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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burndennett Cricket Club[edit]

Burndennett Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail notability (sports) as they play in the second tier of a provincial league and, other than inevitable match reports, have no significant independent coverage. GNG probably is not met because the remaining sources relate to ephemeral non-notable news stories about a bar, a fire and possibly losing their ground. Sitush (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, the argument that the WikiProject Cricket guidelines apply here is just laughable, you can not transpose sports notability across different countries, Cricket is much bigger is England or Australia than Ireland. It is also not the place of a WikiProject to trample over the centrally agreed guidelines such as WP:GNG or WP:CLUB. Mtking (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a run-in with a WP Proj situation on a fairly recent AfD regarding a fork from University of East London. My argument then was that the Universities project guidelines would have disallowed the fork. The consensus was that the project guidelines were, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. Even thought I had raised the issue there prior to the AfD. I'll try to dig out the precise AfD if anyone is remotely interested. It was related to the UEL law school. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that AfD (it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of East London School of Law) and the article was kept as a breakout article from the main University of East London article. This was because the article is too detailed for the main, general article. The notability of it (or the lack of it) as an institution/organisation separate from UEL did not arrive at consensus - it didn't need to. I don't understand the relevance of that discussion to this one though. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that the UNI project's guidelines had no bearing on WP guidelines and, to paraphrase, "counted for nothing". Perhaps that was said on my talk page but I'm pretty sure it was in the AfD. In any event, that was the relevant point I was trying to make here: project guidelines are A Good Thing, but not The Thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article has citations from WP:RSs and hence it meets WP:GNG. The claims above that it fails GNG have not been explained. In the absence of specific Irish cricket guidelines the English cricket guidelines are good enough to go on for now. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." so please point to the WP:RS that addresses the club directly and in detail. Mtking (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[22], [23], and [24]. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are trivial and tangential references. They carry next to no weight. Arson, bar, potential loss of ground have little to do with cricket, which is the primary function of the article as I see it. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have appeared in newspapers more often than that. And I am definitely not deserving of a WP article because none of those appearances had any particular co-relation other than my name. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "trivial" or "tangential". How can you say it was a "tangential" reference to the club when the club is referenced in the articles' headlines? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a club for training arsonists? Is it a world famous bar? No, it is a cricket club. The stories are tangential. People reading the article will 99.9% be after cricket information, not stuff about (an admittedly soul-destroying) arson attack. My rugby club's buildings have twice been burned down. There is no mention of the events in their article in WP. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the only RS that counts is one that overwhelmingly references the club's sporting activities? If that's the case then a few million citations will have to be deleted from wikipedia forthwith. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. You are confusing reliable sources with notability. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confusing no such thing. Nice to know that you agree with me that the club's sporting activities don't have to be the primary focus of the cited articles though. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines. Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Irish cricket and English cricket are not comparable, it would be like saying the Baseball guidelines for the US should be applied in Australia, the guidelines work only for the explicit League they are designed for. Mtking (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your inadequately-informed opinion, but Irish club cricket is comparable to English club cricket at provincial level. In fact, it is arguably of a superior standard, given that ODI international players are selected from Irish provincial leagues, and Irish clubs attract overseas Test cricketers as club professionals. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mooretwin, please provide some evidence from reliable sources that the two are comparable. Does Wisden cover this? (I suspect not, but just asking). How many of the clubs playing in Burndennett's exact division of the exact league have professional players? Who are they? Why are they not in the articles? How many ODI players have come from the division, while playing in that division? I know next to nothing about cricket. I do not need to. The burden of proof is not on me. Please remember also that notability is not inherited, and that Wikipedia project guidelines do not usurp the main guidelines. Therefore, although I refer to the division of the league above, it probably really needs to be drilled down to the club itself. This article simply does not demonstrate the notability of its subject, and that is the issue here. If notability can be proven then all is fine and good. I did say somewhere that people would most likely "pile on" here. Piling on is an unfortunate tendency. You have to take a neutral view. As I have no involvement in cricket, am not from Ireland, and so on, my only concern is WP:N. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wisden cover this? No, and neither does it cover English provincial leagues - so coverage in Wisden does not support your false claim that English provincial club cricket is superior to Irish provincial club cricket. Mooretwin (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Wisden does cover some Irish competitions, but presumably not this one. The information has been provided in the Cricket project discussion referred to below. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does cover the North West Senior League, I'm afraid. It appears not, however, to cover the ECB Leagues in England, therefore Wisden considers Irish senior leagues to be more notable than those leagues, and therefore by the standard of the WP guidelines, Irish senior cricket clubs are notable. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bite with my last ever edit on Wiki. Off the top of the head without a google search (which seems to be all the deletionists rely on - the Irish press and cricket press cover it adequately) the folowing players are just a sample of the pros who have played in NWCU. Shahzad Butt and Salman Butt (Drummond) inluding timie in Section 2, Kapil Dev (Limavady), Shoaib Akhtar (Strabane), Kamran Akmal (Limavady), Raman Lamba (Ardmore), Akram Raza (Brigade), Kiran More (Coleraine) when playing in NW Section 2, Ata Rehman (Brigade), Surinder Amarnath (Eglinton), Ridley Jacobs (Eglinton), Heath Davis (Eglinton), W Wasti (Brigade) (cant remember the spelling of first name sorry), Hasan Raza (Glendermott), M. V. Narasimha (known in Ireland as Bobby) Rao MBE (Strabane, Sion Mills & Eglinton), Adnan Akmal (Limavady), Umar Akmal (can’t remember exact club) plus many others in their 100+ years of existence. Promotion & relegation operates between the two leagues and Section 2 currentl has Sion Mills in it for instance - one of the oldest and most successful Irish clubs (numerous Irish internationals Colhoun, Harpur, Rao and several others) - by your reckoning they are unworthy despite their past successes. I believe the Cooke brothers started out at Burndennett (and can be sourced) etc etc. I work for a living - not being a tax dodger with unlimited time to add endless material to wiki and seek out conflict. Workers like me only have a limited time to edit - content takes time to source and include. Please learn something about the subject matter before dismissing the significance of a league. Bye and good luck to all.Weejack48 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be worth people asking the opinions of the members of WP:CRIC at the projects talkpage. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took up the suggestion of AssociateAffiliate, after leaving it for a while in the hope that those seeking to avoid this article being deleted might do so in order to bolster their position. I was surprised that they did not, since there is an entire project out there involving people whom, I would presume, have an interest in developing cricket-based articles on Wikipedia. The result can be see at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#North West Senior League 2. I do appreciate that I am posting this fairly soon after I raised the issue there but, so far, the consensus appears to be that there is no inherent notability for any club involved at the level which Burndennett play, contrary to the stock response which has been provided by Mooretwin above. "Stock response", because the exact same comment has been used elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the changes to the guideline - at your prompting and designed specifically to exclude Irish clubs - were based on fallatious reasoning, as I have noted on the relevant talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my question was not designed to exclude anything. It asked a question, in as neutral a tone as I could manage given that the issue cropped up in an AfD in the first place. As it happened, other people whom I presume to be far more knowledgeable about cricket than me, responded and so far appear to be of the opinion that no club in Section 2 is inherently notable as a consequence of their being in that section. The consensus in the discussion at CRIC appears to be that those in the top tier might be inherently notable, and that those interested in cricket in "minor" participating nations might want to assist the project in drawing up suitable guidelines for the future relating to those nations. I apologise for using the word "minor", which is not intended to be offensive - I just don't know the correct term. How much weight is placed on what a project thinks is another matter. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out, the reasoning behind the comments of two editors was fallatious, as I have explained on the relevant talk page. Sitush's confession of ignorance about cricket is relevant here. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 12 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

