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. More sources emerged as the discussion progressed, and a consensus to keep emerged. The article still is in a state flux, however, and will need developement. Still, true of many articles here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Schultz[edit]

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

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

Contested prod. Subject notable for only one event as per WP:BIO1E. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, per WP:CHANCE. The article is less than 24 hours old. YardsGreen (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please address the criteria in question, WP:BIO1E. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO1E, by my reading, refers to the case where there is an article about an event and a separate article about a person who participated in that event, and who also is not notable for any other reason. To my knowledge, there is no article about this event, and the real issue is whether this person and event are notable at all. (On general notability, see my comment below.) YardsGreen (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteUpmerge/redirect (per AustralianRupert below) - other than an unsourced photo and a few discussion forums I cannot find much about Schultz either on the web, Google books or Scholar. As such it would appear that the subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore is non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I couldn't find much either with a quick Google search. However, by its historical nature, the most reliable sources on this person may be offline. Since the article was PRODed within an hour of its creation, and nominated for AfD less than 24 hours later, I think we're jumping the gun here. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. And, keeping in mind that most of the editors to this article so far are IPs, don't bite the newbies. YardsGreen (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came up with WP:DANNO to describe situations like this, too... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. WWII is rather heavily studied and something like this should show some hint of coverage through google book search. It doesn't. So I don't see that such coverage is likely available. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment German high command did not publish the truth about Josef Shultz's death and instead recorded him as being killed by the partisans. His brother later learned the truth from German Bundestag member Wilderich Freiherr Ostman von der Leye and recognized Schultz from photographs of the event. Emphasis added. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please add an inline citation for this to the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google Book Search is not the end-all-be-all of reliable sources. Especially when those sources may not be in English. There is good reason to think that reliable sources exist offline for this topic. Since that is the case, we should not immediately delete the article, especially since the primary editors involved are IPs, and may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies on sourcing and citations. YardsGreen (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - Fair enough. That's enough evidence for me that sources may exist that we should allow time for other editors to add references per the current tagging. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Sources are likely to be mainly offline and not in English. Article should be given a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - IMO this is a credibility issue for wikipedia. So far all the keeps have said is that there must be an offline source somewhere but they cannot find it. All articles must be verifiable and so far, despite us looking we cannot. This one smells like a legend to me and until it can be proven we shouldn't publish such things. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This source needs consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a poem about the alleged incident. I agree that the latent 'facts' seem to be supported by it but IMO its not a reliable source for our purposes. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In English sources his name has been anglicised to "Joseph". There are several sources including this and also this (on page 15) which seems to correspond with part of the version of events, but I don't think sources help overcome the WP:BIO1E issue. I think that the story, while perhaps apocryphal, has been used to symbolise the bravery of standing up against the group will when your conscience tells you otherwise. Where that leaves it in terms of an AfD, I have no idea. - ManicSpider (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further - Or perhaps not apocryphal? This is apparently the photo of him walking towards the other side... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicSpider (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more - there have been two very short documentaries made on Schultz. One was by Predrag Golubvic, Yugoslavia, 1973, 13 mins and the other was made in the 1950s. Honestly, I think this is sounding to me like a keep' but as I say, I'm not sure of the ins and outs of WP:BIO1E. - ManicSpider (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is completly unsourced (as I said above) and of the two other sources you linked above one is a collection of 'Funeral Homilies' and the other seems to be a novel ('Shadow'). Again neither are reliable sources IMO. The question that needs to be answered is "is the subject notable"? Currently there seems to be an assumption that he must be because of the act that he is said to have committed. Yet as far as I can tell the subject was not awarded a major military decoration as a result (which I accept the Germans would have been unlikely to have done at any rate - but maybe the Serbians did after the war), nor does there seem to be significant coverage of him beyond questionable internet forums, books of poetry and non-fiction. Perhaps this guy existed and did what he did, but so far we can't verify that. Even if he did though that doesn't make him automatically notable, no matter how much his actions might seem worthy. For me no sources = not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect as per discussion below Keep - I'm sorry if I was unclear, I was typing as I researched. Firstly, the first two sources I mentioned were just the first two I found under the search for the anglicised version of the name - you're right, the Shadow one is bad and I wouldn't use it - but there are plenty more including this and this from from the Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (which mentions another source book) . Secondly, there are plenty of sources for Schultz - in fact, the documentary made on his life is recommended in several places as a teaching resource. There are sources to prove notability. Whether I can prove he was a living person is a different matter, but that doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. Fictional characters have articles as well. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could suggest renaming the article 'The death of Josef Schultz' if the problem is the biographical aspect? Because really it is his death that has been notable, not his life. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are more promising but they are very limited. As such I have some questions and comments:

• Re: "Jouney to the White Rose in Germany" by Ruth Bernadette Melon. Specifically what is this? Is it a work of fiction or non-fiction? Its not immediately clear to me (my internet is very slow so Google books isn't always functional to me). At anyrate it hardly seems like an academic reference so I'm not sure this is reliable.
• Re: Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies website. This seems to be a very short synopsis of the video documentary ("Joseph Schultz" 1973 by Predrag Golobovic). But I think this might qualify as a reliable source.
• Re: "The Holocaust: an annotated bibliography and resource guide" by David M. Szonyi. This is also a very short synopsis of the documentary and claims that it is based on a true event. IMO it is also a reliable source.

As such is this "significant independent coverage"? A short 13 minute documentary from 1973 and two synopsis of that video. I'm not convinced but at the very least they could be used to flesh out some of the missing details in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge/redirect: I'm not sure that there is enough notability for a biographical article, but the Ruth Melon book Journey to the White Rose in Germany listed by ManicSpider seems like a reliable source. Thus, I would support adding a brief mention of the incident in a parent article (maybe German resistance perhaps) but I don't believe that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to support an individual article. Of course, any merge would need to be done in a manner so as to not breech WP:UNDUE. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this could be a workable solution. Anotherclown (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, having looked at the Melon source again, I am also confused by it. Is it a novel? If so, I believe that Anotherclown would be correct and it couldn't be used as a source for a biographical article. Nevertheless, I still think that a merge/redirect is probably the best solution, given that there doesn't appear (to me, at least) that there is "significant coverage" in reliable sources as per WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging into "Resistance in the Army 1938–42" in German resistance would be appropriate. As a sidenote, I'm fascinated by the weird sourcing for this, and plan to go to the National Library to see if they have any better information - ManicSpider (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) (Yay for teamwork!) [reply]

• Comment This photo is well known. I have it seen several times before, and it is often used to illustrate acts of resistance, etc. But this is the first time I hear of Josef Schultz, generally captions say only "German soldier dropping his gun to stand besides Yugoslav partisans" or suchlike. Compare with Sharbat Gula and Phan Thi Kim Phuc. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the addition of these images. I have seen no reliable source which proves that they are of the subject (Josef Schultz). If such a source exists please add it to the article as well. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the images do not seem adequately sourced. Currently it says "Taken by a German soldier present at the event". Ok, they probably were taken by a German soldier at the event, but from where did the uploader obtain them? E.g. were they scanned from a book or taken from a website? That is what needs to be included in the source field. Currently there is no proof that they relate to the subject of the article, and without proper attribution I think they should be removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the problem [1], [2]. Sorry, that was sloppy of me. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are internet forums and as such neither of these sources are reliable IMO.Anotherclown (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is long dead, so this is not a WP:BLP issue at all. The event seems notable and I believe that multiple sources could be found--the story being so exceptional. Jehochman ^Talk 05:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it seem notable? Anotherclown (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why attempt to delete something 41 minutes after its creation? Its obviously a notable event. There is now a link to a documentary about this. And they erected a monument to the guy, he going down in the history books. Dream Focus 06:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ILIKEIT? Regardless of when it was nominated to this point no one has been able to find "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Can you? Anotherclown (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like sources could be found, but they are probably dead-tree media in libraries, and might be in foreign languages since this guy was from somewhere in Eastern Europe. IT is a bit hasty to expect all those sources to be found with an hour of starting the article, or even within the one week that this AfD will run. Already we see editors coming forward with a few sources and leads to possibly more. That should be enough to keep the article around for now. Jehochman ^Talk 07:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. So far all we have is a bunch of non-fiction, several collections of poems and homilies, and internet forums and discussions. None of these are reliable sources. The only things approaching reliable sources located so far is a 13 minute documentary from 1973 and two internet summaries of that documentary. This is hardly "significant independent coverage" under the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clearly notable, but let's work on developing the article and getting authoritative references. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a policy? "Its clearly notable" has been used as an argument to keep this a number of times, so again I ask why. Because you think it is worthy? Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• non-fiction = not-fiction, which means truth. If you have a collection of truth, its fine. The only policy is WP:Verify and the documentary proves this exist. Do you think an event like this, notable enough to have a monument erected and a documentary made for it, wouldn't get newspaper coverage? Dream Focus 07:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I meant fiction of course, apologies (therefore not the truth). I was distracted by the cricket. Anyway where is the reference to prove there is a monument? Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google translator is having problems with this. We need to find someone who speaks the language to look at that community's official website at http://www.lokve-sanmihai.rs/ They should list all monuments and history they have. Can even email one of them and ask them to check a local map. Dream Focus 08:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say my reading of the White Rose book is that it was a travelogue written by a history teacher about her trip. Just on the fiction/non-fiction thing. - ManicSpider (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Google Books source ("Serbien ist judenfrei": militärische Besatzungspolitik und Judenvernichtung by Walter Manoschek, footnote on p. 189) that cites evidence that this is a legend, Schulz (spelled thus) having died from wounds the day before. I haven't checked further yet. The coverage would seem to indicate that the legend is notable. --Boson (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I have included this in the lead, but it needs to be covered in the article's body, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are verifiable sources that this story exists and meets the WP:GNG. Whether it is true or not may be another matter, and the article should be modified to only present what can be verified as fact. This will be a challenge to keep balanced unless more research makes the truth readily verifiable, but deletion is not the solution here. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Film reviews of the documentary from the seventies: [3] [4] [5] [6] ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per comment of VQuakr. "there are verifiable sources that this story exists and meets the WP:GNG. Whether it is true or not may be another matter."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per VQuakr and Antidiskiriminator. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my edits to the article [7], and additional online sources I found during the research like this and this one, which imho sufficiently establish that while there is no fame and no abundancy of high quality sources involved, the man and the movie meet wikipedia's notability criteria. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• user:Antidiskriminator has been diligent and provided me with the following sources [8] (sr), [9] (sr), [10] (de), [11](sr), [12] (sr), (google translations [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) that could help with the ((accuracy)) tag. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient notability established. I did not find this because it was listed by the Article Rescue Squadron--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Mystery[edit]

