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. extransit (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NewTech Infosystems Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no refs, all first-page ghits are to WP, or the company's website, and the article sounds like advertisement. A likely candidate for G11, methinks. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - More than 2.5 years on WP and no independent sources have been added. I find lots of recycled press releases via a Google search, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I started this page when I got price quote for this company product. So this is real company with very small footprint on the web. Why it is so I don't know. see http://www.nticorp.com/en/us/company/about_overview.asp User:Abune (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the company exists, but can you explain how it meets the criteria spelled out in WP:CORP? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory for software businesses; the field is crowded, and commercial businesses generally need to show some kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance. Nothing seems to indicate that this business has reached that level, though it surely exists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the importance consideration here is not whether a company exists (and this one does), it's whether it's notable. If it has a "very small footprint on the web", that means that it most likely fails WP:CORP, and indeed, I can find very little independent coverage of the company anywhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 27 June 2010 (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, fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. While there is a rumor about a sequel, nothing can be verified by reliable sources at this time. Dreadstar ☥ 04:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball 2: Reborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I've not been able to find any announcements that the film and what information I could find was either rumors or speculation from blogs and forum posts. Completely fails WP:V and is possibility a hoax. The original article was a copy and paste of Dragonball Evolution, which I've removed along with unsourced information about casting before nominating this article. (WP:BLP) —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per above, as pointed out in the original prod There are no reliable sources to prove production or filming of this film. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete As unconfirmed rumor/hoax. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to note that dragonballrebornmovie.com is currently registered to a cyper-squatter.[1] On the other hand dragonballreborn.com doesn't appear to be registered. If the film is in production, than FOX would have acquired one of these domans by now. —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So speedy delete this as a hoax? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a very real rumor that's been floating around the internet since before the first film was released. So I don't know if the article would qualify for speedy deletion. —Farix (t | c) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrote the lead so that much is verifiable. —Farix (t | c) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - this article is seriously a hoax, doesn't have any sources per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a rumour mill or a crystal ball for that matter. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the rumor gets more steam and reportage, then maybe then, but the guideline says not until production has confirmed to have started. For now, things aren't there yet: delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources to prove filming has begun or that the film is even in development. - kollision (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Someone copied information from the Dragonball Evolution article. The links to reviews are for Evolution. Dream Focus 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources to suggest filming has begun. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Cut and paste move fixed, article is now at what IMDb gives as the title, and two AfD's consolidated. One comment was on the other one, which is as follows:

• Looks like someone began the AfD for this article but never actually finished it. Anyway, I'll have to go with weak incubation because although there seems to be a lot of sources about this movie being in development, they're all forums. In addition, the IMDb page doesn't even have a cast listing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disapprove of the move of the article and AfD to "Dragonball 2: Reborn" as there is no official title and "Dragonball: 2 Reborn" is/was the original name of the article up for deletion. The IMDB listing is apparently part of the ongoing hoax/rumor. Also, the list was completed, as shown by this edit. Apparently, someone must have removed it from the day's log. —Farix (t | c) 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, rumour/hoax. Forum posts are so far from being reliable sources that I would even oppose incubation or userification on this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clearly to delete. The comparison with Rickrolling would only be valid if this subject had significant coverage in independent sources (Rickrolling has 65 references, and 19 "further reading" references). This article has *1* reference, to a very minor mention in a YouTube video. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Possible attack page, and Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was NOT an attack page, and I've posted a source now. Thank you.JHHster (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it isn't an attack page. If anyone is interested in the YouTube link, you can save some time and skip the first 4 minutes; 'stealth clown' is mentioned at the end. Given this article is basically about a YouTube video, I think it can probably be speedy deleted as WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 - web content. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that although it probably wasn't intended to be an attack page, it was within CSD G10 (which it why I didn't use the attack warning template). Although the attack content has been removed there is still no evidence of coverage from reliable sources. snigbrook (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a potential meme. If you look up videos about it, or google it, you will find many things. I've heard it on Xbox LIVE all the time, so it's not "Basically about a YouTube video".67.114.107.235 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about web content that doesn't indicate why it's significant, so it can speedy deleted under WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im wondering if you even read my last post. It's significant because it's funny and is turning into a meme, believe it or not.67.114.107.235 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article doesn't even assert any notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Could probably be speedied. Quantpole (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if you're going to take my article down, so be it. If you're going to though, you might as well take down "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling" because it doesn't "SHOW WHY IT'S SIGNIFICANT" and it's "AN ARTICLE BASED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO"67.114.107.235 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:50, 22 June 2010 (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Disputed PROD. However this is a minor earthquake with dubious notability that resulted in no damage or injuries, and so this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT. "1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake" appears to be a title made up by the article creator to make it sound more important. An earthquake recording a maximum intensity of shindo 3 is a frequent and unremarkable event in Japan (at least seven have occurred in Japan in June 2010 already (see Yahoo Japan record)). --DAJF (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / merge. The article contains two distinct (albeit small) RS about the subject and as such it passes WP:GNG. That no damages or injuries occurred is irrelevant, as it is the fact that it is a frequent event -notable does NOT mean "unique". The problem of the title can be dealt with editing, and as such is not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. That said, the article would be probably best merged in some list of minor earthquakes. --Cyclopia^talk 23:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I created this entry. I do not agree on the provided reason for deletion: shindo 3 is not significant. Again, as I have said in the talk page of another earthquake event page, (1) intensity is not a good criterion for the significance or importance of an earthquake (especially this earthquake is as strong as M_w 7.5, and (2) shindo 3 is strong enough to cause damage.
• In fact, in the English entry of Yonaguni, a strong submarine earthquake in 1998 is mentioned. I suspect that it refers to the same earthquake.
• As for the criteria for being significant, imaging that a M9.0 earthquake happens in some place far away from any major human settlement. It may not leave records of "impressive" intensity, but it is definately not "insignificant". Hence intensity is definately not a suitable criteria. If you look up the USGS historical earthquake records, you'll find that this is one of the strongest events in that year. It is definately not a "minor" earthquake. Qrfqr (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Excellent almanac type entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a 7.5 magnitude is pretty big, and past earthquakes of that amount have been kept here in the past. Usually, 5 or lower gets deleted, 6 is a maybe, and a 7 is a keeper. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - This is marginal, there are probably some scientific papers out there that reference it, I only found the one abstract so far. The draft notability guidelines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes#Notability criteria suggest that just being magnitude 7 is insufficient. Mikenorton (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few exist but some in Japanese. Qrfqr (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2010 (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 Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Freedom Flotilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

*Delete: Non notable article. Its about a "plan" that a few students have to "assist kurds". There is no notability here. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. Not enough independent secondary sources to pass notability threshold for an independent Wikipedia article.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Until this actually materialises AND some of the knife weilding batton bearing non-comformist Israeli peace aid students are gunned down by stunned Turkish soliders, this should not have its own page. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the reflexive reaction of a few lone students and is inane and fatuous, since the Kurdish region in Turkey is not subject to any blockade and doesn't even have a coastline! --386-DX (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Cs32en. If this event actually happens, it may become notable enough for its own article, but at its current stage, it probably isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a non-notable propaganda stunt. It hasn't happened, won't happen and cannot happen. It has received negligible mefdia coverage -- apart from references to this article itself, almost all of the three dozen Google hits are simply a copy of the original blog posting. This is not only non-notable; it is a non-event, and an attempt to hijack Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. Unless there is anything more substantial than the tissue of hype and speculation that this is based on, it should be deleted rather than merged. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete media stunt that no-one much seems to care about. Unless of course if they could find a way to sail to Kurdistan... Misarxist (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. This was already suggested on the page. The information is sourced from reliable sources. I am concerned about the neutrality, but that can be solved. Linda Olive (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article lists numerous sources. Hence, it's notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The notability of a subject depends on the coverage it receives in reliable 3rd party sources, which this topic has, not on its status as a 'plan'. There are numerous plans that have articles- including numerous ones about plans that have been scrapped (and thus will never materialize) - such as NASA Design Reference Mission 3.0. Similarly, even if we accept the unproven premise that this is a 'publicity stunt' - that would not preclude an article about it - as the Balloon boy hoax article shows. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, we could split Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid into more than 200 articles.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 200 sub-topics with significant enough coverage, I don't see why not. There's certainly no Wiki policy against it, and at least one policy that encourages it. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - covered in multiple, high-quality and high-profile sources, and just looking at the Jerusalem Post article shows that there is enough material to add another one or two paragraphs. Yes, this article will probably be a stub for the rest of its life, but that in itself is of course not a problem. Pantherskin (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge. While their plans may be adequately covered by reliable media, nothing of turning this plan into action has happened yet. Merge as per Cs32en. Nageh (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2010 (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Cobras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable within their own institution never mind in the wider world. This does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions to this rule. A search on Google returns little beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. The only coverage I could find was this BBC page. The page is a local page for South-East Wales and does nothing beyond acknowledged the teams existence. It's also worth noting that it isn't updated anymore.

Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent and reliable sources, I dont see anyway that it could be referenced. Given that the article hasn't had any non-trivial edits since its creation almost 5 years ago, it doesn't look likely that anyone will step forward to reference it, even if there were sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This does not appear to be one of the few British university sports teams that meet WP:GNG. Pfainuk talk 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indpendent sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Elizabeth Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable. Unsuccessful candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete and Redirect Burnley (UK Parliament constituency). The article as it stands has to go as it's an obvious CV article. She's more notable than most second-place candidates because it was a close run with the Lib Dems, but the coverage seems to be almost exclusively local and run-of-the mill. Fair play to her for opposing an all-women shortlist and fighting and winning an open selection contest, but this barely registered interest outside of Lancashire. Who knows, in five years time she may be back. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in Wikipedia, like in real life, there are no prizes for coming second in an election. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There are in the European Parliament elections. [pedant mode off]Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete District Councillor = NN; failed candidate for MP = NN. She fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A&SG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable music group lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources that I can find, and no indication that they meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If kept the article would need to be completely rewritten too. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 27 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green zebra adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Creator removed speedy G11 nomination. Article has since been edited several times but still makes no claims to notability or even WP:GNG. Essentially promotional in tone and content. Fenix down (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom Codf1977 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - No indication of significance whatsoever -clearly falls under A7. Suggest an admin delete it now per WP:SNOWBALL. Thparkth (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Promotional. No notability shown. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer!
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, thinly-veiled advertisement for a non-notable tour company.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Creator removed speedy tag. Copyvio issues appear to have been dealt with, but the article is pretty much entirely promotional and there is no indication as to how the organisation would satisfy even WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have blanked the article pending OTRS permission verification, as the article is still a copy of the source. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned, in three articles from a local paper in a list of groups appearing in a parade.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hardly any coverage [2]. LibStar (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese administrative divisions by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced,OR BsBsBs (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese city population entries are completely unsourced. The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources, but to explanations of the type of the administrative region. The comparison entries are all unsourced except for India. Comparisons with other regions may be viewed as Original Research.-- BsBsBs (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: If an article has WP:V issues, that's what template tags are for. An AfD is out of the question, especially since you have only added the disputed, unreferenced and OR tags 7 minutes before nominating the AfD. This is not what an AfD is for. I would also like to mention WP:SOFIXIT - certainly if you are concerned about the welfare of an article, you'd be bold enough to fix it yourself? The same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is looking after the welfare of Beijing, I can assure you that

• it is not easy to obtain up-to-date population numbers in China
• once you have them, they are contentious (there was an edit war over Beijing's official population number of 22 million - pls compare to the number in this list)

I am all for this list, but to stay alive, it must be sourced. Thank you for the invitation, but maintaining it timely and correctly is beyond my capacities. The assertion that "the same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics" is patently wrong. Try it on a few major provinces. If it's so easy, why isn't there a single reference? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe all nations have official websites that list their census bureau's information on it. Some information is listed on the American government's Census bureau's website. www.census.gov Shouldn't be difficult to find if any of the information is sincerely in doubt. I don't see any reason to have the section "Comparable country (country rank worldwide)". Why mention what nation or state has the same population of that area? I don't see as how that helps anyone. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try it. Sourced in China. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Just noticed a little something. Quote: "The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources" - precisely. They are notes, not references. The article specifically states that. I don't see anything "wrong" with that. Many WP:FA also contain notes. They are used to clarify certain things that some readers might not understand, without completely ruining the format of the body article. Sources, on the other hand, are given as external links, because as the figures change each year, so does the page URL. I also don't see why linking to the main page of the Bureau of Statistics is "wrong". Linking to the direct page can lead to link rot. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. Where are the sources? Next time I write that someone killed someone, I provide the main page of the National Enquirer and say look for yourself, there might be link rot? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment I have fixed the problem with footnotes not being separated from references. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I deleted all the nation comparison stuff, which got the nominator all worked up about OR and seems rather arbitrary to me. Yoenit (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may seem arbitrary to you and me, but editors have been accused of Original Research in much less obvious cases. The fact that the list is unreferenced remains. I have made three good faith edits for Chongqing, Beijing, and Shanghai. Sorry, the numbers for Chongqing and Beijing are different than what was in the list, but now they are properly referenced. The other numbers should be properly referenced likewise. I happen to follow Chongqing, Beijing and Shanghai, so I have those numbers. As two out of three numbers were wrong, I expect further changes as this list is properly referenced. If it's not, all unreferenced data can be deleted. It is now unlikely that the whole page will be deleted. However, all unreferenced data can be deleted at any time. (Caution: Even after everything is properly referenced, giving a ranking could attract accusations of WP:OR on the grounds of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." I don't like it, but them's the rules.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't even see the rank until now. A rather useless column as you can use the autosort function to sort the table on population size, so I removed it. If you feel the need to remove all numbers you can not get a reliable source for, please do so. It would leave the list utterly gutted for now, but eventually lead to improvement. Yoenit (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a valid topic. If there is any uncertainty or dispute as to the numbers for a particular area, this should be noted and explained in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: the article has been sourced by a number of editors since the AfD was nominated. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:21, 27 June 2010 (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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy of Oz (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. Also, the author of the article appears to have a major COI with this article, as evidenced from the talk page. SnottyWong ^talk 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepComment The film's iMDB page and its home site indicate that it is currently filming. Hence, it appears to pass WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The website lists the status as "in production", which is somewhat vague. Also, the WP:NFF guideline is based on whether the film has started principal photography, which in the case of animated films, is somewhat irrelevant. So, my question is: are the comments on the film's website (a primary source) and/or IMDB (an unreliable source) enough to substantiate that the film is actually in the process of being created (i.e. the animation process has started)? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. SnottyWong ^chatter 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NFF includes instructions on how a film topic might be found notable if meeting other notability guidelines, completed or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct -- but the other notability guidelines are intended to apply only for projects that have "already begun shooting." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." The SNGs are set to allow editors further means by which to "presume" that sources toward notability may or may not exist, and are not set to over-ride WP:N itself, as notability is dependent upon a TOPIC having coverage in reliable sources... and the more coverage, the better. Begun or not, an article discussing a film as a TOPIC, may be found notable if the TOPIC meets the WP:GNG. I can share examples if wished, but films that have never shot one frame can, as TOPICs, be found notable through meeting GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be honest -- I'm usually pretty trusting of iMDB for basic production details, but in this case their listing of the project as "filming" is, indeed, a vaguery. News sources suggest that sketches of the characters were unveiled only within the past week. Granted, the argument can be made that this constitutes "the animation process," but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Either way, I'm going to strike my Keep vote while I ponder this. There's a good amount of evidence that the production itself might be relatively notable, so there's a chance it passes muster either way, but it's not the obvious "uhm, dude, it's filming" that I initially thought it was. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Follow the Google Brick Road: [3]. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a valid argument for keeping the article. See WP:GHITS. SnottyWong ^talk 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "ghits" bring up a lot of significant media coverage that fits into the reliable sourcing requirements that these articles require. 23:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regent of the Seatopians (talk • contribs)

Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. WP:GHITS clearly explains that just saying "there are a lot of google hits" is an argument to avoid, because it doesn't prove anything. SnottyWong ^babble 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link he provided was quite helpful in making determination of possible notability per WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After some thought and searching, I really can't find evidence in reliable sources that the animation equivalent of "principal photography" (which I would consider actual animation work plus voice work with actors -- any work that brings some relative finality to the cast and crew) has actually commenced. All we have is a primary source indicating that it is "in production," with suspiciously recent (within the last few days) release of "character sketches." This, in the absence of reliable sourcing that says otherwise, strongly suggests that the level of certainty looked for in WP:NFF with its principal photography guideline does not yet exist. That said, this topic is almost entirely certain to pass NFF with flying colors at some point in the future, possibly in the relatively near future. But, until then, my opinion is that it's a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A film production may be be found notable if having significant coverage in reliable sources. While indeed, many unmade or in-production films lack such coverage and fail both NFF and GNG, that does not seem to be the case here. A smattering of search results that would seem to allow presumption of notability for the prduction per meeting the NFF caveat about other notability guidelines are offered below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That caveat is specifically for films that have "already begun shooting." That is a direct quote from NFF. This film hasn't begun shooting. Ipso facto, the caveat does not apply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have learned that the caveat is one set to allow editors further means by which to presume that sources toward notability may or may not exist. Notability is not dependent upon the presumptions allowed in the SNGs... it is dependent upon having coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently you haven't read the first sentence of WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. I don't see any ambiguity there. SnottyWong ^talk 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is far more to NFF than that single sentence, and your not seeing amiguity, does not make it go away. Your insisting that a single sentence out of several in an SNG absolutely overrules WP:N is unfounded,as while SNGs support WP:N in their offering considerations as enouragement that editors be diligent in finding coverage, they do not replace it, nor replace the GNG. And your continually pointing at one part of NFF in an attempt to repudiate the rest of that same guideline is equally unhelpful, as NFF also allows that a production may itself be found notable through significant coverage in reliable sources. However, your arguments seem rendered moot in the face of the animation phase in this production of this animated film having begun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources prove that the film is out of pre-production? SnottyWong ^babble 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis of no principal photography (as defined by Ginsengbomb above) means no production. As others have mentioned, the recent release of "sketches" doesn't help. All I have been able to find is this in Playbill, ( and similarly this in Broadwayworld WP:RS?,) which state that Bryan Adams has started working on the songs. "Bryan Adams is currently moving forward on the first songs and lyrics for the film." While I am not well-versed in animated films, it would seem to me that the songs would be written (and recorded) before the animation begins. (Maybe its possible to start animating some non-musical parts, but I would think the songs set the tone for the whole film. JMO) Production is scheduled to finish in late 2011. I know that animation takes a long time to complete, but it still seems like very early stages to me. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  With respects, the topic appears to meet the other notability guidelines as specifcally allowed in WP:NFF. Had it not the coverage it does it would have failed. Having the coverage, it passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the reliable information on the production found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What information? A Google search? SnottyWong ^verbalize 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the google (news) search. Big difference that someone who nominates articles for deletion should notice. You may have to hover over the link, or click it depending on your browser. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A Google News search doesn't actually prove anything. If there is a particular article that you think proves the notability of the production of this article per WP:NFF, please provide it. SnottyWong ^confer 04:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing counting links with their content, counting links is not what I did, it was the content of the Google News articles, not the number of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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)

• Keep Coverage beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2010, meets the caveats of WP:NFF and (more importantly to many) the General notability guide: Animation Magazine (1), Broadway World (1), Playbill, Broadway World (2), Fantasy (French), Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Collider, UPI, ... and to lessor but supportive manner in such as Animation Magazine (2), Animation Magazine (3), KMBC, The Guardian, CNN, Cinema Blend, The New York Times. There are more that others have found. These are enough to allow reasonable presumption of notability per guideline, and encourage that the stub article remain to grow and be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The guideline seems pretty clear on this. No principal photography, no article. ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. ")

  Here is the quote that I think is getting misconstrued in conversation here: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. " The "production itself is notable" bit refers to films that have already begun shooting. We have no evidence that this film has begun shooting. Hence, it very clearly, objectively fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear, but then not clear. As I have recently been enlightened, the SNGs are set in place to allow editors to consider circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing, not to limit WP:N, but set as tools to encourage a search for sources. If sources do not exist, notability is unlikely. If sources DO exist, then notability is likely. But like all SNGs, they all send us back to WP:GNG. It was noted by an editor at another discussion, that "Significant coverage is the touchstone by which notability is tested." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where were you enlightened to this effect? The last thing I see in the Notability chat you directed me to is this, from an admin: "It should always be the case that if a work passes the GNG, it should be included unless specifically excluded by criteria in an SNG." NFF "specifically excludes" this film. By which I mean, if you are correct in saying this, we should immediately invalidate and delete WP:NFF, because it very plainly, by definition, provides criteria to exclude content. It does not provide any "circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing." It's a "no," guidelines, not a "yes" one, if that makes sense. Again, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of the relationship between SNG and GNG. Many, many SNGs only exclude. WP:BLP1E is an obvious example (although not quite the same as NFF -- BLP1E attempts to predict that actual non-notability of a seemingly notable topic...NFF, to my eyes, does the same, on a temporary basis). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG. Projects might give additional means of passing "notability", but they don't invalidate GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not think you are correct. Either that, or everybody referencing WP:NFF is wrong, because NFF specifically excludes content. It doesn't "give additional means of passing." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment many delete comments above deal with whether or not principle filming has commenced. As this is an animation, and animation and character design has commenced (as shown by release of images as provided in some proferred sources above), it might reasonably be concluded that for an animation, this may be considered the "beginning" of filming... as it does specifically involve particpation of director, artists, and animators. Such actual artistic production work in creating an animated film is not pre-production... it IS production, and voicework by the various contracted actors will be among the final steps in production, before moving to post-production. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is definitely a quirk worth considering in this AfD. My own opinion is that the animation equivalent ought to be that voice work has commenced, insofar as the NFF guidelines appear to be anticipating potentially huge changes in cast, crew, etc., if a film hasn't commenced "principal photography." But that's very much my opinion. I understand you are or are considering bringing this to the folks at WikiProject Animation, and would be very curious to hear their opinion on what I imagine is not an altogether uncommon issue.