... or it could be that the fact that I have little knowledge of cricket, and am also not (knowingly) of Irish origin, means that I have no particular axe to grind? I am as near to neutral as could be. Although I will admit to having partaken in a couple of wonderful walking/camping holidays in Ireland & met many wonderfully hospitable locals over those combined 5 or 6 weeks. So perhaps I am biased, after all.

I don't like the personalising of this discussion. I am genuinely trying to approach this in a neutral manner. If the sources are there to prove notability, and if those sources arise as a consequence of nominating this article, then AfD has done its job. This is not a war & AfD does not always have negative connotations. One of my own GAs was an AfD rescue. Since raising this AfD some sources have appeared in the Burndennett article, and this is A Good Thing. Happen I have doubts that they are sufficient, but kudos to those who found them and have taken note of the issues. One of them has contributed to this discussion, which is fine. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a war, you should stop edit-warring at the cricket project page - trying to enforce a change to the guidelines that you imposed yourself, for the purposes of supporting a campaign to delete Irish cricket articles. Mooretwin (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where have I edit warred? I cannot recall changing any statement made by anyone else there. Please, try to maintain a sense of proportion here: you are throwing accusations around against people without, it seems, much thought. I note that there are others involved in that discussion aside from me, and that you could have started that discussion as suggested by AssociateAffiliate above. Why you chose not to is not my concern. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club this club is not playing at a level comparable to the ECB Premier Leagues and other than coverage of a new road and a fire nothing covering the cricket exploits of this club would appear to exist. VERTott 10:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What coverage do you find of teams in the Lincolnshire League? Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. And your point is? - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that the point was rather obvious. The WP guidelines accept the notability of clubs in E&W for which there is little non-local coverage on the basis of the league to which they are affiliated. Applying this same standard to clubs in Ireland means that this club, and others, should also be accepted as notable. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the coverage is of specific events so does not cover the club as a whole. Does not meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 20 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hama-Allepo[edit]

Hama-Allepo (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 PRODded, but deletion was contested on the talk page. The PROD rationale by Schumeru (talk) was: "The article is most likely a hoax: 1. Hama and Aleppo are two distant Syrian cities; 2. "Aleppo" is spelled incorrect; 3. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Missile/facilities.html does not list any site linked to missile production or testing in this region. In fact, Google Earth shows that there doesn't exist any structure at the given location at all; 4. It seems to be impossible to find any other source other than astronautix.com and that one bases its information on an obscure blog article."

The German article has been deleted as a hoax. The IP defending this article on the talk page says that it is not a hoax, because Syria has rockets and does test launches, but admits that "The article could be wrong (and likely is wrong) with the coordinate and the name." But the whole content of the article is the assertion that there is a launch site at the named and specified location, and as there is no reliable source for that statement, the article fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the German article had ben deleted at my request, I am glad to give the reasons here again.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever, neither from satellite photos nor from written documents, that this area has ever been a launching zone for Syrian missiles.
2. Contrary to the argument of the defending IP, the supporters of a deletion do in no way imply the lack of such missiles in Syria. They are very likely to exist in other parts, but the respective launching areas are to be found elsewhere (e.g. north or south of the area in question, as valid sources quoted on the talk page of this article say).
3. In conclusion, the only assertion made by the article, i.e. that there is a launch site at the named and specified location, is false and misleading. Therefore it should be deleted.

