fanboyism isn't considered notable by the world at large. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Please don't take that personally as I'm not accusing you of such a nomination.[reply]
I'm not offended, this isn't the first time we've disagreed. The problem with this fighter is he's never even been ranked in the top 10 of his division (boxrec has him at #43). He may get there, but right now I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON. His last fight was his first world-class opponent and he got knocked out. As for boxing's criteria being stricter than some other sports, I'd say the others are too loose. Boxing's criteria is much more in line with the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MANOTE is clearly written with respect to the type of martial arts where everyone makes up their own style and claims notability as a champion. It is irrelevant to a centuries-old established sport that is reported on regularly in national newspapers and written about in history books. For such a sport we should get the notability standards in line with other mainstream sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys are getting off topic, although I did notice that the criteria for martial artists--WP:NBOX, WP:MANOTE, and WP:MMANOT--require more than just participating once in a game. But I think those projects are better qualified to judge notability of their sports than those saying the cricket standard should apply. Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find a happy medium. Notability standards for some sports are far too lax, and for some are far too strict. In nearly all cases they seem to be heavily weighted towards Western Anglophone sportspeople. Given the lack of sense of encyclopedic notability among most of the people who weigh into any discussions about the issue I do not intend to try to change them, as I would end up banging my head against the wall. All I can do is pipe up in deletion discussions when individual project standards risk leading to perverse outcomes. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perverse is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with you that some standardization would be nice because I think setting the criteria at playing one game is ridiculous. Like you, I believe I can't change everyone, so I rely on the notability standards set by each project. Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems bothered by the fact that there is no significant, non-routine coverage of this boxer. The article lists just his record and the two sources mentioned by Michig are one line mentions in articles about other boxers (and one of those fights didn't even happen). It's hard to claim notability when the subject has a lack of significant, non-routine coverage and fails to meet the notability criteria for his field. Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're bothered by the sparsity of sources in the article then you could improve it by using some of the sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the search links spoon-fed above by the deletion nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works if you want to be "spoon-fed" pablum. Note that Mdtemp didn't say there was no coverage he said there was "no significant, non-routine coverage." I found lots of "X is scheduled to fight Y" and "X beat Y last night" but all of that falls under WP:ROUTINE which includes as routine "sports scores", "sports matches", "press conferences", and "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events". I also think it's unreasonable to expect Mdtemp to provide sources for the article (see WP:BURDEN). I do find it interesting that this discussion has involved more time and effort than went into the one-line article (which still lacks non-routine RS). Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also feel WP:GNG and WP:RS are just suggestions? Multiple editors have pointed out the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I meant was that almost all users voting to delete the article were exclusively citing a guideline that is not, in itself, enough to justify a deletion. A lack of reliable secondary sources existing is enough to delete, but evidence should be presented that such sources are unlikely to exist (Google hits, etc.); it is not enough to just say that since the article doesn't cite sources it should be deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users Mdtemp, Mr. Stradivarius, and I all commented that we searched for additional sources and didn't find anything that satisfies WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 13 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) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Gavril[edit]

Ronald Gavril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a boxer who does not meet WP:NBOX. He has only 3 fights and is currently ranked 268th in his division. The only sources are a link to his fight record and two links to who is helping train him and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 15 September 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☽ 00:37, 23 September 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) 08:59, 30 September 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) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In My Zone (Rhythm & Streets)[edit]

In My Zone (Rhythm & Streets) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artists prominently release mixtapes particularly in the world of R&B and Hip-Hop but there is nothing particularly notable about this one. It doesn't meet criteria for albums WP:NMUSIC or generally. Lack of independent coverage from reliably sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 September 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) 21:13, 22 September 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) 08:58, 30 September 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 Demographics of the Republic of Ireland. This can be expanded into a stand-alone article again if suitable sources can be found. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Ireland[edit]

Pakistanis in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not even close to being a notable subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article to assert the notability of the subject, it is two lines in size. It is a waste of bandwidth. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 1 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Greenberg[edit]

Jay Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, although there was some media attention when he was younger I believe he does not meet notability requirements per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPOSER#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists Opaqueambiguity (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my argument hinges on the fact that his fame seems to be from the fact that he was a talented youngster, and not that he is notable for being a composer. Sure he's been published and has records for sell on amazon, but there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people with records out and published scores who aren't on wikipedia.

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - Not that I'm aware of

Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. - I don't think so, a ballet commissioned by the NYC Ballet is listed but is unsourced and not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Google search didn't give me too much on this piece, although it did confirm the commission. However, other than the fact that it was commissioned I didn't find anything concerning the length of it's run or any other details. If this could be fleshed out some more and shown to fulfill this one I would retract my argument.

Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. - Not that I'm aware of

Has written a composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. - Not that I'm aware of

Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music. - Definitely no.

Opaqueambiguity (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 1 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 deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD A7. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evvochian Language[edit]

Evvochian Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable Conlang. Shirt58 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Salt because of repeated recreation. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 30 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Zhiqun[edit]

Yin Zhiqun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry, but where's the notability? Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This looks almost like a case for A7 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 1 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. Michig (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation skill[edit]

Presentation skill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, I suppose I'll bring this to AFD as well because the PROD was removed by the creator. Again, it doesn't mean inclusion guidelines. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 1 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. Michig (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Development Process[edit]

Customer Development Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a thinly-veiled rewrite of http://www.marketing91.com/customer-development/ As such, it is probably WP:COPYVIO. It is also most likely original research. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 30 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang (artist)[edit]

Zhang (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax -- but not a blatant hoax (which would have been speedy deletable). Unless someone knows something I don't about this, though, delete and bury underground until unrecognizable. --Nlu (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 1 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 EVO 2. The redirect target can be changed to EVO Smart Console if EVO 2 doesn't survive AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EVO 2 DX[edit]

EVO 2 DX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page wholly fails to meet GNG. Even less so than EVO 2. Kai445 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 1 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). — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 1 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. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahsan Rahman Khan[edit]

Tahsan Rahman Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an entertainer of seemingly dubious notability. Current sourcing is either primary (specifically a WP:BOMBARDed interview with the subject), does not have the subject as primary topic or is a blog. BenTels (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 September 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) 01:22, 30 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian folk/folk rock artists[edit]

List of Christian folk/folk rock artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article provides no reasoning for why Christian folk (separate from regular folk music) is notable enough to merit its own list. The only source cited in the article does not help, as it merely discusses Christian music in general. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 September 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) 01:21, 30 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kandi Kid[edit]

Kandi Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a non-notable social group filled with original research and awful sourcing. Googling throws up lots of blogs and the like, but nothing approaching a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 07:02, 23 September 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) 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 1 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. Due to low participation in the debate, undeletion of this article may be requested at any time at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Gerasimovich[edit]

Alexa Gerasimovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for non-notable child actress. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. No non-trivial, verifiable secondary sources, which I searched for and failed to find, exist. --> Gggh talk/contribs 23:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:26, 16 September 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☽ 00:36, 23 September 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) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In My Zone 2[edit]

In My Zone 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artists prominently release mixtapes particularly in the world of R&B and Hip-Hop but there is nothing particularly notable about this one. It doesn't meet criteria for albums WP:NMUSIC or generally. Lack of independent coverage from reliably sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 15 September 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☽ 00:40, 23 September 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) 01:17, 30 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Javor[edit]

Sabrina Javor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way too few and minor credits for this actress to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 September 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) 01:16, 30 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Anderson (iOS developer)[edit]

James Anderson (iOS developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly straight up autobiography but the award is probably enough to avoid a speedy. It has previously gone through PROD and was re-created by the subject. No evidence of notability that would meet the guidelines. StarM 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 1 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:NOTHOW, WP:SNOW, also duplicative, see Dress code. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of dress code at workplace[edit]

Importance of dress code at workplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

my CSD was contested, so I thought I'd bring it straight here...this article doesn't meet inclusion guidelines Go Phightins! (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The subject doesn't pass WP:FOOTY or WP:GNG, and WP:GHITS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Pressley[edit]

Toni Pressley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that there is no fully pro league for women. This does not alter the notability guidelines in anyway. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The league itself meets notability guidelines does meet notability guidelines, but the women who play in it, as rule do not, unless they are notable in the general sense or have played for their country's national team. Notability requires verifiable evidience, and the claim that this league is not only pro, but fully pro as required by WP:NSPORT, is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers who have not played for the senior national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks. Changed vote per your explanation. StarM 01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's a professional player, that plays in Europe. She hasn't played in a fully pro league yet, because the only the existed was dissolved in the same year she have been picked. She also has notability [55]--SirEdimon (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not a valid claim to notability, and the absence of a fully pro league does not alter the notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She have about 487,000 results (0.32 seconds) with her name.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is she's notable. "It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest". So she has notability.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:09, 7 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. G11: Blatant spam, and G12: Unambiguous copyright violations Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nakshatra MCA meet@NIT Calicut[edit]

Nakshatra MCA meet@NIT Calicut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. COI. Fancruft. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 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.
More