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

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

Notability tag has been up since March 2009, I have searched for notable mentions and have not found any

• Speedy Delete doesn't even claim notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:NBAND. Novice7 | Talk 09:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As normal, if deleted material is required for later article creation it can be restored for attribution purposes. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanism (life stance)[edit]

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

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

This is described as an ideology or worldview (or "life-stance", an apparent neologism associated with the worldview) allegedly associated with a great number of organizations. The article's core problem is that it does not cite any substantial coverage of the subject "humanism as a life stance" in reliable (preferably academic) sources; instead all sources are associated with the organizations claimed to be related to the topic. Because of the genericness of the label "humanism", any relevant sources are not easily found via Google. This lack of sources means

• that there is no basis for a neutral, verifiable article,
• that the notability of the subject is indeterminable;
• that we can't disprove the contention that this whole article is original research by synthesis about a topic that does not exist as such (or is not distinguished from secular humanism) in the view of reliable sources.

The article should therefore be deleted unless, per WP:BURDEN, reliable independent academic sources which describe this topic as a whole are provided.  Sandstein  23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Humanism, a much better sourced article of which this article seems to be a WP:CFORK. -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say we should do this, but remove "Renaissance Humanism", simply putting it as a secondary article. Cosman246 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no clear difference between the topic of "humanism as a life stance" and "humanism" in general, especially if "life stance" is merely code for a worldview. YardsGreen (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree there's not a lot of difference, by why can't we merge one into the other, instead of deleting the information here? -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because much of it is unsourced or redundant to what is already at Secular humanism. That article, not the overall Humanism article, should be the merge target if a merger is decided on.  Sandstein  10:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Humanism article contains a section that seems to have much of the relevant information in a summarized form. If you think there is more in the life stance article that should be kept, I'd support merging the article, although I can't say whether Humanism or Secular Humanism is the more appropriate merge target. YardsGreen (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a weak consensus to keep, although there a strong merge strain as well; this close should not be construed as prohibiting a merge if someone is inclined. There is however, no consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otago University Debating Society[edit]

Otago University Debating Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

not all university debating societies are notable. the first 3 references merely confirm it's the university's oldest society. that in itself does not make it notable. most of the coverage is local. gnews merely confirms that it holds meetings. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment editors should read the commentary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otago University Debating Society to come to a considered decision, Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep or merge into a new combined page for Clubs and societies of the University of Otago. WWhih is exactly what I said last time - things haven't changed to make this any more or less notable since then. The society is still the oldest university society in the entire country (not just in Otago), which does make it notable, and former members include many of the country's movers and shakers (many years ago, when I attended a couple of their meetings, the society's president was Michael Laws, for instance). Grutness...wha? 08:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a Merge to a combined page for Clubs and societies of the University of Otago is the best option. I don't see anywhere that the debating society is the most prominent or even a leading student organization at the University of Otago, unless I am mistaken. The "student association" or "debate club" is not always the leading organization at a college. For example, the admissions ambassadors at my alma mater was a small and minor club, but is the leading and most socially prominent student organization at the college where I teach. At many other colleges, fraternities, sororities, and Rotaracts are the most important clubs. We need proof, in other words, that the debate club at Otago is a punctilio of social cache′ or academic honors there. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, New Zealand universities do not have fraternities or sororities; neither do they generally have rotaract or any similar organisations. I don't think that OUDS would necessarily qualify as the most prominent organisation among students at OU, but historically it is the most notable, the Otago University Students' Association having developed out of it in 1890. Grutness...wha? 21:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked over some of the sources online. The debating Society appears to have been quite the famous group 100-120 years ago. Once notable, always so. I'm changing to a keep. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reference better. A simple Google search here has multiple newspaper articles on the society starting in 1894. Performing a Google search is the minimum to do before commenting in a debate, something you probably learn as a member of the Otago University Debating Society. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my nomination contained a google news search. the coverage does not qualify as indepth. it merely confirms the society existed in 1894. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to University of Otago#Student life. The organization certainly deserves to be mentioned in the University article because of its longevity, but the independent reliable sources are just not there to justify a free-standing article. Yes, local newspapers from the 1890s are found which mention it, but in those days it didn't take much to get into the papers. More significant is that a search of Google News for the last 50 years [18] finds absolutely nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added some more detail (and four more references^{00:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)}) about notability in the lead – sorry about the late notice but I've only just discovered the scanned 19th century newspapers at http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz. I'm still convinced that debating was (briefly) an important part of the development of NZ self-government in the late nineteenth century, which is why it was one-third of the New Zealand University Games and why kiwis still point to Ernest Rutherford's debating successes at Canterbury before he became a big crocodile at the Cavendish. The problem is we need more participation by NZ-based editors, which deleting this article is unlikely to encourage. - Pointillist (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in the Hunger Games trilogy. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Snow[edit]

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

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

Not notable and few reliable sources; it could easily be summarized in List of characters in the Hunger Games trilogy. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - into list above. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - not notable enough for its own article. Andrea (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Clar-Rosselló[edit]

Pedro Clar-Rosselló (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:Notability (sports) for tennis players - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, and not a WP noteworthy junior player Mayumashu (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above KnowIG (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that while the event may be notable, a person is not automatically conferred notability by winning the event. Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Anne Feeney[edit]

Kathryn Anne Feeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is winning the Rose of Tralee sufficient to satisfy WP:N? I don't think so and if so, this person is just not notable enough for an article. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a major award, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - important enough for international contestants and has been a media event since 1959. Much longer than the The Oprah Winfrey Show, for example.Red Hurley (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO 1 gnews hit does not cut it. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Rose of Tralee contest is notable but its winners are not automatically notable unless they go on the do other things as some have done. Feeney has not done so she fails notability guidelines. Calen11 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was as follows: This is a web page, so the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web)

Nicely, this was raised and debated.

1. On "multiple non-trivial published works "
   • This specifically excludes "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication." The sources provided late in this debate, Mental Floss and Mumbai Mirror, clearly fall into that category.
   • The other sources have all been, in the opinons of the members of this debate, found to be similarly poor.
2. On "a well-known and independent award," neither "pick of the day," nor "site of the day" are awards. It must be noted that this criterion is the subject of frequent debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web), and in most cases consensus there interprets "award" quite strictly.
3. On "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent," Rock's Backpages appears to lacks the editorial oversight.

I would be remiss in closing this to not make special mention of the comments by Opbeith. Yes, there are times when these debates verge on arbitrary. However everything is arbitrary. "What, 99 kmh is ok, but 102 kmh and I get a ticket?"

If, as is the rough consensus here, this article fails to conform to the guideline but really needs to be included in the encyclopedia, then the appropiate thing to do is to attempt to get the guideline improved.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songfacts[edit]

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

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

First AFD claimed that two personal websites were "reliable sources" and was closed as "keep" after only two !votes. As I pointed out in the last AFD, the only hits on Google News were "Songfacts said X about song Y" and nothing more, and the only hits on Google Books were along the same lines.

The sources currently in the article are somewhat better than what had been there before, but let's look at them:

• A barely two-paragraph, first-person review from Mental Floss. Reliable source, but trivial.
• A snippet from a segment on WGN radio that mentions it only in passing.
• An article in USA Weekend that I'll give benefit of the doubt.
• A solitary, short listing in Men's Journal in a totally arbitrary "100 best" list.
• A primary source.

The second AFD closed as "no consensus". There, the "keep"s consisted of:

• One user who added sources that were trivial to the point of irrelevance (Yahoo! pick of the week)
• An WP:ITSUSEFUL !vote
• One who cited a book with a one-sentence mention that literally amounted to "I just looked something up on Songfacts".
• One user who turned up a handful of articles whose mention of the site was limited to similar "lists of cool websites" and/or otherwise trivial coverage.