Best regards, Altkatholik62 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although there is one news search result, and a few quazi-mentions in books, it isn't significant coverage, so does not pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment apart from WP mirrors, all of those references that I looked at are lists of cities which have "Hama" next to a mis-spelled "Aleppo." None of them is about a place called "Hama-Allepo." JohnCD (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any evidence that this place exists. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence means no article. Nothing else matters. -- Schumeru (talk) 13:13, 15 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus grammar[edit]

Nexus grammar (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 page contains no sources. A google search yields few relevant hits, and those are from mirror sites. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article need a lot of work, but it does seems to be a valid area of linguistic. For example, see here. As it stands though, the article does need improving and expanding. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but with a plea for sources and more context. "Nexus" is indeed central to Otto Jespersen's approach to grammar, but I'm not familiar with the formalism introduced here and don't know where to look for more information. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the two previous !votes and the scholarly reference I just added. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 19 June 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 Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who Adventures serials[edit]

List of Doctor Who Adventures serials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't make out what this is, but it looks like a hoax. I have a feeling it's the same guy back trying to write about some amateur YouTube stuff again (sorry I can't remember the old ID). 2 Doctor (deleted, admins only, sorry) is linked from here and said "The 2 Doctor is the 2nd and current incarnation of the protagonist of Science fiction on youtube science-fiction series Doctor Who Adventures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

• Delete - Agreed. This is promotional material, trying to establish promotion for a youtube series. Other articles created in this same light by the same editor include: Doctor_Who_Adventures_series [25] and Doctor_Who_Adventures_youtube_series [26] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, closer examination shows it's quite plainly the same unimportant YouTube stuff - I'm speedy deleting the lot as A7, so I'd like to withdraw this AfD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practice Intelligence[edit]

Practice Intelligence (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 can find no third-party reliable sources supporting the notability of this neologism. The PROD was removed by the author who indicated that more references would be provided. A number of days have passed since that was said, and nothing has been done to the article. Singularity42 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any third-party sources either. It does seem like it has a chance to be notable some day, but that day isn't today. First Light (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-neologism apparently still looking, unsuccessfully, for something to mean: a methodology for the dissemination of direct and reflected knowledge acquired in part of an organisation, to the rest of that organisation and/or other organisations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:08, 12 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Treanor[edit]

Martin Treanor (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've been unable to find any reliable sources that would establish meeting WP:BIO for this author. January (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find nothing in any of the databases to which I have access. LadyofShalott 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to find coverage in secondary reliable sources other than rehashes of his website bio and verbatim copies of press releases. This is insufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR in particular or WP:BIO in general. nancy 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most propably not notable enough to be kept, no reliable sources found or cited. WP:AUTHOR. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although it is not really relevant to whether the article should be deleted, I find it interesting to note that, according to her talk page posts, at 16:09, 6 June 2011 the author of the article was simply someone who had read Treanor's book, and thought it should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but by 17:01 on the same day she was his fiancée. Talk about a whirlwind romance! JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 14 June 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) 03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Jastrzębski[edit]

Przemysław Jastrzębski (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played at the highest level of domestic football in Poland. This is factually incorrect. He was under contract with Jagiellonia Białystok, but never actually played for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Ptak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - This is the top league in Poland, not a youth league. Why not have a single article on the entire squad. Break out article for especially notable players. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youth teams are generally not notable either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may be under contract with Jagiellonia Białystok, but neither of them have actually played any games, which is required for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I searched online and nothing turned up. I think it doesn't help that they are a foreign team, so there's less of a chance there would be reliable sources (at least to our knowledge). SwisterTwister (talk) 06:51, 16 June 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 The Fly (1986 film) or appropriate target. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Quaife[edit]

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

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

A group of IPs and users (who are probably the same person, but that's neither here nor there) has been slowly edit-warring with me for months over these articles; some other editors and I have occasionally redirected them because they are articles about a characters that only appear in one film, contain nothing more than detailed plot summary, and have nothing encyclopedic or out-of-universe in them. The edit warring IPs always just undo the redirects without discussion. Bringing to AfD now to get an explicit consensus on these articles (so that that consensus can later be enforced if the IPs choose to continue edit warring).

The articles/redirects in question:

• Veronica Quaife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
• Anton Bartok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly II)
• Seth Brundle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
• Telepods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
• Stathis Borans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
• Martin Brundle (The Fly) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly II)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Support redirecting to the film's main pages. The separate pages don't appear to add anything new. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the link to Martin Brundle in the above list is to the wrong person - it goes to the very notable Formula One driver and commentator, who has no connection with the film. --AJHingston (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad; corrected now. Thanks for pointing that out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all and protect against article recreation: All articles are either unreferenced or rely on primary sources, but none of the fictional characters or the fictional device meet the general notability guideline and the content of their articles is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Also, most of the content is original research by synthesis. While Telepods and Stathis Borans are currently redirects, checking previous versions, I do not see a good reason to keep them either. Jfgslo (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, they were still redirects when I opened this nomination, but given that the editors in question periodically restore them, I figured they should be included in the discussion as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 16 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Romney[edit]