  Also, I wish to clarify my above Delete vote -- I am absolutely fine with any number of alternatives to deletion in this case, including Redirect/Merge (to some target that I have no considered yet :) or Incubation. The content is fine, my issue is with the current independent notability of the topic. I am confident the topic will be very clearly notable at some point in the future, possibly in the not-at-all-distant future, so any solution involving keeping the content is ideal. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WP:NFF has been updated to include a sentence clarifying the notability criteria for future animated films. SnottyWong ^chat 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snottywong personally changing a guideline[4] to support his arguments during an ongoing AFD is change that might better merit an RFC to gain wider consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The change was discussed on the talk page and has support from other members of that discussion - nor is it a major change, it is simply clarifying where the equivalent line of production is in an animated film, versus regular films as they don't have "principal photography". Please remember to assume good faith.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I was unaware of any discussion between the several editors until his change was announced here. Had I known, I might have myself participated in that discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you weren't invited because you seem to disagree with me on just about everything. Whether or not that's intentional, I couldn't say. In any case, please do follow AnmaFinotera's advice and assume good faith. If I were trying to change the guideline in bad faith purely to support my arguments at an AfD, do you think I would disclose that at the AfD? I changed the guideline to clarify the notability threshold, and so that wikilawyers can't claim that WP:NFF doesn't apply to animated films because there is no principal photography. SnottyWong ^express 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate seems to have some significant coverage, and it appears to at least be in production at some stage, however other than confirming its started and who is involved, what else is there to say. Incubate until it is fully confirmed that this animation is in full production, not the rough start process, with actual final animation being worked on and the final voice tracks being recorded. I was going to say merge to the base novel article, but it apparently does not have one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not adverse to Incubation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 25 June 2010 (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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. SnottyWong ^verbalize 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any evidence that this film has commenced principal photography, hence not passing WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also completely fine with Redirect/Merge and Incubate as outcomes -- I am fairly confident that this topic will be beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt notable at some point in the future, so there's no reason to remove the content that currently exists altogether. Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks for the nudge, MQS. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above: no verification that principal photography has begun. Cliff smith ^talk 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support merging verified info about this project to director John Boorman. Cliff smith ^talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support incubation, as discussed below. Cliff smith ^talk 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A new film based of one of the most famous books of U.S. literature, directed by John Boorman (a major film artist) and packed with plenty of news coverage: [5]. Even the Scarecrow could figure this one out! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline about the notability of future films, as cited by the nominator, states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Also, a "Google test" isn't always indicative of a subject having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Until this project becomes a production, it can be covered at the article of the project's reported director (John Boorman) and at Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. Cliff smith ^talk 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Google test" brings up a lot of high-profile coverage of this upcoming film. Your argument makes no sense. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. Also, please read WP:GHITS for an explanation of Cliff smith's argument. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that the results of a Google search for something aren't always indicative of something being worthy of inclusion here. A Google search can return trivial mentions in "high-profile" sources. If it's just saying that some director is working on a project which is supposed to be released in the near future, that's not really significant coverage. Also, we shouldn't make the assumption that "because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material." (Yes, that's also from WP:NFF.) Cliff smith ^talk 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appears to be enough details in the existing coverage which trumps the movie guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which details are you referring to? WP:NFF is quite clear in that future films should not have articles until principal photography begins, unless the production itself is notable for some reason. Are you implying that you have sources which show that the production itself, independent of the film, is notable? If so, please let us know. SnottyWong ^confabulate 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ SW: There is a bit more to WP:NFF that is not being mentioned. It specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines, completed or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the guideline is that it's less concerned with details than it is with two things: 1) the reliability/permanence of these details and, more importantly 2) Is any notability reflected by existing coverage going to be permanent? In other words, is this production itself so plainly notable based on reliably sourced coverage that, even if this movie never actually exists, will it still be a notable topic? The guidelines suggest that only extreme cases pass the very easily applied "principal photography" hurdle -- is this film really an extreme case? Or is it just a movie that is in pre-production? There are a lot of those, and some of them are based on enormously notable sources. That this potential movie is based on a great book does nothing to establish the production's notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. Notability is determined by a topic meeting WP:GNG, and as per my !vote below, the topic so far, per the GNG and even as a merge/redirect if not a straight keep, merits inclusion somewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Keep per meeting NFF, or p Per WP:ATD, either Incubate as worth delevoping away from article space, or Redirect/Merge sourced information to director John Boorman without prejudice toward recreation. And a note for clarification: WP:NFF does not call for automatic deletion of all articles in such cases, but specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines... and that event is not a "rare" as in being implied, and coverage as provided by Houston Chronicle, The Windsor StarMinneapolis Star-Tribune, Animation Magazine, Fantasy Magazine, Boston Globe, Cineuropa, Fantasy, Nina People, Showbizz, and MSNBC would seem to assure that the information has a place within these pages somewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's not as though all mention of this project should be removed from everywhere altogether. I could understand an argument to WP:IAR and make an exception for a yet-to-be-produced film project to have its own article if information about that project was creating an undue weight situation at the article(s) about its subject material—but that is not the case here. Presently, it belongs at John Boorman and Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. No prejudice towards recreation here, either, by the way. Cliff smith ^talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, as with the Dorothy of Oz discussion, NFF only advises that films be checked against other notability guidelines if the film can be shown, in reliable sources, to have "already begun shooting." This film has not been shown to have begun shooting, hence the direction regarding other notability sources does not apply. NFF very clearly states that unless a film has commenced principal photography it should not have an article, and there is no exception to this direction anywhere in NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But WP:N is the mother and all the rest of the SNGs her children... not intended to supplant the mother, only to supplement her. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. NFF, is one of the children of WP:N... and all her children rely a topic's meeting WP:GNG. If the GNG is met, it is met. Not having begun shooting, or ever shooting at all, does not affect how a topic itself being notable and worthy of inclusion in some manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I think the bottom line is that while this subject does merit inclusion in some manner, that manner is at the article about its director, for now. It should not have its own article yet. Cliff smith ^talk 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I aggree and added thoughts toward possibility of WP:Incubation accordingly, while striking my NFF keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate per Michael; or merge to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz though its adaptation section leaves much to be desired, until such time as it is in full production and this is confirmed in third-party, reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's still early in this film's life cycle, but there is enough coverage to justify notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Toxic Avenger 5: The Toxic Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - this film will probably get made, but we can't be sure that it will, and we don't need to create an article until it has been. Robofish (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that the film has commenced principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFF. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 27 June 2010 (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 result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Must Be The Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. SnottyWong ^communicate 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - no need for an article on this film as of yet, when it hasn't started filming. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Incubate until NFF is passed Article itself indicates that filming is set to start in August, 2010. Fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Incubate as worth delevoping, Keep per meeting WP:NFF, or Redirect/merge sourced information to writer/director Paolo Sorrentino without prejudice toward recreation. And a note for clarification: WP:NFF does not call for automatic deletion of all articles in such cases, but specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines... and IFTN, Variety, Buffalo News, Cineuropa, Deadline, Newnotizie, La Repubblica, Gazeta do Sul, Showbizz, Daily News & Analysis, Digital Spy, and AHN, among many others, would seem indicative that this merits inclusion somewhere within these pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Again, I am seeing NFF being misread in all of these conversations. The guideline does not allow for exceptions in the case of films that haven't begun principal photography. It only allows for exceptions for films that have (direct quote) "already begun shooting." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. NFF, is one of the children if WP:N... and all her children rely first and foremost on a topic's meeting WP:GNG. If the GNG is met it is met.... and even then, all the guideline suggests is no seperate article if seen failing. Meeting the GNG would be indicative that the information worthy of being included somewhere... such as the director's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up I have struck the "keep" part of my opinion above. Coverage meeting WP:GNG encourages that the topic might merit either being set aside for additional work, or merged/redirected to the article on the director. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:18, 25 June 2010 (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 all. T. Canens (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Replicates near-verbatim SI 2007/1681. Wereon (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus subsets of the above:

List of Electoral Wards in Avon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in Bedfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in West Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in South Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in Tyne and Wear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in Merseyside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in Greater Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in Warwickshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in The West Midlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Welsh equivalent:

List of Welsh Electoral Wards by Constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And two redirects:

List of Electoral Wards in Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Electoral Wards in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• I can see that this is potentially useful, and has been collated in an extremely organized way - it doens't seem the least bit indiscriminate. What is the exact problem with these articles existing in Wikipedia? At the very least they should have a place in some Wikimedia project or another, if they are not encyclopedic could they be rehomed e.g. in Wikisource? TheGrappler (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Wikisource accepts material under Crown Copyright. Besides, is reproducing secondary legislation really what any Wikimedia project is for, when HMSO / OPSI already do it? Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think that this material is under Crown Copyright? These are just plain facts, no creativity seems to have been used even in the ordering of the facts. I think the source material is therefore ineligible for Copyright; besides which, it should be possible to wikify these pages to "add value" to them. The fact these improvements haven't happened yet doesn't seem a good reason to delete. As for whether any Wikimedia project is "for" reproducing information available anywhere else, the answer is a big fat yes, surely? The facts contained in Wikipedia are all from somewhere else (due to the rule against no original research); Wikisource contains lots of information straight from other sources as does Commons. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, publications that contain only facts are not copyrightable? SnottyWong talk 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, no, they are not. You can sell your own phone book by taking the phone company's and copying all the info, at least in the U.S.. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Certainly the articles are not perfect at present. But there are advantages in having wikified articles in addition to the source documents; it is clearer to link from one article to a specific section of one of the above articles (and backlink to the relevant constituency, placename etc) than it is to link only to a less structured document on an external website. The article does not seem to breach the policies listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion (though the list is not intended to be exhaustive). More specifically, it is not clear that the articles are "indiscriminate" in the sense described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, since they are ordered and wikified in an accurate and potentially useful way. Perhaps it would be sufficient to merge the county articles into just four articles (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales – corresponding to the four boundary commissions), so as to balance the advantages of wikification against the disadvantages of duplicated and scattered content. — Richardguk (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of relevant wards would be a welcome addition to the individual constituency articles, but I'm not sure what the value is of listing them all by country or county in such a way. Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose someone is interested not in which wards comprise a known constituency, but in which constituency each ward in a district is allocated to. More generally still, suppose someone wants an idea of the constituency to which each ward in a certain area is allocated (regardless of council boundaries). There is no perfect solution, but listing the data on one page makes it easier for the reader to gather information more flexibly than if it is only scattered across many articles or on an external site, allowing wikilinks to be used effectively. — Richardguk (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sounds entirely reasonable to me. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The information provided is not indiscriminate. The fact that it has a good, reliable source is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In a mass nomination, it's poor strategy to nominate the best of the articles first, and I think it will prove to have been "a lot of work for nothing". Many of the "afterthoughts" are actually duplicates of the information in List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency, except for (List of Welsh Electoral Wards by Constituency) so I see no reason to keep anything that duplicates info on a larger list. Rather than confusing the matter with a "keep this one, delete that one and that one and that one, but keep the next one" vote, I'll just leave the question of merger to others. Mandsford 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know that, as the author, I am slightly impartial, but I feel that these articles are good reference guides and are useful. I also put a lot of hard work into them and would hate to see my work deleted. 07bargem (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikisource. There is nothing in these articles which doesn't appear verbatim somewhere on this site. SnottyWong talk 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only issue I have with this article is that this will be a bugger to maintain. I wonder if the information would be better contained in articles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland, where the people who maintain the pages are likely to be clued up on boundary changes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing indiscriminate here.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio. The information is directly copied from here. The material is under copyright. Nuttah (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*keep - useful and cited. The content is imo not a copyright violation, the copyright notice is here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/copyright-notice.htm it looks to me like they are actively encouraging reprinting and requesting hyperlinks to be created to their site which we have done in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"…provided it is reproduced accurately…" — it may be accurate at the moment, but how can we ensure it stays accurate? Full edit protection?? Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will try in good faith but I see your point. I am far from expert in copyright. User:Moonriddengirl is a good person to ask. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be, unfortunately. The Crown Copyright exemption is that all material can be copied WITHOUT CHANGE. The nature of Wikipedia makes that impossible to guarantee. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting that copyright notice in full:

"The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. The permission to reproduce Crown protected material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. OPSI encourages users to establish hypertext links to this site." — OPSI Crown copyright notice (emphasis added)

Wikipedia policy implications: So long as due attribution is given and the article is created accurately with a link to the source, we can't limit ourselves by the hypothetical actions of future vandals, which would in any event be subject to correction by other editors and be made evident by examining the history page or comparing with the source, to which we link.

After all, a vandal can insert text from any copyright publication on almost any page and immediately cause a copyright breach. This real risk does not cause us to delete every page of the encyclopedia! Instead, we maintain the articles and respond to informal and formal feedback as best we can.

Practical implications: I'm sure all of us here want Wikipedia articles to be accurate. If someone notices an inaccuracy subsequently introduced, how likely is it the Crown would sue Wikipedia (or the miscreant editor)? Frankly, if the Crown even bothered to complain, we should be grateful for them taking an interest, but it's inconceivable that they would object in principle to an article that Wikified the data contained in the statutory instrument.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I'm afraid that Crown copyright is not permissible on Wikipedia. :/ As is noted at WP:C and Wikimedia:Terms of Use, our content must be licensed compatibly with WP:CC-By-SA, which permits modification (obviously, public domain is acceptable). That Crown copyright mandate forbidding modification makes it incompatible, so it must be used in accordance with WP:NFC, which forbids extensive quotation. The real question, though, is whether this material is copyrightable under the US law that governs Wikipedia. While some countries recognize "sweat of the brow", U.S. copyright law requires creativity. The requirement here is minimal (most content easily passes the threshold), but lists that are simply straightforward and obvious compilations of facts are not creative. (As with Feist v. Rural.) I'm not sure here. When the Nielsen Company wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation to complain that we were reproducing their lists of U.S. television markets, our attorney removed the content (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive170#Nielson DMCA Takedown). Except in the case of an official takedown request (which in spite of the language bandied at this discussion this was not; note that Mike said, "Wikimedia Foundation has not received a DMCA takedown notice"), he does not do that in situations without merit. (He didn't automatically comply with the American Psychiatric Association wrote us.) I would be inclined to presume that there is no creativity in the content, but the Nielsen market precedent makes that a bit complicated. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've asked Mike. Since there are 13 articles involved here, best to find out if copyright concerns are a factor. I'll update if he has an opportunity to respond to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the advice, which is clearly an informed and thoughtful contribution, but I'm puzzled by the logic:

1. There seems to be an assumption that "accuracy" precludes "modification". The Crown copyright waiver (and para 12b of the relevant guidance) requires accuracy, but there is no "Crown copyright mandate forbidding modification". Modification in the articles consists only of wikilinking, annotating and layout changes.
2. Feist implies that facts per se are not copyrightable in US law. The article does not reproduce the other (creative and presentational) aspects. Nor are the statutory instruments the only authoritative source of the data (Boundary Commission reports, draft statutory instruments and National Statistics lists contain the same data in different formats, though are also Crown copyright).
3. The lists can also be derived from OS OpenData datasets which are licensed to be compatible with CC-BY 3.0. (Admittedly this is not applicable to most Crown publications at present, but does happen to apply to the content being discussed here.)
4. Unlike Nielsen, the Crown is not seeking to exploit its website content commercially, nor is it objecting to the current articles or similar instances. Clearly the Crown does not want us to mislead, but nor do we. If the content ceases to be accurate, the obvious remedy is to correct the content, not to pre-emptively delete articles.

I can see that the articles could be criticised for duplicating information; that's a plausible view to be balanced against the advantages of having the data listed together and wikified, hence the tentativeness of my Weak keep. But the legal point seems a red herring.

— Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Wikipedia must be licensed compatibly with Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. This license does not guarantee that the material will remain accurate; our reusers may do whatever they wish with it, even if they wish to deliberately mess it up. They may modify it in any way. Per our copyright policy and Terms of Use (both linked above), we can't accept content that is licensed more restrictively than that even if we should agree that accuracy is a good idea. (For background, see this 2002 pronouncement by User:Jimbo Wales. Plus there are plenty of conversations about it in Wiki.) The only question here is whether there is sufficient creativity in the content for Crown copyright to apply. I am inclined to doubt it, but as I said I've asked our attorney. Pending his answer, further discussion of the copyright question seems unnecessary, unless he tells us to settle it in house. If he says it is uncreative, there is no concern. If he says it is protected expression, it will be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mike has kindly offered quick response; copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. It's certainly complicated, but thanks for obtaining such clear and swift advice. — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is no consensus to delete. Copyright concern is inchoate at best.--Milowent (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource - I struck my comment after Moonriddengirl's comment. There are doubts as to the status of such content and for the limited value of the content I don't under the circumstances support Keeping it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks. — Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I also think that under the circumstances and the no consensus that is present that as there is no hurry and relisting to get wider community comment would be a fair request. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't hurt.--Milowent (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks."