In short, I still see nothing that constitutes multiple non-trivial third party sources. The fact that it's been online for 12 years means nothing. The fact that they interview lots of artists means nothing. The fact that the site is useful means NOTHING. I remain completely unconvinced that it meets any criterion of WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I thought hard about this as I'm a big fan of songfacts, but I don't think it passes the established rules for notability. To quote WP:WEB, "Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted." Wickedjacob (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be a narrow dividing line at Wikipedia between encyclopaedic rigour and erratic autocracy. When an article shows evidence of "pragmatic notability" even if beneath the bar of Wikipedia criteria and there has been a reasonable amount of evidence of support for the article's retention, repeated and emphatic pursuit of deletion suggests a determination to force the issue - supporters of retention have to return to the issue and use up more time and effort or let the issue go by default, alternatively they simply don't notice that it's been revived. Wikipedia contributors do not have an infinite ability to participate in debates about deletion and constructive input. There comes a point where enforcement of Wikipedia criteria becomes a mechanism of haphazard damage rather than systematic improvement. "May be deleted" is not "Must be deleted". Opbeith (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All good points. I still don't think it meets notability as written, though. Exactly because there isn't infinite ability to debate, there are times where letter of the law must be allowed to do its job, which is to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel at every situation. If the policy is not working, the solution is to work toward a rewriting of the policy, not to eternally fight for articles that fail the community accepted policy. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, when people know how much of a bloodbath it is trying to argue the details of notability in reference to specific articles, who is going to waste life attempting to raise the general issue in the face of the bit-between-the-teeth determination to purge that's so often evident? Opbeith (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Just to be specific, the cumulative weight of references and recommendations by Bloomberg, Daily Mirror, USA Today accompanying other information is indicative of non-triviality however laconic individual references may be. Opbeith (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known website, mentioned and cited by reliable sources, as discussed in prior AfDs and quickly shown by Google News archives[19] and Google Books[20]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tell me which of those is non-trivial. All I'm seeing is "X said Y according to Songfacts.com". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Times, Bloomberg, the list goes on, just click on the link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the first two I saw. The Seattle Times mention is only one sentence, and Bloomberg only says "X said Y according to Songfacts.com". Tell me how that's non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Songfacts is cited by the likes of Bloomberg, that's not only a pretty strong case at RSN, but the many, many times its been cited in different media suggests notability as an information resource, independent of the "WEB" guideline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Previous two AFD's were from the same nom. Article is being used in an WP:RSN debate at present, also initiated by the nom. It would be disruptive to remove the site at this point. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the fact that people are questioning its reliability as a source relate in ANY way to us needing to keep it as an article?????? Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There used to be quite a bit more "meat" to this article, see this old version [21] Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • or "artificial meat flavored by-products" when you actually look at the content and "sources". Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast[22] from WHO-AM was pretty good. A 25-minute interview with the founder of the website. That's the kind of source that establishes notability. Though, it looks like that's already been restored along with some of the others. Thanks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: At first glance, I would have voted keep, but the examined sources are very brief and trivial. JacksOrion (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It passes WP:WEB, which states "Web-specific content may be notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"

It meets all 3 of the criteria, not just one:

1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The site was created by DJs and gets a lot of coverage in radio segments, which are hard to cite, but these segments on major news/talk stations demonstrate substantial coverage and notability:

• WHO-AM [23]
• WGN-AM [24]

I understand how the Men's Journal, Chicago Tribune, Howard Stern, NPR and many other numerous media mentions might be considered trivial, but these are not:

• Mental Floss [25]
• Mumbai Mirror [26]
• USA Weekend

2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

• In May, 2002, Yahoo! was the dominant search engine, and a Yahoo! Pick was a well-known and independent award from a major organization. [27]
• More recently, it was twice named "Site of the Day" by the Daily Mirror

3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

• Some of their content is syndicated on Rock's Backpages:

[28][29] Ndugu (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jennifer Hudson (album). (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketbook (song)[edit]

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

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

Redirect to Jennifer Hudson (album). Per WP:NSONGS this song is not notable as it did not chart. Before anyone claims that the song has sufficient independent coverage if you look, the only coverage comes from album reviews. There are no sources speaking of this song as an independent piece of work. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: While eleven sources are impressive, they are actually album reviews where the song in mentioned in one or two sentences. There is nothing here in the article worth merging into the album article. Aspects (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close - The nominator is requesting a redirect which does not require any deletion activity. AFD is not a place for redirect discussions. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:ATHLETE and WP:NFOOTBALL Mandsford 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manolis Moniakis[edit]

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

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

• Konstantinos Kritikos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I could find little information about this person on the internet except for birth date, gender, and other listing of statistics. Wikipedia should not reflect such a list of stats about a single person. The article also claims that he played in a notable team, but just because the team might be notable (and warrant an article about it) does not make this person notable. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I denied the speedy on these players not because they had played for a notable team but because they had played for a team that's in a fully professional league (Kritikos has, apparently, played once for Zakynthos, who are in Gamma Ethniki, a fully professional league; Moniakis has played for Ergotelis and OFI Crete both of which appear to have been in at least Beta Ethniki, again a fully professional league). As such they would appear to meet WP:NFOOTY and that's enough to avoid speedy, although whether they are actually notable will also depend on what games they played in, something I haven't checked as it had no bearing on the speedys. Dpmuk (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both Currently there are some notable transfers being discussed in the Greek news concerning Moniakis. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why does this make him notable? Have you read WP:CRYSTAL Spiderone 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are not speculation. There are numerous articles about this defender, who is already notable in my opinion, in the Greek newspapers. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, you've not demonstrated any SUBSTANTIAL coverage of the player. Nothing more than passing mentions Spiderone 13:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, I have to disagree. Moniakis has received plenty of detailed coverage (particularly his doping incident). There is plenty available to flesh this article out when time permits. Deletion would be unnecessary and unhelpful. Jogurney (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 4-year contract with Olimpiakos, signed this week, for a footballer who played internationally with the national under-21 side is notable enough. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article about footballer who played in the fully-pro Greek second division top flight with OFI. He is the subject of numerous Greek-language articles (I've added one as an inline cite) and easily passes NSPORTS. Jogurney (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further investigation, I feel even more strongly that this article should be kept. He's played 30 matches in the Greek Superleague and is the subject of plenty of coverage. Jogurney (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Moniakis and delete Kritikos Spiderone 22:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My keep counts for both players since Kritikos is currently playing for a Gamma Ethniki team at Zakynthos which meets WP:FOOTBALL and is on loan from Olympiacos which is the most successful team in Greece (according to Wikipedia). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Moniakis has played numerous times in the Greek top division, and Kritikos has played in the fully-professional Gamma Ethniki, according to his profile at the Greek League website, so both pass WP:NSPORTS#Association football. Unfortunately my Greek isn't up to much, but if Greek football coverage is anything like English, a big-club youngster on loan to a lower-division club should have enough background for those who can read it to be able to improve the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - References demonstrate that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galleryhosted[edit]

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

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

Non-notable website. Referenced articles sufficient to avoid speedy deletion, but the coverage appears to be rather insubstantial, and possibly advertorial. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing the article for this site's founder and CEO:

Anis Ayat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already several references about GalleryHosted (links in the reference section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imageination (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 January 2011 UTC

• Comment The cited references are from blogs, which are generally not considered reliable sources. The first reference, from KillerStartups, is essentially a "hey, we found this -- do you think it's cool?" entry. No signs of significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Anis Ayat as A7; also delete the main Galleryhosted article per nom as non-notable company. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update: Anis Ayat has been speedy deleted on 03:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the delete votes have the p;olciy edge but I'm happy to userfy this if someone wants to claim it. It can be movd back to mainsopace as soon as its released. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Bloody Murder (album)[edit]

Screaming Bloody Murder (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article for the upcoming Sum 41 album was deleted five times as Complicity (album) in 2009–2010, and twice as Screaming Bloody Murder in 2010. Complicity was salted due to multiple authors continuously recreating the same article with zero verifiable facts. Screaming Bloody Murder was created into a redirect to Sum 41 due to it being a plausible title (at the time it was unconfirmed), and it received full-protection to avoid yet another pre-mature article being created. As it stands, there is still not enough verifiable information for the upcoming Sum 41 album to have it's own Wikipedia article. The source for the release date is again coming from an online retailer, and that was one of the issues last time this article was created. Both WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL still apply. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Criteria G4 and Salt - I just tagged it for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - But speedy deleting and salting are probably not necessary this time around. It looks like the album really will be released this time, given preparations by serious retailers like Amazon and CDUniverse. However, the album is still a few months away and there is not enough confirmed information available for an album article. When (if) it is truly released, and assuming this is the real title, a viable article can be created at that time. Meanwhile, the "cover" shown in this article sure looks fake to me, and the image file is backed up by equally fake copyright info. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It should be noted that the article for Screaming Bloody Murder that was created in July 2010 was entirely based the Amazon.com listing which gave a title and release date. However by the given August release date, the album was still being produced and the title was only tentative as later discovered in subsequent interviews. I have been monitoring the Amazon.com listing since July for possible new information, and instead of removing the alleged product all together, they simply removed the release date have since continued to accept money for a product that still does not fully exist. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got a different impression from recent interviews about the so-called "upcoming release" but you've surely been following things more closely. The article is ripe for deletion in any case! --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal – Actually, on Sum41's homepage (www.sum41.com), not only can you see that the title "Screaming Bloody Murder" has been confirmed as the album title, but also, the album cover used in the article is indeed the same from the unreleased album. There is also a confirmation of the release date. I don't see why the article should be deleted if the information has been confirmed by the band themselves. LunaEclipse7 02:38 15 Jan 2011 (GMT)
  • The general consensus among editors of album articles on Wikipedia regarding upcoming albums is to wait until either: a reasonably detailed multi-paragraph article can be written, or the album's title, release date and track listing have all been confirmed. This article doesn't go into anymore detail than what's on Sum 41, so why have a separate article for the same information? This album likely will meet the general notability guidelines, but just not at this time. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - article has been massively improved, with plenty of sources, including one on the bands website, confirming the release and the name. --Ezhuks (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content you are referring to was copied and pasted directly from Sum 41 without proper attribution. See WP:CWW. As of today, the information here does not go into any further detail about Screaming Bloody Murder than the band's article does. Why have a separate article for the exact same information? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, content that was moved from one article to a more suitable one is a completely different issue, in fact, it's not an issue at all - if someone, indeed, is worried about that, we should just follow WP:SPLITTING#For use on talk page. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well okay, you can say where the information originates from, but that's not really a solution. Those templates are for articles that were cut and pasted, not copied and pasted. The exact same information word-for-word can't exist in two different places. It has to be trimmed down and reworded, or deleted entirely, in one place or the other. Also, the Sum 41 article became a dumping ground for minor details on the album since its article had been deleted so many times. If you actually read the information, it's just a bunch of glorified studio updates that give little factual content beyond "the band worked on the album some more." If you boil the entire seven paragraph section down to raw facts, you know: that this album was originally intended to be an EP in 2008, Gil Norton was hired to produce the album but the band did it themselves, Tom Lord-Alge mixed it, one song leaked and one song was officially released. That doesn't tell me much about what the album is, which is what an encyclopedia is for. It only tells me what the band did over the course of three years. Information that's far better suited for an artist's article. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - besides giving someone the joy of a power trip deletion, there is no reason to delete it just to build it again in two weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.28.53 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - The delete opinions are correct in policy, this article violates WP:crystal, and Amazon and CDUniverse aren't sufficiently reliable to use as sources to confirm a release date. The correct policy-wonk response is to delete the article and then undelete it when the album is released. However, I appreciate what I think is the real argument of the keep votes, which is 1. the album probably will be out in a couple of weeks and 2. people want to keep working on the article. All of these concerns can be addressed by parking the article in user space where it can be improved even more, and brought back when the album is released. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall, consensus at this AFD discussion is for Keep, with strong consensus that the subject matter passes WP:NOTE, with coverage in multiple WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freakum Dress[edit]