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

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

Like Tagg, another WP:NOTINHERITED case and a bit of WP:BLP1E. This son did get slightly more press for his role in Mitt's campaign, plus the "will he or won't he?" speculation that invariably pops up with people hint they may run for office. As with Tagg, absent the famous family, this person would be just another thought-about-it-but didn't office contender, and an campaign aide, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't appear to have done anything notable. Per WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". It looks 4 of Sarah Palin's 5 children are redirects, so we seem to have some precedent for judging that just getting media coverage as the family member of a candidate for political office doesn't make one notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mitt Romney#University and missionary years, marriage and family, where he is already mentioned. This should be a straight redirect, with no deletion and no merge needed. If Josh becomes notable in his own right beyond WP:NOTINHERITED, or if Mitt becomes president and Josh does inherit notability that way, the redirect can be turned back into a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this solution. To the closing admin: my "delete" vote above doesn't preclude redirecting, I don't really care how the article is deleted, I just think it shouldn't be an article; redirecting seems like a fine way to handle it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. --John (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the coverage is in relation to Mitt Romney's campaign, and the rest was mere unfulfilled speculation about a run for public office, and not significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Hekerui (talk) 20:42, 19 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagg Romney[edit]

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

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

Simple case of "notability is not inherited". Held several ordinary jobs before working for his father's presidential campaign, making a small handful of talking head-type news appearances on his behalf. One WaPo story on the brothers' blogging doesn't cut it for notability for Tagg. Not even really worth a redirect, IMO, he just hasn't done anything worth searching for. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding the redirect, it's not for us to judge what readers should be searching for; the fact is if they are searching for a topic and we have related content, it's our job to get them to it. I agree on the whole that this topic's notability is derivative and it doesn't merit its own article, but would suggest an approach like Malia Obama and Family of Barack Obama as the best solution. Skomorokh 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't appear to have done anything notable, just worked ordinary jobs and happens to be related to a well-known politician. It looks 4 of Sarah Palin's 5 children are redirects, so we seem to have some precedent for judging that just getting media coverage as the family member of a candidate for political office doesn't make one notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mitt Romney#University and missionary years, marriage and family, where he is already mentioned. This should be a straight redirect, with no deletion and no merge needed. If Tagg becomes notable in his own right beyond WP:NOTINHERITED, or if Mitt becomes president and Tagg does inherit notability that way, the redirect can be turned back into a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete worked for Mitt's campaign as a surrogate but is not independently notable by sigificant coverage standards. Notability is not inherited, as the nominator stated. Hekerui (talk) 20:38, 19 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eujobcentre[edit]

Eujobcentre (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:PROD concern: The subject of the article does not appear to meet the appropriate notability requirements. Meph^talk 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Appears to have been created for promotional purposes. No independent WP:reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noq (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 June 2011
• Delete I originally proposed the deletion of this article of this article since it didn't meet the notability requirements for organizations, and I still believe that it doesn't. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not finding any indication that it meets WP:CORP. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Spam/promotional page created by SPA 'Eujobcentre'. Dialectric (talk) 21:45, 15 June 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 Abbie Hoffman. v/r - TP 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America Hoffman[edit]

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

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

Unnotable person. Redirect to Abbie Hoffman#Personal life or perhaps to Steal This Movie.

The lede says it all. Article leads give a concise description of who the person is and why he is notable. The lede for this article is "America Hoffman is the son of Abbie and Anita Hoffman". And that's the sole claim of notability for this person. He neither accomplished anything of note nor was he in the news in any meaningful way.

But we don't have articles on people just because their parents were notable. The article is entirely about some obscure lawsuit in which Hoffman was the plaintiff. This material is repeated in the article Steal This Movie which is where it belongs. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Abbie Hoffman — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Abbie Hoffman per nom. Rob T Firefly (talk) 11:45, 17 June 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 Nomination withdrawn. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plants and animals of Belize[edit]

Plants and animals of Belize (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 never been more than a stub. We already have the large Flora of Belize and now we have the stub Fauna of Belize. There's no need to keep this article ... except maybe as a disambiguation page? Rennell435 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The articles you quoted have scientific names. You could even probably merge those 2 articles into Fauna and flora of Belize.Curb Chain (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The discussion page makes the history clear. It is now a remnant stub and can be treated as a fork. --AJHingston (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore as a disambig only page, as a likely search term. Lugnuts (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect  There is no dispute that the topic is notable and the content encyclopedic.  There is a history of good-faith edits that should not be deleted.  According to the discussion page, content has been merged from this article...I don't know the details but there is some kind of copyright requirement to retain the edit history of such contributions.  Since the editors don't want to maintain the article with referenced content they can redirect it to Belize and be done with it.  Based on what has been said here at the AfD, I'd consider making it a two-item list with Flora of Belize and Fauna of Belize.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, seeing as the general consensus here seems to be favour turning into disambiguation. That will keep the edit history intact. Rennell435 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it a list? Rennell435 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to a dab page. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a list, not a dab page. A dab page identifies different topics that may be referred to by the same name. This page lists two subtopics of a single broader topic. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:51, 14 June 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. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet and there are no other arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hron[edit]

John Hron (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 our notability guideline for victims of crime. The crime may be notable, but the victim does not inherit notability from it. Anthem 10:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC) revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - is this nomination really serious?. Its one of swedens most known criminal/murder cases. This should not be delete on some vague reasoning by a single user.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also 1996 Hron was posthumously awarded the Stig Dagerman award for free speech an award winner, makes it notable beyond the murder itself too.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Murder of John Hron may be a notable topic, but he isn't unless there are sources concerning him independent of the murder. --Anthem 07:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I want the article to be expanded before voting a Strong Keep. Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your justification for keeping the article is ? --Anthem 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• May I just mention that the AFD user here Anthem has been blocked indefinite for sockpuppeting.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [27]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I stumbled across this article after reading the article [Murder of James Bulger]. I think it is very useful for anyone researching child murders/murderers. Given that the user who suggested it for deletion is blocked, can we close the discussion and remove the AfD notice? Also, I was actually looking for a Swedish (maybe, could be Norway) case of a child who killed another child around the time of the Bulger case in Britian. I couldn't find the case, anyone who remembers could put a link in a 'See Also' section in the article. Bendav (talk) 14:31, 15 June 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) 03:43, 20 June 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))