It looks pretty verbatim to me, as you say...it is already online...to me this content in an external link, through wikisource or see also or wherever but our hosting it verbatim here when it is already hosted and when there are issues with copyright is not part of the remit ot the project. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "issues with copyright". Moonriddengirl consulted an authoritative source and reported above (20:19, 21 June 2010) that "copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors." — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; I don't see any major problems - organised, factual, and no doubt useful to those who study such things. I note the copyright issues; however, facts cannot be copyrighted, of course, only creative writing. TerriersFan (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTREPOSITORY It's a direct copy of material available elsewhere on the net, thus it should be at most on Wikisource per the guidelines.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Re NOTDIR: none of the seven cases listed there seem to apply; the information is lengthy but specific not indiscriminate. Conversely, the articles do not contradict anything at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists.

  Re NOTREPOSITORY: none of the four cases apply. The articles are not "original, unmodified wording", they comprise the relevant facts rearranged and reformatted with wikilinks, which is what makes them useful as articles on enwiki, and would make them ineligible for Wikisource.

  — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep -- Many consistutency articles are weak on the description of the boundaries. Information on the local govenrment wards of which each consists is useful and should be added to those articles. However, I would be happier if the constituencies were grouped by District Council, so that it was clear which council the ward elected a councillor for. WP has many list articles, and this is just another. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  One option would be to reformat the lists into a sortable table, so that readers can choose to view the list either in constituency order or in local authority order. This could also allow areas to be grouped by county or ceremonial county. — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting idea. The main list is 160kb long. Would sorting be practical, or might it take ages? I don't think there should be two copies of the info as this will be difficult to maintain. How about transcluding each of the sub-lists into the main list? Qwfp (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've had a go, at User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. See note below for some initial thoughts. — Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The only problem I can see is that come Local Authorities are covered by more than one constituency, so the reader wouldn't get a list by Local Authority. 07bargem (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Delete, useful information and a valid list, unfortunately the crown copyright requirements are incompatible with our licensing, which allows the work to be further altered. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  Wikimedia's chief lawyer has advised that copyright is not a problem in this case (via Moonriddengirl, above). Sorry for the emphasis, but this seems to be repeatedly being overlooked. So can we please consider this matter on its own merits?

  — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, he has. I trust that whatever admin closes this will take that into account when weighing "delete for licensing issue" arguments. There is insufficient creativity in these lists for copyright to convey under the U.S. law that governs us. (Closing admin: if you want more details about my e-mails with Mike, please feel free to e-mail me.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, Keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Transwiki or Delete. This is essentially directory information which should have a home somewhere but not on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've created a prototype of an alternative layout using sortable wikitables: User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. It's a hefty 500KB page, but that includes all four parts of the UK so could be split.
The list includes official ward codes to distinguish between areas of the same name where ward boundaries have changed.
As this is only a prototype, I've not included county or review area details. Also, the constituencies are listed in the order published and would need re-sorting so that the default ordering makes more sense without needing to click the header first.
— Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two factors to consider here. The first is the status of Crown Copyright on Wikipedia (a matter on which, I've said several times, Wikipedia needs clear guidelines that it doesn't currently have). I'm pleased to see from Mike Godwin's remarks above that concerns about copyright may safely be disregarded in this particular case and we need only consider the benefits to the encyclopaedia.

  The second factor is whether this is an indiscriminate collection of information. My position is that it isn't. The matter is clearly explained in the first pillar:- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia. It's also a gazetteer, and gazetteers need content that organises material for navigation. So for example, paper gazetteer would have a contents and an index page. Wikipedia lacks those but we have categories, lists and navigational templates that ought to serve their function instead. The rule that governs these is WP:CLN. And over and above the considerations of WP:CLN, there's a secondary factor: this material also supports and clarifies the UK's political structure. In short, I can see a variety of reasons why this material is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a highly focused and relevant one and I'd expect to find decent coverage of this on Wikipedia. Richardguk's version looks suitable for the moment, though in a perfect world we'd have a clickable interactive map.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 28 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton Anglican College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)

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

Delete - The page is about a small unnotable country school whose been in the newspaper once for a regional award. To top it off, the "Nominated Moderator" from the school is threatening legal action and constantly vandalising the page to remove negative comments about the school. The page itself is poorly written and a stub that's seen no desire to be expanded upon in the last 3 years except by the "Nominated Moderator" who continually replaces the entire contents of the page with the school's prospectus, turning it into an advert. - Count23 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page should be deleted as it is continually vandalised by an individual who inserts irrelevant negative comments about the school. I would like to free up this individuals time to focus on meaningful pursuits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.8 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This comment is posted from the IP address that is known to be the "nominated moderator" from the school. Whose vandalism includes exactly what was mentioned above by Count23 on no less then 15 previous edits. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Possible Merge The school is rather insignificant in terms of even local education in Australia. Not notable at all as mentioned above. In regards to the anonymous IP submission here, it should be noted that this is one of several IP addresses from the school who are constantly whitewashing the page and replacing it with copyright information that was copy+pasted from the school's own website. An admin should look into blocking these IP ranges from making submissions on wikipedia because of actions which contradict WP:CENSOR . - 121.44.242.219 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously significant enough, for you to have attended it and to have an obsession with it. We support deletion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.8 (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:NPA, do not attack the user submitting the content, attack the content directly. Personal attacks aren't tolerated on wikipedia and you may be blocked if it continues. While you, as a representative of the college may support deleting this page, you need to have a reason that is supported by Wikipedia's deletion policy. The comments you have made indicate you wish the page deleted simply because it portrays you in a negative light, this is more likely to result in the page remaining and simply being locked to prevent you from editing it. - Count23 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also, as the anonymous user suggested, re-read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not a place where you can simply hide the sins of the past. - Count23 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this page. If there is such angst over what should be on it and not, then it is not serving anyone's purposes. It is just a place for a local dispute and our community does not need that. Delete away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward John 2560 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sole reference lead to a page not found. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the established precedent of keeping verifiable secondary schools. This gets the same sorts and quantity of Google and Google news hits as almost all other such schools; if there are problems with the editing of the article, they can be dealt with through protection, blocks, or whatever other means may be appropriate. Deor (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Assuming content can be verified. High schools are considered inherently notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This place was extensively covered by Architecture Australia: Urbanity in the Suburbs. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. Secondary schools are generally notable. It's odd that I can't access the website for this school, but it is mentioned in a few references and Colonel Warden's reference (and a few others if you Google it) serves to satisfy WP:V. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pdcook - high schools are almost always kept, especially when they can be verified by good sources. See also my standards, for which this school meets 7 out of 9 factors. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is kept, someone is going to need to flag this for cleanup by the wikischools project because it's been just a badly written article for over 3 years. It will also need regular checks to ensure that vandals or the "Nominated Moderator" are not constantly trying to whitewash it. - 121.44.129.73 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - contains a high school with independent coverage. Sources available to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2010 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NIILM School of Business (NSB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article seems to be advertising the school. While it *seems* notable, I couldn't even access the websites given because all the web alerts/anti-viruses get set off from detected malware. Dengero (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyvio and pure spam. Abductive (reasoning) 08:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Assume good faith as to the website contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.92.157 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC) — 32.172.92.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing at several AFD's. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I have removed the obvious copyvio (while a lot of the rest looks like a copyvio, I couldn't locate the source). This still appears like it is an advert — but this is not a reason to delete. The article needs work to make it encyclopedic, but again, that is not a reason to delete. The ratings linked to at Business India (whose criteria for inclusion states "The survey is generally restricted to institutions approved by AICTE or recognized by the UGC." (see http://www.bibschoolsurvey.com/FAQ.htm), and this institution is recognised by UGC — see below), Competition Success Review, and the Dalal Street Investment Journal would seem to indicate notability. Secondary Schools, Colleges and Universities are generally counted as notable, as long as their existence can be proven (which it can by the above links). Accreditation is also useful (although some unaccredited institutes may be notable), and this page at their website says:

  NSB-NIILM School of Business is having Educational Accreditation with the following UGC recognized Universities:

  1. NSB-NIILM School of Business (Centre Code No. 1148) is an authorized centre of "Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hissar" UGC Recognized, HRD Ministry approved and "A" Grade NAAC Accredited for running MBA course in July Batches.
  2. NSB - NIILM School of Business (Centre Code No. 2269) is an authorized centre of "Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak" UGC Recognized, HRD Ministry approved and "B++" Grade NAAC Accredited for running MBA Course in Jan Batches.