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

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

This article has been nominated for deletion twice before, and deleted twice before. It has also been speedied twice. My last speedy (as a G4 repost) was contested, so here we go on a third AFD. First, this article fails WP:NSONGS. It has not charted. It has not been covered by multiple notable artists. It has not won any awards. It is a run-of-the-mill album track from one of Beyonce's albums. It is precisely the kind of song that WP:NSONGS intends when it says "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." The references used attempt to shore up some kind of independent notability are weak at best. http://www.amazon.com/Freakum-Dress/dp/B00137OIDY shows that you can buy the song as a track from the album (true for most album tracks). http://music.aol.com/song/freakum-dress/8760153 shows that the track is available for sale. http://www.allmusic.com/song/freakum-dress-t15815692 shows that it is an album track. http://allhiphop.com/stories/reviews/archive/2006/09/20/18134780.aspx mentions a contributor, but not what he contributed (beyond "his brand of modern funk"). http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/beyonce-b-day/ is an album review that mentions the track. http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdVPE.asp?ppn=MN0075650 shows that the sheet music is available for sale, like nearly all Beyonce songs. http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/videos_07/news_feature_040207/index2.jhtml documents the existence of the video. http://www.metrolyrics.com/freakum-dress-lyrics-beyonce-knowles.html is a copyright violation of the lyrics. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1516025,00.html mentions that Jay-Z contributes to the album, including this track. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/09/04/beyonce_shows_rage_and_range_on_new_release/ is an album review. http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/beyonce-bday/939 is an album review. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/arts/04choi.html?_r=2 is an album review. http://www.webcitation.org/5rW98J9Id is an album review. http://web.archive.org/web/20071223104612/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/beyonce/albums/album/11463836/review/11736807/bday is an album review. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq0iUS_jdY4 is a copyright violation. So there we have it: two copyright violations, album reviews, and documentation of its existence as an album track. Nothing that makes it reasonable to override the standard advice of "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.". Because of the history of constant recreation of this article by fans, and the fact that it contains no useful material that isn't already in the album article, I want this version deleted, and a protected redirect installed in its place to prevent further edit warring over it. —Kww(talk) 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that they are in the wikiproject of Knowles, it is not a canvass, just because they are in the wikiproject does not mean that they are watching the wikiproject. Either way, neither of those users have commented, so there's no issue. Tbhotch^Talk and C.

• "fighting for the article" makes this a clear canvassing violation.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per Kww's analysis of the sources. There simply isn't enough non-trivial coverage to make an article. If redirected, it will still be edit-warred over; if made into a lock redirect, someone will rebuild the article at a different title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand. If we want a protected redirect, then what on earth's the point of deleting it first?—S Marshall T/C 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, TenPoundHammer's comment doesn't make any sense to me either, given the content of the nomination. Maybe I'm having a dumb day.—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're having a dumb day. I'm saying that a protected redirect would not be a viable alternative to deletion, because it would almost invariably lead to a slobbering fanboy re-creating the article's content at a different title and/or bawwwwwwing on the talk page of the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The current history includes four separate previously deleted versions, for one thing. I restored everything to give people an opportunity to peruse it. There's wouldn't be any valuable text under a protected redirect, so deletion is the appropriate action. It wouldn't be required if people didn't keep resurrecting the article despite contravention of existing guidelines. I'll agree that TPH seems to have lost his way somewhere in the middle of his original comment, but his clarification is on-target. Keeping the history would make it easier for people to circumvent the redirect through cut-and-paste.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep Okay for first things, i didn't realize this article was deleted twice and speedy deleted twice (THATS A LOT!), so if anything i suggest redirecting, so if anyone in the future was to attempt to restore it they would see in the history it has already been done and to not attempt.

That being said, i really don't think the article should be deleted/redirected at all! The critical reception, although taken from album reviews, is still critical reception about the song itself! ONE comment or a WHOLE paragraph is still critical reception. And in the critical reception, they discuss the songs composure! And this isn't just any regular song from the album, the song saw a music video release through the "B'Day Anthology". This isn't just some scantly article put together for the heck of it, the article has more coverage than some GA articles (example: "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)" "My Only Wish (This Year)"). And even more coverage could be added through the performance of the song during live shows! I understand the two copyright violations, and agree that they should be deleted. The "Musicnotes" website gives a preview of the official music sheet, which gives a good idea of the composition of the song! and the other refs i've discussed already. The songs article should stay, as the coverage is perfectly fine and the song is more notable that song GA Article and official single releases! It's shenanigans to delete this!!! Theuhohreo (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Theuhohreo's statements. It's not just some "album track." Besides, WP:IAR, it's a great addition to wikipedia and should not be kept back for any reason. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR doesn't give you carte blanche to say that an article should be kept because you think it's useful or about something you like. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, Kww, I've no problem whatsoever with the protected redirect. Deleting the history seems pointlessly destructive to me, because if there really is an endless stream of bad faith users choking at the leash to circumvent the redirect, then they won't be seriously hampered by the history removal. Even if you delete the userspace version as well.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (later) I'd prefer it if this argument wasn't lost in among the allegations of canvassing and rather weak "keep" arguments that follow. There are "keep" arguments in this debate that deserve little weight, but this is a strong one:- It is not necessary to delete this article to achieve what the nominator wants. A protected redirect could be achieved without deleting the history. See WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD for the background.—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once again I would like to say that this article still remains a valuable addition to Wikipedia. One must remember that guidelines are GUIDES not rules, you can go out of some of these guides. This is an example of that situation.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR doesn't give you carte blanche to say that an article should be kept because you think it's useful or about something you like. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not just say that I liked it. But if you would like more detail I will do so. That album is not just a regular album track, it very much acted as promotion for the album, which is evident with the over 8 mill Youtube views. I will also continue to stand by statement that these are GUIDES and not RULES, exceptions are inevitable. The article stands as a valuable piece of information for Wikipedia--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being 'generally well received by music critics' does not make it pass WP:NSONGS. pablo 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generally well received by music critics" isn't the debate... coverage is the debate, which this article happens to be more covered and better made (bad english sorry... lololl) than some GA Articles and Single articles on wikipedia. Theuhohreo (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, Kww nominated the "incorrect version". Check at the history, before its deletion it was 21,189 bytes, it was returned with 10,269 bytes, the rationale of Kww for deletion does not exist anymore, it is now 22,079 bytes. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Agree with Tbhotch. And the article is extremely useful and needed for the song, especially now with the amazing help of Tbhotch! Theuhohreo (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The changes only shift the sources, but don't introduce better ones:

• http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2006/08/22/dress-to-impress-86908-17600860/ isn't about the song.
• http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003087041#/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003087041 doesn't mention the song.
• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208884,00.html doesn't mention the song.
• http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-08-30-beyonce-bday_x.htm mentions the track, but doesn't say anything concrete about it.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freakum_Dress_%283rd_nomination%29&action=edit&section=1 is an album review, song is in tracklist
• http://www.prefixmag.com/reviews/beyonce/b-day/15442/ is an album review
• http://uk.music.ign.com/articles/730/730624p1.html is an album review
• http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/09/04/beyonce_shows_rage_and_range_on_new_release/ is an album review
• http://uk.launch.yahoo.com/060907/33/20nfi.html is an album review
• http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/arts/04choi.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=music&pagewanted=all is an album review
• http://top40.about.com/od/albums/fr/beyoncebday.htm is an album review
• http://top40.about.com/od/bestandworstof2001/tp/bestalbums2006.htm is an album review
• http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/B/Beyonce/AlbumReviews/2006/09/07/1811076-sun.html is an album review
• http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-04-05-beyonce-video-album_N.htm doesn't mention the song
• http://www.essence.com/entertainment/hot_topics/jennifer_lopez_beyonce_video.php mentions that the video director also directed the video for "Freakum Dress"
• http://artisit.wordpress.com/2009/07/ isn't a reliable source, and, if it were, only mentions that the video shows Beyonce doing her hair
• http://www.nme.com/awards/video/id/p6aAWi-XKH4/search/freakum is about a tour, not the song