The Natural Sapphire Company[edit]

The Natural Sapphire Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails to establish notability; some of the external links are either blogs, commercial announcements, or only incidentally mention the company. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is blatant propaganda material and goes against Wiki’s G11 policy should be deleted with immediate effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.25.8 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 203.212.25.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete all references are self generated press releases with no news value article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep There are numerous news references that are not press releases, propaganda, etc.: Fox Business[28], New York Times[29], CBS[30], The Australian[31], CNN[32], and more. Some of the articles feature the company. This seems like a company that is plenty notable enough for a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm changing my !vote to "Delete", after a further look at the references in the article, and reviewing some of the comments here. The only third party neutral Reliable Sources in the article are about the replica Kate Middleton engagement ring. There are only one or two sentences in the entire article that should remain, if this article is kept. I would reduce the article to those 1-2 sentences now, but I understand that is not best practice for an article up for deletion, so I will do it after this is done, if it is kept. The article should essentially be about the Kate Middleton engagement ring replica, and nothing else. That is the only event that the company is known for in reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not the news, so this single minor news event should not have an article.

Note to closing admin: at this point the only 'Keep' vote is from a company representative. First Light (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, I am VERY confused here. I have looked at other jewelry and gemstone companies on Wikipedia and see even less real links to news articles then this page has. For example: Michael C. Fina has NO real news articles, has links going to its own press releases, has links that point to transcripts of TV shows it's not even in, etc. I didnt write about the history of The Natural Sapphire Company as there were no online references that I could prove things with, so i didnt. There are multiple TV, magazine, newspaper, online articles that discuss our brand, items we sell, etc http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/Sapphires/Company/Press/. If to keep this wikipedia entry, I need to be more like Michael C. Fina and list self made press releases and talk about the company history with no references, then please let let me know and that's how I will edit it to. Also, according to Reliable Sources, http://www.professionaljeweller.com/ is a unbiased, professional news source. http://www.professionaljeweller.com/article-9241-the-natural-sapphire-company-unveils-69ct-ring/ has an article about the "largest natural blue sapphire ring currently available on the market today" (please ignore the comment made by Transpacific in the comment section on that page). How does this not make the company "notable"? EvanWasHere (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is for us to decide whether professionaljeweller.com is a reliable source by our standards. Secondly, once again, you are linking an article that tells us next to nothing about The Natural Sapphire Company - the article is about the ring, not the company. Frankly, it reads as if it is nothing more than a recycled press release - we aren't interested in what the company CEO has to say, but in what neutral outsiders have to say about the company. With regard to other Wikipedia articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a useful argument - we are trying to improve article quality, not accept the lowest common denominator. If the Michael C. Fina article has problems, this isn't the place to discuss them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EvanWasHere, Professionaljeweller.com clearly does not meet the Wikipedia standards of Reliable Source. Their own site disclaimers include that their content is "for informational and online transaction purposes only" and "Promedia Ltd intend for the Content on the www.professionaljeweller.com site to be accurate and reliable, however, since the Content has been compiled from a variety of sources, it is provided to you “as is” and “as available”." They then disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy of their content. To the contrary, Reliable Sources at Wikipedia must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Michael C. Fina article is also a candidate for AfD, and a comparison between these two articles does not help your case. First Light (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several of those links appear overly trivial. Meph^talk 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their products may be trivial/pop stuff, but at least three of the articles feature the company and their trivial product(s): the Fox, Australian, and CNN articles. First Light (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking this comment, after my change of !vote above to delete, and after seeing the other references in this article. The only Reliable Sources in the article are about a single minor news event, the replica Kate Middleton engagement ring made by this company. A Google search for "replica kate middleton engagement ring" (without quotes) shows that this single event is hardly unique or notable enough for a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: company resorts to self generated publicity for SEO benefit through send2press-release and PRwire-press release most references are various versions of these releases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can only !vote once. As mentioned above, several of the references are legitimate mainstream reliable news articles, including the Fox, Australian, and CNN articles, among others. First Light (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blatant advertising/hype. I'm still trying to figure out how you can 'manufacture' natural sapphires... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The manufacturing portion of this company is for the custom jewerly it creates. The company does not "manufacture natural sapphires". EvanWasHere (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As mentioned, there are numerous mainstream news references that are NOT press releases or so called propoganda. A number of these articles are exclusively about this company. The company is legit, in business since 1939. Note: Transpacific23 and 203.212.25.8, and any other non registered user IP used in the editing of this wikipedia page is all the same person/company (please see the history page of the wiki to see some of the random IPs this company has used to vandalize the page). <Redacted - ATG > They are using a proxy IP to hide their IP to cause confusion as well. EvanWasHere (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been in relation to this article, I don't think you are actually in a position to complain. I have also redacted part of your last post as potentially libellous. Please observe proper talk page etiquette, and stick to issues of direct relevance. All participants need to note that this is not a vote, and any decision as to the article's fate will depend on issues of Wikipedia policy. Now can anyone provide clear evidence that The Natural Sapphire Company meets Wikipedia's requirements regarding notability, as laid out here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).? Unless this can be provided, the article will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have moved a lengthy discussion to the talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An advert, pure and simple. Does not satisfy notability. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is pure unadulterated non-notable WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A note to the closing admin.. If, as seems likely, this article is deleted, can I ask that it be salted to prevent recreation - note than an earlier AfD resulted in deletion, [33] and that there were apparently speedy deletions prior to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 20 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burwood Soccer Club[edit]