On the whole, I think there is enough evidence to show that this institution meets the criteria for inclusion, even if the article needs a major revamp -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-tracked question, did your computer present you with multiple malware warnings when you accessed their site? Dengero (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - despite up-to-date anti virus protection. I see that Google shows it has having problems (see here): "Of the 14 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-05-26, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-05-25." It might be that I did not visit any problematic pages. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely Weak Keep I did a severe edit to remove several unverifiable claims and blatant copyvios as well as uninformative sentences with several adjectives. Verifiable, borderline notable - weak keep? prashanthns (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The article creator has added some email addresses. I don't think they understand the rules. Abductive (reasoning) 07:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As said below, a newcomer. I have removed such information and cleaned the article and left him a note on his talk page. prashanthns (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the information the article creator added was purely promotional (Well, he's only a newcomer anyway, so we'll let him off for that). I think this article should be kept. It is a school article, and a lot of schools are usually kept on the encyclopedia. Minimac (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to a proper article being written by someone else. Author clearly has a COI. Article is too spammy. Incidentally Google reports: This site may harm your computer. so the link to their site should be deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Content can easily be edited or stubbed. Accredited universities are automatically kept.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a degree awarding institution. Sources are available from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (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 deleted (CSD A7) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 00:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pouyan Mokhtarani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I nominated this for speedy deletion for not indicating any notability, but the article creator removed the tag. The article does not indicate how the subject would even vaguely pass WP:GNG and is entirely promotional in tone and content. There are clear COI issues as the article and account appear to be the same person and the creators user page effectively admits this. Fenix down (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2010 (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. Alexf^(talk) 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NTI Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The NewTech Infosystems Inc. article already exists, so I think this article could be deleted under CSD A10 (or redirected there). P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2010 (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 SIGCHI. per WP:CLUB NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable sub branch of a professional body. No evidence of the significant, independent coverage required to show how WP:GNG is met Nuttah (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge to parent article SIGCHI, per WP:CLUB: " Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to SIGCHI. Little notability as an independent branch, but the body itself is notable and this information should be retained. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 27 June 2010 (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 closed as moot, article deleted by User:Orangemike, apparently after page blanking. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomlion Ghana Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I initially suggested that this article be G11'd, but creator removed tag. Article creator also removed blatant G11 elements (address, email). However, the article is still essentially a promotional piece for a company that appears to be utterly unreferenced and contains nothing within it to suggest that it would pass WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep- the nominator withdrew the nomination with no arguments for deletion (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet any aspect of WP:FILMNOT. One cited review is not suitably notable. Article isrepeatedly being re-edited into peacock terms. At least one major contributor to the article has a major COI. Etrigan (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom for now. On consideration this one may be better treated as a long game, seeing if it remains notable. Etrigan (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, if it is notable now, it is notable forever. --Cyclopia^talk 12:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. I also thing the bar for notability is being set way too low here, esp given the examples on WP:FILMNOT - I think in particular significant coverage is kinda being forgotten about. Etrigan (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. : I've also seen a lot of things that violate policies and guidelines, but this doesn't make them less wrong (The only exception I can think is that sources become unavailable in the future and therefore the article becomes suddenly unverifiable). --Cyclopia^talk 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking about two different things - yes, if something is notable it's always notable, but that's a different situation from editors deciding at some point in the future that the originally-deciding group were wrong in their assessment of an article. There's no policy against that happening. Etrigan (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, agree with that. --Cyclopia^talk 23:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : It has two reviews now, so it somehow passes WP:GNG. Here an Italian article with a full paragraph on the documentary. COI concerns are irrelevant when deciding deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree that there are major COI and peacock issues (not to mention major cleanup work to be done), but it does meet WP:GNG as this film has received third party coverage. Jminthorne (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per WP:NOTFILM No. 1.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2010 (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 incubate. In reaching this determination, I've disregarded all procedural arguments, which are not very helpful in the particular posture of this AfD. There's more than enough evidence that the subject is verifiable, but, despite the fervent arguments to the contrary, no actual evidence of notability has been presented in this AfD. It may well be that they are in printed sources in Danish - and thus difficult to locate - but it's been three weeks, counting the last AfD, and nothing has come forward, so I accord less weight to those arguments. Taking into account the totality of circumstances - especially that, as Black Kite put it, it seems there should be sources - I think incubation is the best way forward here. T. Canens (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crash (1984 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Television series which does not meet WP:N. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm renominating because the last AFD was closed due to the beliefs of some editors that significant coverage exists but (considering WP:NRVE), they seem to have been mistaken. Claritas § 12:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per notability is not temporary. If this programme was notable enough to have a TV series in Denmark in the 80s, it was notable. If that show was to debut today, no doubt there would be lots of web sources available. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NRVE, you need to find sources to verify the claim that it's got significant coverage. I don't see any. Claritas § 14:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- THIS CLOSED AS A KEEP in FIRST AFD YESTERDAY - give it a chance people, sheeeeeesh.--Milowent (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing user said: "No prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found". Verifiable evidence of notability is requested. Claritas § 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"quick" doesn't mean one day. I request that you withdrawn the nomination for 14 days, then you can always renom.--Milowent (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources establishing notability, and none were found during previous AfD. Verbal chat 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't oppose userfication to BarkingFish below either, who feels he may be able to source it. Verbal chat 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no sources uncovered. Every link in the articles that are in the foreign-language Wikipedias has gone dead as well. There's just not enough material to build an article out of.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Prior afd closed as keep yesterday; "quick renomination" is not "immediate renomination." There's no pressing reason to rush this. There doesn't appear to be any doubt that the program existed, and no reason to believe that it didn't receive nontrivial print coverage on its original broadcast. There's so much work that needs to be done here (eg, BLP cleanup) that demanding that articles like this be made highest priority seems abusive at best, and there are rational people who'd call it downright foolheaded. I would also note that the indignant nominator has recently created a batch of unsourced articles like Muhsin ibn Qaid, Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott, Buluggin ibn Muhammad, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano, andKar-Mulla, making me wonder why the animus towards this one? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the policies and guidelines, and the ANI discussion about this. Your "keep" rationale isn't valid and likely to be ignored. Best, Verbal chat 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's no policy requiring immediate deletion of articles with sourcing issues, and good reason to allow time for articles to develop. Maybe you could cite something relevant, or your objection isn't valid and is likely to be ignored.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano is sourced, the early Islamic monarchs aren't sourced simply because the content was split from another unreferenced page, as was Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott. Every single other article I've created (there's a list on my userpage, which I presume you've been using) is well sourced. All unsourced would be immediately sourceable if someone challenged their notability, however, unlike Crash. Claritas § 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per same reason as last one, "appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources at all, not even in its country of origin, failing WP:N". Existing does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because a renomination less than 24hrs after a 'keep' is plain rude and riven with agenda. As other have mentioned, why not give it a fortnight? --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a television series that aired in three countries, and also has an associated book, is notable. I'm quite sure there are reviews of it, and articles about it, just (1) they'll likely be in Danish, Norwegian, and/or Swedish, so not as accessible in English libraries as some, and (2) they'll have been published in 1984/5, so are not necessarily online. This is one of the times when WP:NRVE needs "to be treated with common sense" (which is also a quote from WP:N, for the I-require-chapter-and-verse crowd). --GRuban (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any policy or guideline that supports your keep rationale (I'm genuinely interested if there is). It only lasted one series, and despite being in screened in three countries and having a book (which isn't uncommon) there seems to be a paucity of WP:RS that can confirm anything about this program, even on the other language wikis. Verbal chat 15:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - was the show popular? If yes, then it can be notable. However, not all popular shows can be notable. This show may be little known. The article can be improved. Even thought there may not be a lot of reliable sources. Let's give it another shot. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or incubate. I'll restate here what I already mentioned on WP:ANI. I'd like to apologize for not making myself more clear in the first AFD. I close a lot of AFDs with little participation as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" per WP:NPASR. That was not what I intended to do when closing the first debate. It had been relisted once, had only one delete !vote aside from the nom and had enough participation to make a call. It was obvious that the call was not going to be delete. (well, perhaps an admin could have deleted it under "admin's discression" and watched as it got overturned at DRV) I recognized that most of the keep !votes were rather weak and the nominator's concerns weren't refuted but I also agreed with the last 2 keep !voters about the possibility of there being sources in Danish and/or offline. That's why I closed it like I did. By "quick" I meant "weeks" instead of "months" as is the normal custom for keep closes. I should have been more clear about that as "speedy renomination" has a clear definition but there's no mention in any policy, guideline, or essay of what "quick renomination" means. Furthermore, the article is not a BLP so there is no harm (and yes I know about WP:NOHARM) in allowing the article to stick around for a while to give those who want to keep it a shot at finding sources. However, if the consensus here turns out to be "delete" then incubation should be considered as an option. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per many of the above arguments. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If it takes a week or two, I'll find something to source this, be it on the web or in print media. One way or another, it's gonna get sourced if it kills me, and that is a distinct possibility :D BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you find RS then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Would you like it userfied so you can work on it? I'd support that. Verbal chat 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely, Verbal! If you can userfy it, I guarantee I'll source it. I agree with WP:NOHARM though, and I don't see why some people aren't able to give others a chance to find sources. If it can be userfied, please apply it to my userspace, and I'll refer it through some of my contacts at DR (Danmarks Radio) and see if there is anything printed from their TV guides or in independant media to source and verify it as notable. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As nominator, I'd support userfication too until reliable sources can be found. It means we won't have to take this to AFD again, conversely, if no reliable sources are found. Claritas § 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)If the closing admin decides to delete (which seems likely, imo) then they will probably see this and move it to your userspace directly. If not, then simply ask them to userfy it. I don't think there'd be any problem with that. I don't think I should move it as I'm involved. Best, Verbal chat
• Keep - In Wikipedia:Notability (films) one of the inclusionary criteria to consider, and which applies here, is: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." The Transhumanist 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a flim, so that guideline presumably doesn't apply. Claritas § 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly doesn't apply. It is normal for TV shows of this type to be so distributed, and costs to be spread. However, if you have a WP:RS which shows it is "notable for something more than merely having been produced" then that would be great, please tell us. Verbal chat 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This AfD was opened the day after the previous AfD closed as Keep. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• SpeedyKeep - an immediate renomination is completely disruptive and uncalled for. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate renomination was in good faith and not disruptive, due to a misunderstanding of the closer's reference to "quick renomination" on my behalf. See [6] for an ANI thread concerning a short-lived closure which contains more discussion on the issue. 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I've amended to keep. One day is still too short for a renomination. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and userfy. I have searched but not been able to find references asserting notability. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted this for one more week. This will have given the article over three weeks to be sourced. It looks as though it should be sourceable, even if not in English language sources - but as yet, none have been provided. The one existing source does not refer to the program itself. If this reaches 28 June without sourcing being provided, I can see no reason why the closing admin should not close as delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Ridiculous that so many people are asserting "I searched and couldn't find anything" when sources will almost certainly be Danish and 25 years old. Wikipedia has a huge bias towards online sources as it is, no reason to make it worse. One good editor has promised to find sources for what seems to be a prima facie notable topic, so I don't see how it serves Wikipedia's purpose to delete this for a week or two until that happens.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After this amount of time, "surely sources exist" is unpersuasive, given that they are not in the article. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep per Ron Ritzman. There is the one book and I don't see the issue with waiting a bit to see what can be found in paper-land. Igoring the POINTY nature of the nomination, the lack of sourcing at this point is troubling, but WP:IAR exists for a reason... Hobit (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing pointy about this nomination, and the book is the book of the show, it isn't a review of the program or show notability at all. The lack of sources and valid keep rationales mean this article will be userfied/deleted unless RS is added soon. Verbal chat 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the AfD immediately after the last to be pointy. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances around the renomination were my misunderstanding of Ron Ritzman's "quick renomination" as equivalent to "speedy renomination". Assume good faith. I didn't withdraw my nomination because I still believe there is a very strong case to delete this unless someone can produce a reliable source. Claritas § 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While this may be unpopular with some inclusionists, I don't see that the article meets WP:V. I've done a 30 year Lexis-Nexis search, including non-English sources, and I cannot find a single reference to the exact title. All procedural nonsense aside, I don't see anything to substantiate this as a real TV series. Userification and a pursuit of offline sources seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well [7] would seem to address WP:V worries if I'm reading everything correctly (in Dutch I think). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Danish, not surprisingly, and I don't have any doubts about the existence of the show, but since the link is from Danmarks Radio, who made the show in the first place, it's a primary source. We still need those reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No disagreement, but saying that WP:V is met (in response to Jclemens). Hobit (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The series exists [8] and it was aired on television [9]. It is an early work for Danish award winning actor Peter Steen. He won best supporting actor at the Bodil Awards and the Robert Awards in 2004. Both are major film awards in Denmark. The series has a page on each of the Scandanavian language Wikipedias that the show aired in. This article is handicapped by being about a Danish television programme on an English language website and being from an era before the internet. Movementarian (Talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sources establish notability of the subject of this article? Verbal chat 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dammit Verbal. I knew you'd be the first one to call me out on my flimsy argument. I got nothing, but I don't speak Danish. This article was never given a chance, it was simply nominated for deletion. WP:N suggests that articles not satisfying the notability guideline be tagged with ((notability)). We have an editor that has stated he will be actively researching for this article, give it some time to develop. If it hasn't been touched in a few weeks, then renominate it and I'll be there to argue for deletion. Movementarian (Talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I aim to please ;) See the note at the top of the AfD. I would support userfication. Verbal chat 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am having a problem letting this one go. Television series that were broadcast nationally or internationally are generally notable. We can't find sources at the moment because of the dual handicap this article faces. Common sense tells me that if the series exists (which we can establish) and that it was broadcast internationally (which this one was), it is notable despite the lack of references. I think WP:IAR might be applicable here. Movementarian (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my previous arguments. --Bensin (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [10]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 20:11, 26 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Bakan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Be in Nepean (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Be in Nepean (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant numbers of GScholar and GBook hits, including high cite numbers on the scholar site. Refs need to be added, but apparently meets WP:PROF. GregJackP (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GregJackP above. Seems to have published a respectable body of work, which seems more than enough for WP:PROF. --Cyclopia^talk 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Full professor at a research university with a host of publications that in turn have been cited widely (see this GScholar search). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:15, 22 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Reason Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, by the looks of it she had a long and valued career, and I'm sure she was a lovely person, but the article reads like an obit rather than an encyclopedia article. Also, it doesn't look like she'd meet either the WP:MUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:40, 27 June 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adis Obad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This guy does not meet notability criteria. No English language sources refer to him. No reliable source in any language say anything about him as a person; he is only marginally mentioned as a football player. That's why the article consists of an infobox and one sentence. Per WP:ATHLETE, this article shouldn't exist. The article is unreferenced, even though it is a biography of a living person. Curiously enough, he lives about ten metres away from me and I was shocked when I saw an article about him on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has played for his national team[11] and in the UEFA Cup[12], both levels that are generally accepted to confer notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is notable as a football player, appearing twice in FIFA "A" internationals and playing three seasons in the fully-pro German second division. I've added a few references that show the article passes WP:ATHLETE, and I suspect it will pass WP:GNG with a little work. Jogurney (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With appearances in the 2. Bundesliga and for his country, this player very clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obvious notability that a quick Google search (or a pop down the road to chat with the guy!) would have shown. GiantSnowman 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per ATHLETE, played 2.Bundesliga and a couple of international appearances, referenced. note: this suggests he only played 45 (9) for Oberhausen, not the 108 (23) per article. --ClubOranje^T 09:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think transfermarkt.de is a reliable source. Kicker.de and fussballdaten.de support the 108 (23) figures. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2010 (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.