• Nothing there that makes my original nomination invalid.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty obvious that will always be "album reviews", never was a single. Selectin a random "album review" the writer gave a song review: and songs like “Freakum Dress” and “Resentment” build two different kinds of overwrought drama. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true: a completely trivial statement about the song of no value whatsoever was included in the album review. You've demonstrated my point.—Kww(talk) 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The album reviews single out "Freakum Dress" at least once! That makes it perfect for critical reception since it discusses the song!!! Theuhohreo (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So if I as a critic comment ""Freakum Dress" was a bad addition" won't you add it? It's a critic; or ""Freakum Dress" is apropos", it is incorrect?. Those are critic of the song not THE album. Also, you argue that some sources never mentioned the song. Taking Fox source, which "doesn't mention the song." It "doesn't mention the song" as simple as it is not used for mention the song. it is used for the comment "She and Harrison had previously collaborated on her 2003 single "Crazy in Love" (2003).[3]". So before try to find problems to sources, check what are sourcing those links. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 21:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is that none of them are saying something unusual or noteworthy that would make it reasonable to override WP:NSONGS. You keep telling people to ignore it, but you don't have any argument that explains why anyone should ignore it.

Nowhere in this AFD I commented "Ignore Kevin (if you are Kww)" or "ignore this AFD he is crazy and WP:Pointing Wikipedia", even I'd never commented "WP:IAR", nowhere in this AFD. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tbhotch has gone ahead and added in the missing information, which seems to support even more the notability of the song. True, it is not a single, however, the fact that it has a music video due to the re-release of the expanded edition of the album, it is essentially a single for that. For this reason, and for the references used in the article, I feel that it should be kept. Silverseren^C 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no harm in keeping this article, and sufficient value in it to justify keeping it. (Despite the claims made above, IAR does indeed provide a reason to vote "keep" on something that would normally not be kept if, in the editors' opinion, the article is useful or improves the encylopedia. Notability guidelines cannot trump a policy, and IAR is a policy.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure I'd say delete because it hasn't charted, but on the other hand, this article is very reliable and has a lot of great content. ℥^nding·start 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Meet notability for broad coverage, same views as first Afd. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 21:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided, WP:NSONGS states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song doesn't have any of those, and while some people argue that there is lots of coverage I would argue that it is not significant coverage or independent coverage. Independent coverage means coverage from 3rd party sources about the song separate from the album. Use of lots of sources about the album does not make the song notable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that significant coverage is not a notability criteria... its a requirement for independent articles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a distinction between notability criteria and requirement for independent articles, because wouldn't an subject essentially need to be notable to have an article independent of the parent topic? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but NSONGS says... Notability aside, there should be significant coverage from independent reliable sources to make a detailed article. That means then when creating an article on a song editors must consider: 1) is it notable? (charts? awards? covers?) 2) does it have significant coverage? Notice how the to elements of NSONGS are described separately. Nowhere does the page suggest that lots of coverage is sufficient to establish notability. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's mentioned as a minimum requirement. To pass WP:NSONGS, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as a minimum standard. All the additional tests are things that have to be true after basic notability has been established. The way I usually describe it is that WP:N and WP:V describe when it is permissible to have an article. WP:NSONGS is about whether it's a good idea.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect Pretty much all the coverage of the song is part of coverage of the entire album. Give it its own section at the album's article, any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I strongly believe that if this article were to go under GA review, it would pass! I know I've stated this before, multiple times, but; This article has more information and importance than most GA Articles and Official Singles that are on this site! Theuhohreo (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - Just so we are clear, i was asked to comment here. With that said it was a neutral comment asking for opinion, wasnt a canvas violation. Okay, so back to this article, WP:NSONG has been cited for the deletion, although i agree with this rule i also disagree due to inconsistency on wikipedia. What i mean is, according to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Charting is not always a necessity in establishing notability, in this case, this is a well written article that has received a fair amount of coverage. Im leaning more towards keep but not enough to say keep. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article rather clearly now satisfies the GNG. Both significant and independent coverage have been established in the current text. Some of the comments appear to rest on a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of "independent" coverage. As WP:Independent sources sets forth, echoing [[WP:V] and WP:RS, "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication). For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a professional review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It possibly passes the GNG. I would argue that a lot of the mentions are passing mentions, but at least there can be an honest debate about that. Can you tell me why you didn't discuss WP:NSONGS, which is the relevant topic-specific guideline? It's more stringent than the GNG.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I don't believe that NSONGS (or any of the other specialized guidelines) are exclusionary, to the extent that they would override the GNG. NSONGS is brief, informally phrased, and focused on a narrow (if prominent) niche in the commercial music market. Those aren't the only kind of songs that should be notable, and doesn't represent the broad range of song articles that exist (and therefore, the in-practice community consensus). There's a large swath of songwriters with important work that won't fall under songs but nonetheless is generally regarded as influential and satisfies the GNG: later Dylan, much Ellington, much of the Velvet Underground, a significant amount of Jimi Hendrix . . . . There was a Bruce Springsteen song, whose name escapes me, about a notorious NYC police shooting, which received substantial TV and news coverage based only on his live performances of it, before he'd even recorded it. Even footnote 5 to NSONGS discusses notable songs which don't fit into its specific pigeonholes, and shows the GNG governs songs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you need to read WP:NSONGS more closely. It states at the outset that you have to pass WP:N first: it says that "all articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". The exclusion for footnote 5 is for songs that preceded the era of electronic recording, which certainly doesn't include this one. Reading WP:NSONGS as an inclusionary guideline simply doesn't work logically: any song that fails WP:N automatically fails WP:NSONGS, so it can't include anything that WP:N excludes. It only works as an exclusionary guideline: WP:N establishes the presumption, and WP:NSONGS rebuts it and provides more tests. Are there exceptions? Certainly. Is "Freakum Dress" one of them? I haven't seen anyone argue why it would be beyond "it had a video", which certainly doesn't cut it in my book.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect - could not find evidence that there is coverage (charting/cover versions...) independent of the album. A whole lot of puffery for one song.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral First, I got two messages – one is already pointed out here and other was a neutral message asking for opinion [30]. I am neutral to this per Lakeshade. Novice7 | Talk 03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading—particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the version Kww nominated for deletion was only 10 kb long. Mine was 23 kb long. He must have got some confusion. See this. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That was the version in place at the time I nominated it. {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freakum_Dress_(3rd_nomination)&diff=407344042&oldid=407343739 Here I went through your additions and showed that they were still inadequate]. I really detest AFDs like this one, where people don't bother to read the relevant guidelines and argue from them. Why do you think this song should get an article even though it clearly doesn't meet WP:NSONGS? It's OK to believe that, but nothing you have said explains why you believe that.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G4 cannot be used as a shield. And i do not consider it as "inadequate". It deserves an article because of what i posted above. Please read it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you are changing your vote from Keep to Strong keep, then it might be a good idea to strike your original vote so that it is not counted accidentally. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reason given by the nominator seems to be the perceived lack of notability. Wikipedia's guideline on notability states that an article is presumed to be notable if it has been covered substantially by reliable, independent sources. The article in question references multiple such sources, such as the Daily Record and the New York Times. Therefore the article is notable per WP:GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (response to comment on my talk page) According to Wikipedia:Notability, "a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines..." (emphasis mine). Thus notability may be achieved either through WP:GNG or the subject-specific guideline (or that is what Wikipedia:Notability seems to suggest). Otherwise, a professor who passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) but fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) would be considered non-notable just because he is an academic. There does not seem to be any "do-not-include" criteria at WP:NSONG, and there are no statements in NSONG suggesting that the consensus is to ignore the either...or implication from WP:N for articles about music. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was actually trying to avoid more discussion on this page, because it's starting to appear as if I am badgering, but no. WP:NSONGS functions as an exclusionary criteria. It sets, as a minimum bar "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It then sets further criteria that need to be met before an article should be written about an individual song. This song meets none of those additional criteria. The guidance in WP:NSONGS rebuts the initial presumption in WP:N, and sets further standards. This is basically to prevent us from having articles about every album track, and to avoid having an inconsistent state where people can generally find trivial passing mentions of tracks by recent extremely popular artists, thus potentially justifying an article on every track by Beyonce or Lady Gaga, where such is not possible for the majority of still quite notable performers.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific notability guideline for music because songs and albums can often pick up media attention for lots of different reasons. WP:NSONGS clearly states that shows that songs are only notable where they have charted, received awards or been covered by multiple artists. This leads me to the conclusion that songs have to earn notability. However every keep vote here is suggesting that that the song has inherited notability because it was mentioned in album reviews. Subjects cannot inherit notability from a parent subject. They most be notable in their own right. I stand by my original comments that the song has received very little significant coverage as a separate body of work from the parent album. I get the impression that people are under the impression that if an article about any song can be written it should be written. - That's a very slippery sloap to head towards. I'm now leaning towards delete. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striked Cprice's vote as he's already made his keep vote and those comments b4. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lol, I was told it was a new page! Sorry for the mix up, I deleted it. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lil Unique1, it's got to go. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Changing vote to Merge/Redirect to B'Day per Kww and the editing policy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, leaning towards Delete - Sorry, but I still can't see the necessity of having this article in existence. Just because something, particularly a song has some information on it and coverage does not make it notable. I can assure you almost nobody has ever heard of this song, I for one was never familiarized with it. While I respect the fact that it indeed is a nice article, with an informative background, I don't find it necessary. I honestly am quite annoyed at the creation of all the new song pages that are unnecessary. Additionally, whether or not it has sufficient information, remember, it never charted anywhere. If anything, Merge with the already enormous and substantial album.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Joshua Issac. RatiziAngelou^contribs 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I just hope that all of you who are learning towards delete have at least read what i wrote. If not, read it again. And i hope you know which article was deleted. It was not mine and that's why G4 was being used as a purpose of deleting it. And how many songs do you think have so much information. Please see my reason for keeping the article. I have also cited a valid source. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jivesh, I G4'd your version because none of the changes addressed the reasons the article was originally deleted. When Theuhohreo created a new version, I took it to AFD because my G4 on your version had caused so much controversy. Neither your version nor his address the reasons that the article was deleted in the previous AFD. It wasn't deleted in the previous AFD for lack of sourcing, it was deleted because it's a topic that Wikipedia should not have articles about, per WP:NSONGS. It really doesn't matter which version I G4'd or which version I put an AFD tag on, because the question isn't the quality of the article, it's the suitability of the topic.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the canvassing and the repeated re-creation cannot obscure the fact that this is a song of surpassing unimportance that nobody other than hardcore Beyonce fans is ever likely to find of any interest at all. Don't they have their own wiki? Tis is right up there with articles on individual Ewoks. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just to make clear to you Guy, i created this page only once and when i created it using my sandbox, i did not even know that this page had been created in the past. It is only when i published the article in Wikipedia that i found out about its previous existence. Moreover, it does not depend who is a fan of Beyonce. There are 11 members in the group and only four of them have commented, among which one said that he was neutral. So please avoid me these types of comments. One last, Beyonce has so many songs, but i chose to create this one only because it got promotion independent of the album and there is a lot of detailed information about this song about recording, production and live performances ++ its theme concept and video on reliable sources. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Users "CallMeNathan", "Kww" and "Ten Pound Hammer". I fail to see how this song is notable. Yes, the page has sources but this song was never released as a single, never charted, and was never issued a cover. Fails WP:NSONGS. — Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 09:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Tbhotch. --Ahmetyal 21:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep Personally I think that the "needs to chart" and other matter of WP:NSONGS is crap. This article meets the WP:GNG. In spite of WP:OTHERCRAP, see "Suga Mama" and "Slug", neither of which have charted or meet any of the NSONGS junk, but both are GAs (and the latter has been to FAC). This is a great, informative addition to Wikipedia and it would be a shame to see it deleted IMHO. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Also see "My Only Wish (This Year)" and "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)", they are perfect examples of songs that are allowed pages, and they didn't even get a music video like Freakum Dress!!! 74.72.160.180 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the song has garnered attention aside from the album, including interviews with Knowles, and an official music video release! That IS single attention aside from the album! Although it has not charted (which seems to be the main point), it does stand notably on its own, from the album. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I totally agree with you. This is why i said the track got promotion independent of the album. Beyonce explained the song's concept to Daily Record . Read the article. You will all see. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly! Per WP:NSONGS, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Which basically means this also passes WP:NSONGS!