Burwood Soccer Club (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've just finished removing a lot of uncited claims in this article about such and such being the best player ever to live. Now I think it's time this article faced up to AFD. I can't establish any notability myself and it seems to fail WP:ORG with no reliable sources asserting notability. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 09:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the general notability guideline as far as I can see. --Anthem 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [34]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't competed at a high enough level to be considered notable, per WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not notable enoughZanoni (talk) 08:38, 16 June 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 List of Star Trek races#Sphere Builders. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Builder[edit]

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

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

Plot only coverage of a fictional topic. There is a lack of reliable third party sources for this alien race. Anthem 09:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please discount any comments by Anthem of Joy, he's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced OR plot, without out-of-universe relevance or notability. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP and SPEEDY CLOSE, let a real person re-nominate it if they want, but don't feed the sock puppets. Mathewignash (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sockpuppet or not, this seems to be a perfectly sensible discussion, irrespective of the status of the nominator. I propose continuing per WP:IAR. --Crusio (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - per mathewignash.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [35]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fictional alien does not meet the general notability guideline and as a subject it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article doesn't provide any reference to back up the content, so all of it is original research by synthesis. Jfgslo (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Star Trek races#Sphere Builders, merge content at editorial discretion. I couldn't find evidence of notability, but it is perfectly appropriate for merging in that list. Cenarium (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Cenarium. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no independent coverage outside of a plot retelling provided, the episode plot summary is sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 20:55, 19 June 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 to delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange[edit]

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (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 list of cultural references is inappropriate because it is necessarily going to be a list of trivia and thus conflicts with the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Almost none of the "cultural references" have any notability, and the cultural impact of A Clockwork Orange can be covered elsewhere without this unsourced list cruft. Anthem 07:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup per WP:POPCULTURE. Tagged.—RJH (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to an encyclopaedic article called Cultural impact of A Clockwork Orange or something similar, but I don't understand how this list of trivial "cultural references" would be of use in creating such an article. --Anthem 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of wikipedia pages that include a subsection called "references in popular culture". This page serves the purpose of this sub-section but in a separate page. If this page is to be deleted on the basis that it is a "list of trivia", then all those subsections on other pages should also be deleted. --Bigbadman (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to something like this version and keep. The rename suggested above is also a good idea -- if it is not called "list", perhaps that slows down the cruft accumulation. —Kusma (t·c) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an inherently incompleteable trivia list. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move This content, cleaned up as suggested by Anthem of joy, should be a "cultural references" section in the Clockwork Orange article. Mellie107 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason that this list was originally split off is that it contains both cultural references to the book and to the film. In many cases it is clear that the reference is to the film (Bart Simpson in Alex costume), in others it is not (nadsat references). —Kusma (t·c) 05:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [36]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but perhaps move to A Clockwork Orange in popular culture, and make it more of an article in paragraph format. -- Cirt (talk) 03:41, 20 June 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. Nominator blocked as a sock and there are no other arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway Recordings[edit]

Fenway Recordings (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 artist management company seems to fail our notability guideline for organizations as well as the general notability guideline. Although there is some coverage in reliable sources, it mostly amounts to trivial mentions of Kates' status in the company or that a particular group has been managed by the company, which cannot be used to substantiate notability. The only real significant coverage is in the Boston Phoenix, which deals with now defunct record label side of the business. Previous AFD in 2006 closed as no consensus. Anthem 07:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [37]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:40, 15 June 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. After discounting the blocked sock nominator there is an (albeit narrow) consensus that the sourcing is sufficient for a standalone article. Even if one would discount some "keep" opinions as not addressing the sourcing issue, it's at least a no consensus default to keep.  Sandstein  20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg[edit]