• Keep Basically per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I agree that the coverage is sufficient to pass the general notability guideline and as such is fine to have it's own article. The subject specific guideline cannot and should not exclude articles that pass the general notability guideline and there has never been consensus to make them do so. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a test page. (by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)) (non-admin colsure). →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masters academy[edit]

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

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

I originally tagged this as ((db-corp)) but then noticed/remembered the line that says schools are not eligible under that criteria, so I'm nominating this article here with the same argument (article is about a subject of dubious notability that does not indicate why the subject is notable). I also did a quick google search and found no reliable, third party references. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as WP:G3 (vandalism). →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't quite sure if it was blatant enough for that, but if so, my !vote is speedy delete per G3. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Linksvayer[edit]

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

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

We have three sources from Creative Commons (primary), a paragraph in a CNET news article where he does his job and encourages scientists to use CC licenses, one IHT article about veganism that mentions him for a couple of paragraphs, and a link to his Wikipedia userpage. That is not enough for notability, in my opinion.

Note that on his userpage, he says "I am the subject of Mike Linksvayer, which I would strongly advocate deleting if I were a deletionist (be my guest)" NW (Talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You only list the sources currently in the article, which suggests that you didn't search for further sources. You quote Linksvayer's comment about "strongly advocating deleting", but these comments are quite clearly sardonic if you read his blog - I'm noting this so that the closing admin doesn't conclude that this is an argument for deletion from the subject. This said, based on the coverage I can find, I suggest the best course is a selective merge to Creative Commons#Governance - he hasn't been the subject of substantial coverage, but details about him would fit within the article about the organisation for which he is VP. Fences&Windows 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion as a copyright violation (in addition to being, obviously, a tendentious POV fork). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs against the hypothesis of Aryan Invasion[edit]

Proofs against the hypothesis of Aryan Invasion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

OR, POV-fork, Synthesis - it reads like an essay more than anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely original research. There is a bibliography, but no evidence that the works listed support any of these assertions. Seaphoto^Talk 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Further evidence of POV-pushing here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Author has commented on the Talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection per nom. IndoWarrior I object on the grounds that all f you are Europeans and are obsessively biased. No Indian has viewed this page and thus you dont have any Indian opinion. You lack the ability to judge as I have pointed out earlier. Your "Indo-European Migration" article is baseless and no fact supports it. The genetic evidence is also against the Aryan migration mythos. So, in this light we need a large number of Indian scientists to review this page. Not Westerners as it is connected to INDIAN history. —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

• Objection per nom. IndoWarrior You have also not spent any time validating my biblography or references either. You are very biased and obsessed with the baseless Aryan invasion Mythos —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

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 that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Shot (2010 film)[edit]

The Last Shot (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Student Movie, not notable, was deleted before here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I noted in the previous AFD, we can't have this article without some indication of notability, especially when it had yet to be released. Now that the film has actually been released, there is absolutely no indication that it is notable - no articles, no critical response, no nothing. The author indicates (on the article's talk page) that an IMDB listing is sufficient, but that's precisely incorrect - an IMDB listing doesn't confer notability, because IMDB is not itself a reliable source. This article differs enough from the deleted version so as to avoid a G4 Speedy Deletion, if you're wondering - but there is no notability to speak of. Indeed, I don't see a claim to notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G4 Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Films are not speediable, but I do agree that it does not have the required notability and support deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Films are absolutely speediable, if this article were a duplicate of the one that was deleted at AFD. I believe the phrase from WP:CSD is "Substantially similar" or some such. In this case, though, there are enough differences to trump the G4 rule. You're right, though, that a film doesn't qualify for A7, which is the "credible claim of notability" rule. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I should have stated not "generally" speediable and clarified as to A7 in my statement. I was referring to your G4 only in reference to Ultraexactzz's earlier noting that content and assertion were "just" different enough. However, yes... this one is still WP:TOOSOON, so we are not in disagreement on that point. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the film's subsequent release prevents the prior AFD from controlling, there's simply no suggestion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON (if ever). While happy to congratulate these high school filmmakers for their creative efforts, high school films by student filmmakers rarely achieve the coverage required to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Shot 2[edit]

The Last Shot 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Student movie, not notable. Author has been doing this before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wish all the best to the filmmaker, and hope he gets his big break - but this ain't it. No media coverage, no reliable sources that indicate any level of notability - indeed, I see no claim that the film itself is notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Shot (2010 film). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The film is definitely notable. With the film's IMDB page and it's link right on the front of the article, this film has been released to the public. If it wasn't true, it wouldn't be on IMDB to begin with as they check all references regarding the film and its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N easter12345 (talk • contribs) 23:38, January 11, 2011

  The most IMDB can do for this film is confirm its existance, just as does the film itself. What is required for notability is to have articles about the film in reliable sources or better... being able to show the film has won notable awards. Please review WP:TOOSOON#Films and the essay "Newcomer's guide to guidelines" Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - having and IMDB page is not proof of notability (see WP:NFILM). IMDB is not considered a reliable source either.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON (if ever). While happy to congratulate these high school filmmakers for their creative efforts, high school films by student filmmakers rarely achieve the coverage required to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage of this film in reliable sources to confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reporter (film)[edit]

The Reporter (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Student movie, not notable. Author has been doing this before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I have said with The Last Shot and The Last Shot 2, the film is notable. With the other articles, they had IMDB pages and links posted to the front of the article. At this time, IMDB is going over the page for this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N easter12345 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, the most IMDB can do for this film is confirm its existance, just as does the film itself. What is required for notability is to have articles about the film in reliable sources or better... being able to show the film has won notable awards. Please review WP:TOOSOON#Films and the essay "Newcomer's guide to guidelines" Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While happy to congratulate these high school filmmakers for their creative efforts, high school films by student filmmakers rarely achieve the coverage required to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence supporting notability. IMDB can confirm existance, which no one disputes - but we need to meet the requirements at WP:N to keep the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Hara (director)[edit]

Hiroshi Hara (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability of the anime director. J04n(talk page) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --J04n(talk page) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable roles in notable works of fiction. Dream Focus 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Comment: Are there reliable sources to verify the roles? The external link in the article can be editted by anyone who registers. The roles without reliable verification or significant coverage do not establish notability. J04n(talk page) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They don't allow just anyone to edit the main listings, such as the one at http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=6800 which list him as director. Same way for the other series. Dream Focus 10:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd love to keep it, but we need at least one source, this is being nominated as part of Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue work.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DreamFocus, I was given to understand otherwise, when I read WP:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Situational it says, with regard to ANN, In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. I take it that that is not your understanding? --j⚛e decker^talk 15:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what User:Dream Focus says, anyone can register an account at Anime News Network and then add information to encylopedia pages. However, while anyone can add information, only staff memebers can remove or edit information submitted by other people. Because the information is added by users and ANN staff doesn't look at it unless someone marks it as erroneous (and even then, it can take years for them to get around to fixing reported errors), it can't be considered a reliable source. However, there is a "source" field included with every piece of information, which can be viewed by clicking the "look up sources" link at the bottom of each ANN encyclopedia page. Because people do not have to provide a source when submitting information, this is often left blank, but it never hurts to click the link and then check the sources to see if someone provided a source for information that could be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Calathan (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Orginal prod stated "Not may refs and all to mirror or own sites. First film listed in article one that was worked on. Not sure there are any films directed by this person" Seeing that tells me that there are no references to support notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had no luck either in my attempts to find reliable, secondary sources for this director. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage here to verify notability or justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue was notified of this debate. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think some of these companies would list on their official websites the names of those involved in them, but so far haven't found anything. I added one review sight which mentioned he was the director of a series being reviewed. I used Gwern's search tool [31]. I don't suppose any of you own something he has worked on, and can just check the credits? I'll see if Amazon.com list him in the credits for anything they sell. Dream Focus 18:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've found an architect, a dentist, a lawyer and (confusingly) a cinematographer with the same name but no RS for this guy. Some reviews on ANN but those aren't RS. There's no page for him over at ja.wikipedia either (which is quite telling, I think).--Plad2 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, reviews at Anime News Network would be acceptable RS for this topic, though their encyclopdia would not. Can you please share the links? And his not having an article elsewhere is telling only of en.Wikipedia being bigger and having more editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshid Arian Assl[edit]

Jamshid Arian Assl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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)

Blatant auto bio. Lots of ugly naked URIs by way of reference but do any show that he is notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Insufficient sources.Farhikht (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Blatant vanispamcruftisement--how'd it last this long? Barely misses a G11 in my mind. Blueboy96 16:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Vista[edit]

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

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

Stub non-notable article. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neighborhoods aren't notable unless they pass WP:GNG, which this clearly doesn't. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Nothing but real estate listings found on searching. This neighborhood doesn't even rate a mention at the Youngstown, Ohio, city website [32]. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SWEP International[edit]

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

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

Blatant advertising, using company website as source. Even if originator finds independent sources, username suggests COI. Haploidavey (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per nomination. This business makes heat exchangers. No indication that it has any sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, G11 Reads like something from a corporate annual report, not something that belongs on Wikipedia. Blueboy96 16:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a COI article. Here's the proof. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A self-written biography is useless without third-party verification in a significant form; similarly, brief mentions and soundbites, even in a lot of places, is not enough. WP:BLP1E takes priority; I would advise anyone, in any AfD, of any opinion, that one of the hallmarks of a good argument is to actually address the opposition. This hasn't been done. Ironholds (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Abraham Varghese[edit]

Roy Abraham Varghese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This person does not seem to be notable. He is mainly known for just one thing, ghostwriting one book, which led to some minor controversy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or alternatively merge into Antony Flew#Book with Varghese per WP:BLP1E. No significant third-party coverage beyond that single controversy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep at this point. The main problem is the unacceptable sourcing to works by the subject of the author, which makes it look promotional. If the article cannot be referenced to secondary and tertiary sources, then merging might be an option. Varghese has received quotes, citations and mentions in literature and press sufficient to establish notability. Google Books alone returns some 2500 results in books (many, though not all, works from a theistic viewpoint). Perhaps an interim solution might be to simply delete unsupported statements (i.e., including those statements currently flagged as needing better sources) and return the article to stub status with a notice on the talk page until better sourced material can be provided. • Astynax ^talk 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—well, if his biography is to believed, he appears at least somewhat notable.—RJH (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is that such topic-self-published 'biographies' are not to be taken as demonstrating notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E; in depth coverage in independent sources is pretty much lacking. Varghese does not qualify under WP:AUTHOR. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Admin Jimfbleak. (Log) UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing and Mastering Vocals in Audacity A complete Guide By Dr. Faisal Wadood[edit]

Mixing and Mastering Vocals in Audacity A complete Guide By Dr. Faisal Wadood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Original research, unencylopedic how-to-do guide Travelbird (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. How-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed, it's a how-to guide. There are other sites better suited to this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. For starters, this redirect should have been sent to Project:Redirects for discussion, not AFD, for deletion. On top of that, even Britannica's "Tibeto-Burman languages" article acknowledges that "the North Loloish subgroup" is called Yi by some people. Where this redirect should point, and how the language family should be discussed overall, is not a matter for AFD. Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yi language[edit]

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

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

Yi != Nuosu ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, if the main content is now at Nuosu, the Yi Languages should redirect there because most, including myself, would have gone looking for Yi, not Nuosu. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 虞海, what's your reason for saying Yi ≠ Nuosu, anyway? --JorisvS (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it does say so on the Nuosu page. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah sorry I misread the funny !=. Both Nuosu and Nuosu language say that Nuosu is the endonym for Yi now used. So we redirect. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It used to be a redirect. 虞海 changed that (kind of), only to propose it here one minute later. --JorisvS (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I restored the redirect, let's not waste any more time on such a spurious AfD nomination. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photon belt[edit]

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

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

This article was previously deleted, but was given a second chance on the condition that it retain a neutral point of view. That has not happened. The article contains an overwhelming bias towards New Age philosophy, such as claiming in the intro that "This interaction might cause..." implicitly suggesting that it will happen, and describing The Shift of the Ages as a "masterwork" and Edgar Cayce as a "great healer". It also reads like an essay; there is an almost total reliance on primary sources, with no sense of context. I do believe that the photon belt is a notable New Age idea, but I can't see how to include this article without reducing it to one sentence. Serendi^podous 11:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: seems fairly balanced to me, and well written in general. I simply didn't get the impression of POV that Serendipodous notes above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the references for the most egregious examples. Serendi^podous 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean that the referenced sources make wild unsubstantiated claims (etc)? Or that the article make such claims about the references? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reference section contains a number of mini-essays that make a number of unsubstantiated claims. Serendi^podous 13:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahhh, now I see what you're saying. Feel free to delete those, be bold! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Maury Markowitz says, the edit tool, which you and everyone else have, is perfectly adequate for removing redundant potted biographies, trimming unnecessary quotations and editorializations, and separating footnotes from actual source citations — as I have just demonstrated. (The remaining biographies give the impression at least that there just might be enough sources to write real biographical encyclopaedia articles about the people listed.) The deletion tool is not used for editing a confused mish-mash of source citations and footnotes into some semblance of order. Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well they certainly look nicer now but I don't really see how they're any more neutral or better sourced. Serendi^podous 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reasons for recreation was that sources found demonstrate notability. In general we don't delete articles due to NPOV, since deletion is not clean up. The article is crufty and while I feel that one sentence is too harsh, do feel free to prune the article down. It's odd that the nominator suggests doable steps for fixing the article in an AfD. Taemyr (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is I don't see any reliable sources about this. No one has taken the time to analyse the history behind this in a coherent manner (I don't just mean no one on Wikipedia; no one at all). Since this article is entirely reliant on citing the original material, there is no way to verify it. How can we know if Hesse was the first person to come up with the photon belt idea if this article just cites Hesse's book? How can we know if the belt's appearances in various New Age magazines indicate that it is particularly popular in New Age circles? I'd rewrite this but I don't know where to begin, because I have no idea what to base the article on. Serendi^podous 13:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a key issue I think. Compare and contrast with the Barry Setterfield issue, for instance, where there's plenty of obvious 3rd party editorial. There's definitely some in this case, but certainly nowhere near as much. I still err on the side of my keep, but only marginally. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable as a New-Age concept, or catch phrase anyway. The article is probably as good as can be expected and gives interested people information on the history of the expression, as well as links to debunking for those interested in that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Taemyr. The article could certainly be improved, but I don't think that's a reason to delete it. YardsGreen (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to be kept, can I at least get it semi-protected, so it has time to breathe? Most of its edits have been from anonymous IPs. Serendi^podous 16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. In general protection and semi-protection is used to stop ongoing disruption. So with no edits from ip's the last week, and no edit war or similar the responce will likely be that there is no recent disruption. This is because one of our guiding principles is that we are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So before protection we should try dialog. Meaning that you will have to wait for the next wave of IP and also should try talking with whoever arrives. Taemyr (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the topic passes notability requirements. But please delete the "footnotes" section filled with mini-bios that don't meet WP:BIO, promotional links that constitute WP:LINKSPAM and editorializing that runs counter to WP:NPOV. Also, the sourcing for the concept in the lead needs to be a bit more independent, using secondary source material such as found at [33] or better. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3/G5. Prolog (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Adventure[edit]