Ankheg (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 fictional monster fails the general notability guideline, due to the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. While there are multiple citations to reliable sources, none of them are third party, all being associated with the official Dungeons and Dragons brand/game. A search engine test provides no signs of independent coverage. Anthem 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources relating to this topic were not self-published and so are quite satisfactory for our purpose as there is editorial independence and commercial distribution. Warden (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are in fact "self-published" in that the publishers of the books cited are TSR, Inc. or Wizards of the Coast. Both TSR and Wizards of the Coast have owned the Dungeons and Dragons trade mark and have been the producers of Dungeons and Dragons products. There's no real editorial independence of these sources from the games, as they are essentially produced by the same companies. --Anthem 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most publishers and authors protect their intellectual property by means of copyrights and so forth. The publishing operation here is quite standard - there are separate authors, editors and publishing staff and numerous publications and journals. This output is sold commercially and so is not a vanity press or free promotional material such as advertising. There is therefore no reason to discount such sources as they are satisfactory for both notability and verifiability. Warden (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was "vanity or free promotional material" - that's a straw man. A better analogy would be that they are instruction manuals as how to play the game. They don't substantiate the notability of individual parts of it - they're primary sources. --Anthem 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this fictional species is protected by intellectual property rights does not mean that we shouldn't expect there to be any independent sources. Harry Potter (character), Superman, and Mickey Mouse are all protected by copyright and/or trademark, and yet the articles about them have sources independent of their creators/publishers. Obviously, I don't expect ankhegs to have as many independent sources as those characters, but they ought to have at least one to justify including a separate Wikipedia article about them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Ankheg, like many other D&D monsters has been included into the System Reference Document (SRD) and used by other roleplaying game publishers (creating verifiable secondary sources of the same element of culture). I'm suprised that Anthem's "search engine test" did not throw up the Ankheg page in the Pathfinder Reference Document, which is Paizo's conversion of the specific D&D monster in this article to their own upgraded (but compatible) rules. I'm also suprised that he did not stumble onto the Ankheg article on Pathfinder Wiki. Pathfinder Wiki is an independent encyclopedia of things that relate to the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and is a high quality wiki, with accurate citations. If you check their sources, they have four Paizo publications that further develop the fictional monster on this page. It took me less than 10 seconds to work out that Ankheg had been republished by Paizo. I'm sure that someone with more time could find other sources from other 3rd edition era publishers. I think this AFD should be scrapped and that Wikiproject D&D should be asked to clean up the article and add more sources. Big Mac (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on the suitability of Pathfinder Wiki in the light of WP:SPS? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our guidelines on reliable sources. Wiki-projects which anyone can edit such as the Pathfinder Wiki are not reliable sources, and the System Reference Document is a primary source, because it is not independent of the publishers of the game. Anthem 19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The sources quoted are not independent of the topic. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What about dragon magazine, dungeon magazine, third party modules, etc? The Ankheg has most definitely appeared in reliable sources, but even if it hadn't it is something every gamer knows about. Why are editors suddenly trying to delete gaming material?98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we are applying overly stringent standards here. Applied elsewhere we'd have to delete lots of information. Something doesn't have to be hugely notable to earn a wikipedia entry. It simply needs to exist as a component of something notable. D&D is notable. It is THE role playing game. I see no reason why monsters from any of the monster manuals or from different editions couldn't have their own articles. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The place for information on a component on a notable thing is as a component of the article on that notable thing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with Warden and Big Mac. Note that there was only recently a similar Afd (over Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)) that failed to produce a consensus to delete. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- our requirements regarding independent sources are very clear. If there aren't any, we shouldn't have an article on it. This article is sourced solely to stuff produced by people who have an interest in promoting it. There is no evidence that anyone else has taken any notice. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how this interview hosted on Tor.com, Tor Books' website, is produced "by people who have an interest in promoting it"? I don't see anything else published by Tor in the references list, and I thought that TSR and Wizards were the vested companies. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're basing your assertion of notability on a single name-drop in half a sentence in an interview with the guy who invented this fictional monster? Really? Reyk _YO! 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm asking you a specific question about a blanket statement you made that I don't see matches reality. If there's an error of fact in your deletion rationale, it might well be discarded by the closing admin, and I wouldn't want your voice to go uncounted simply because you were too hasty in writing your rationale. You have plenty of time to amend it appropriately, that's all. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Reyk. A Google Books search is very instructive here, since Ankheg was entirely made up for D&D. In addition to the two independent RS that appear in the article already, I found four in Bastion Press (not TSR or Wizards-owned) publications 1234, and one in Computer Gaming World. Likewise, Google News Archive shows mention in multiple Baldur's Gate reviews. Google Scholar duplicates two of the Google Books entries, but adds another mention in what appears to be a fan-generated GURPS supplement that I'm unsure why they chose to include. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion was Delete, so when you start saying things like "keep per Reyk" you are deliberately being a dick. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said it must be covered by independent sources to be kept, and I entirely agree and explained why with plenty of examples. Nothing dickish about that, just AGFing that you meant what you said. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You found a bunch of trivial name-drops, and you are twisting my words. You are trying to maneuver me into a position where I either have to agree with you or admit bad faith. It's the second time I've seen you do this in about a week. It's a cheap trick. Knock it off. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I merely posted the links, explicitly calling two of them "mentions"; triviality or not is something for the editors commenting here to evaluate. If you want to be a bit more verbose in the future--that is, finding such references, linking them to the discussion, and commenting on their triviality--then we could avoid avoid such misunderstandings in the future, which I'm sure is a goal you can agree with. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per WP:BURDEN, you find the sources on this topic. --Anthem 07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk. "Trivial name drops", as he put it, do not confer notability; the topic has to actually be discussed in some detail in third party sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge - "Trivial name drops" sound like another way to say "independent resources"; "trivial" is in the eye of the consensus. I add merge as an option because while I think D&D creatures deserve coverage, its hard to justify separate articles without delving too deep into in-universe style. This article does have some factual publication history sort of info, but that sort of info is conveyed better, I think, in larger summary articles. While some entities are important enough to the property to warrant separate articles, ankhegs seem mostly a background feature. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep particularly per the arguments of Jclemens and Sangrolu. BOZ (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well sourced, interesting article, that only lacks an image for perfection. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Let's just go through all the sources on offer to check whether they constitute significant coverage in reliable third party sources:

The Monster Manual is not independent because it is published by TSR, who are the same company which produces Dungeons and Dragons and owns the brand.

Dragon (magazine) is also not independent, because it is published by TSR. It is an official magazine, containing primary coverage.

The interview with Erol Otus contains no significant coverage of the Ankheg.

Monstrous Compendium Volume Two is also not independent, because it is published by TSR.

A later edition of the Monster Manual is also not independent, because it is published by Wizards of the coast which is not an independent source.

A user edited wiki such as [38] is a classic unreliable source.