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

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

No indication that this game actually exists. No discussion of such a game can be found on Google, which is odd considering that video games are one of the most well-covered topics in internet forums, etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: crystal ball. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Maury^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:HOAX? Can't find anything at all on this. --Teancum (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete – Complete lack of verifiability, likely a hoax or madeup. –MuZemike 04:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perendev motor[edit]

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

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

not notable magnetic Perpetual motion machine. Aslo, was a spam Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/perendev-power.com a5b (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rescue:' The article in its current form is a bad stub. However, as a part of the history of perpetual motion machines, an article on this topic is a Very Good Idea. I'll rescue it if given a chance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thus failing notability and verifiability. What is there to rescue? Edison (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally believe the Wiki is precisely the place to talk about these bogus devices, to counteract all the crapola floating around the internet. It is, for instance, the very first place I go when looking for information on things I might ingest. I will get to this article in its proper time, and if I can't beat it into something presentable, then by all means, AfD it again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If Maury sees some potential to turn this into more than the uninformative and unsourced article that it is now-- basically, it's an excuse to say the words "Perendev motor"-- I'm in favor of a rescue attempt. It won't take long to see if there can be some notability, such as prominent mention in magazines or books about inventions (or bad investments) touted as "perpetual motion machines". There's not enough at the moment to even make it a redirect or a mention in another article. Mandsford 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete No book hits, all news hits are press releases. There's a lot of web discussion but so far I can't see anyhting that says much more than what we have now. Perhaps merge into perpetual motion as an example. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regretfully. I agree with Maury Markowitz's point that this site can serve as a great go-to resource filtering a small amount of good information from a large amount of chaff, but I am not finding in depth coverage by independent sources sufficient to write an article. No problem moving it to user space or Wikipedia:Article Incubator. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to delete: Actually in retrospect I think what we need is an entirely new article on all of these related devices. This would include a merge of the existing Adams motor, and many, many many many others. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of perpetual motion machines has a partial list. I think that there has been discussion (at Talk:Perpetual motion, maybe?) regarding the difficulty maintaining such a list. Modern perpetual motion machines tend not to call themselves perpetual motion machines because, well, everybody knows perpetual motion machines are impossible so nobody would ever invest/take the time to investigate/whatever. This creates sourcing difficulties, especially since by and large they are ignored and dismissed anyway. List of perpetual motion machines might be viable anyway, though, if you want to give it a whirl. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinct class in this case is the "magnet motor", which they all seem to call themselves. I think it's reasonably distinct from such devices as over-balanced arms and such. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella Cleaners (book series)[edit]

Cinderella Cleaners (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NBOOK, only related GHit sources available appear to be from publisher, or blog reviews. RoninBK _{T C} 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability, and Ronin's search indicates that there isn't going to be. I'm not sure why this dull list of titles was written in the first place. The title is intriguing, sounds suggestive, and there's a Maya Gold who's a porno star, so maybe there's an interesting story here -- just not interesting enough to get noticed. Mandsford 16:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I can tell why this series was written. It's trying to be the next The Baby-sitters Club -- a long-running series of mediocre books that gets marketed directly to young girls right in their classroom. It would appear though, that this Maya Gold is a different one from the pornstar. Not that it's relevant. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough for an article. --Glimmer721 ^talk 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmer Dargah attack[edit]

Ajmer Dargah attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable incident sourced to dubious government-controlled propaganda outlets in India. Indian media do not count as reliable sources unless their claims are backed by international non-partisan sources. Indian media and newspapers, notorious for plagiarism (see User:YellowMonkey/Times of India), fabricating and aggressively promoting demonstrably false claims (see recent expose by Anderson Cooper on India's "premier channel" NDTV making up stories concerning Obama's visit to India here, as well as Indian media making up tall tales of racial discrimination against Indians in Australia), promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories concerning allegations of Jewish/Israeli/Mossad involvement in 9/11 and 26/11 [34][35][36], as well as downright sensationalist and dubious reporting (see Radia tapes controversy), are bogus junk, the equivalent of supermarket tabloids, and completely unworthy of inclusion into an encyclopedic enterprise. Delete per WP:RS, WP:N,WP:EVENT, and WP:HOAX Meanstheatre (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is a very brief stub which says little more than that the blast occurred and was originally attributed to a Muslim group and then to a Hindu one. The argument seems to be it should be deleted because Indian media are never WP:RS. Respectfully, I believe under the circumstances the article should be saved for expansion including additional sourcing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Indian media do not count as reliable sources unless their claims are backed by international non-partisan sources." - is this your personal opinion or a general consensus among Wikipedia editors? Salih (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable event; nominator's rationale is sweeping and a clear example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Sodabottle (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable. See [37]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely Notable. If you are concerned about reliability of Indian sources, perhaps you should take it up at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Nayvik (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of the most important cases. It is not just a major occurrence but also pertains to a case of right-wing terrorism in India. The incident is also important as one of the most revered sufi shrines respected by both Hindus and Muslims was bombed. The Anti-Terrorism Squad has even finished investigation and filed charge sheet in court. It seems some persons are hell bent on getting it deleted for certain reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.68.7 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - weak reasons for deletion. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Weak rationale for nomination. Notable article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very important article. Mindboggling that someone wants its deletion. Media is free in India compared to many other countries. If still someone has doubts read the recent report on Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hindu-holy-man-reveals-truth-of-terror-attacks-blamed-on-muslims-2182178.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indscribe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The independent" is a right-wing tabloid that repeats Indian media crap. The British rightists have targeted Indians for discrimination before. The claims made in that article need to be taken with a huge sack-o-salt.59.160.210.68 (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have initiated a WP:RESCUE of the article as it requires improvement. Perhaps the "sack-o-salt" discussions can be moved to the new talk page instead? KimChee (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The nomination logic is totally flawed. Shovon (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kirby Music[edit]

Robin Kirby Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neologism, I can't find any pertinent hits that prove the existence of a sub group of music named "Robin Kirby Music" Travelbird (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spent an extra hour on here following around your admin editing, you guys are slave drivers for free labor. Give me a chance, or enjoy losing another helper. Thank You. finding dreams 08:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Bad nom, for an otherwise debatable article. The nom is apparently based on the editing cruft at the top of the article, and not the body which has a clearer description of the topic, a music promotion company and band. Found several real hits on Google, but still has questionable N. Does not appear on iTunes, which I find to be a reasonable razor in many cases. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, most of the articles I'm editing at the request of wikipedia have very "Band nom" as you put it. Yet here will all sit fixing them. Can you haze someone else please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The article is quite badly written. It is still not fully clear whether the article is on a genre of music or on the musician Robin Kirby. From what I could originally gathered the prior seemed more likely, but after multiple subsequent edits it now seems to focus more in the musician - also of very questionable notability. I might also add, that the article was originally tagged for a speedy delete by User:Wuhwuzdat. When the author of the page removed that tag (against Wikipedia rules), I opted to go the slower route of Prod and then AfD instead of restoring the speedy tag to give the author a bit of time to improve the article. However Findingdreams has repeatedly removed these tags from the page as well, despite several messages explaining that he shouldn't do so. Travelbird (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: having watched the evolution of this article from something potentially interesting to something else entirely, I'm changing my vote. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I wish you guys would just delete and shut up. I really don't care. I was trying to make a decent article when "freebird" up there scared the hell out of me. So I made it more abstract, like a lawyer would to stop the attack on my efforts. I'm not here to write. At least not now. Not after seeing this. I'll just edit, and help where I can. It's not like this is the only place in the world to post something about "Robin Kirby Music". I vote it down too! : ) finding dreams 00:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Can you guys go be anal retentive somewhere else now? I'm not worthy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 January 2011 JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This debate and the history of the article are truly bizarre. If the intention here is for an article about the musician Robin Kirby, then this person will merit an article when notability is achieved via extensive third-party coverage of albums or appearances. If the article is meant to describe an emerging genre of music, it would completely violate the Wikipedia policy on original research. If the article is a work in progress, then it could possibly go into incubation or userfication. And overall, it looks like the author of the article has given up anyway. Don't be defensive just because Wikipedia isn't what you thought it was. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and TRavelbird. Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered valuer[edit]

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

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

Dead end page, no GHits of "chartered valuer" or "Institute of Chartered Valuers" by name apart from Wikipedia mirrors, one company's website [38] and one Facebook page for the Institute with very little content. [39]. If there was more context, I would be happy to expand rather than delete, but I have no idea where to begin. RoninBK _{T C} 08:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move: many hits on Goggle for "Institute of Chartered Valuers". Suggest moving topic to that name. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of those GHits you see, do you see any of them that support the idea that this "institute" actually exists? Aside from the Facebook one that I already linked, which appears to have been created from the information on Wikipedia? -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. This would also appear to be redundant to appraiser, which seems to me to be the usual term for a professional who assigns a money value to property. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article doesn't state which country this applies to. One possibility is Canada, where the correct name is Chartered Business Valuator (CBV, a.k.a. Expert en Evaluation d'Entreprises) and the designation is awarded by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators. New Zealand had an Institute of Valuers (not Chartered Valuers) and in that country people are known as Registered Valuers. India has an Institution of Valuers, but no recognized designation therefrom (ISBN 9780792375531 pp. 378).

  As can be seen, without the context of which country this even applies to, this article is useless, uninformative, and downright wrong. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Taekwondo[edit]

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

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