[39] is just someone's internet database of monsters in the Final Fantasy series and thus is of dubious reliability.

Moving on to Jclemen's sources:

[40] is not significant coverage. Significant coverage must address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.

[41] is not significant coverage. The mention of "ankheg acid" in a table and a short explanation of what it is does not constitute significant coverage of ankheg, per the definition of significant coverage.

[42] is not significant coverage. The fact that the ankheg is in a list of creatures with six legs does not give it notability.

[43] is not significant coverage - ankhegs are just listed in a table along with other creatures.

[44] is not significant coverage - the ankheg is not adressed in detail.

Pointing at hundreds of "possible sources" at [45] makes my life difficult, but none of the first five sources are reliable or proffer significant coverage.

Out of the three GoogleScholar sources, two just list Ankhegs in lists of D&D creatures, and one states that the Ankheg was an inspiration for an illustration. Not significant coverage.
So, I remain committed to deleting this article unless someone can show how this meets Wikipedia's criteria for significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources, or provide other sources which do provide such content. There seems to be an aberrant local consensus among editors of D&D articles that notability is unimportant, and unless you can find sources which support your keep !votes, that opinion of mine will be reinforced. Anthem 10:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge I agree with Sangrolu. The ankheg is a monster unique to D&D that has existed in most versions of the game, and there are enough sources to merit at least minimal coverage somewhere, whether it's on its own page or not. zorblek (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by "minimal coverage" you mean one or two sentences on a list of D&D monsters, I agree with you. If so, may I ask why you're !voting keep as well ? Anthem 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem this seems like a lot of reliable sources have been provided. The majority clearly supports keeping this article. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment about all the so-called "reliable sources". Anthem 16:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them. I believe most of these are reliable sources and so do most of the other posters. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the minority can be right. Unless you specifically rebut my points, I assume that you don't have any legitimate arguments to support the reliability of the sources. Anthem 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem you don't get to make the final decision here. But to your point, I think the fact that it is listed in those sources makes it a significant monster in RPGs. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - I recommend closing this AFD, as the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as yet another sockpuppet of User:Claritas. BOZ (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. The discussion has been perfectly sensible. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because blocked users such as Claritas/Anthem are not permitted to edit, and that includes starting AFDs. This is not the first time this user has created a sockpuppet account to continue his disruption (User:Blest Withouten Match was the last example I recalled). BOZ (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no disruption here, but a civilised and sensible discussion. If there's a rule against it, then I would ignore it Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK? BOZ (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable. was nominated by a sockpuppet.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [46]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Regardless of the source of the complaint, I think it's still a valid concern. I am not opposed to D&D monsters having their own entry, if they are notable creations that have had a major impact on the game and through it, popular culture, such as the Drow, Beholder, or Mind Flayer. However, I don't think that this particular entry counts as one of them. This is a minor monster and I don't think Wikipedia should be a repository for every single D&D creature--this is written in an in-universe style and really ads nothing else other that a sourced bibliography. I think many of the D&D monsters should be moved either to their own Wiki or turned into a list, similar to what was done with Pokemon. JRT (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence that the fictional monster meets the general notability guideline. The majority of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work and that which is not is merely its publication history, nothing to presume that the monster has reception or significance in reliable third-party sources. I also believe that this is not an appropiate topic since Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details and this is a minor monster in the Dungeons & Dragons game. The article is referenced with primary and tertiary sources and lacks reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to presume that it has notability to deserve a stand-alone article. As Reyk mentioned, random Google hits is not the same as notability, as notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Trivial mentions in secondary sources (such as reviews of games) or detailed mentions in tertiary sources (such as gaming guides) are not evidence of notability. Jfgslo (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - mainly because there is little to merge to and it has a 30 year history of coverage - I'll pay this as significant, but do concede it is a bit "in-universey". If I get a chance I will keep hunting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion Press is owned by Dragonwing Games, a company with a direct commercial interest in promoting D&D. The argument "keep because there's nowhere to merge it to" seems particularly weak. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone (magazine) has a direct commercial interest in promoting music. Hmm, so does Billboard (magazine). Are those, then, impeached as independent sources on music? I thought not. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a direct commercial interest in promoting a specific piece of music, which has an article, and that article is up for discussion, then thid comment would become relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're saying Bastion press has a specific commercial interest in promoting Ankhegs in specific, instead of just publishing RPG subjects for D20/D&D in general? While I'm not going to argue that the coverage is hugely broad, I will say this: if that's your definition of independence, then that is an insurmountable hurdle for third party publishers to ever be considered independent on anything deriving from primary sources. Yes, if you sell X, even though you didn't originate X, you make money from X. Music, RPGs, Pokemon, TV shows, novels, etc. I think it's clear both from policy and common sense that you're drawing the line far too narrowly. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has a direct interest in promoting the game which is the only place where this entity appears. However, independence is only one of the problems in my comments below. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's consider this source in detail against the criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ankheg is a fictional entity in a particular game which this source discusses and out of which the publisher making a living. Is that "independent"? The book is indeed (more than a bit "in-universey": in fact it's entirely about suggestions for how this game might be played. Is that "reliable"? Finally, let me quote the entire coverage (don;t worry, this isn't going to violate anyone's copyright!). It's on a page about how a plain of grass might be viewed in the game. "A knowledge check ... provides awareness of the relationship between tripweed and ankheg." "Burrowing through the ground underneath the intended target, the ankheg waits for the ideal opportunity to surprise its prey." "There is a 15% chance of enountering an ankheg while passing through a patch of tripweed." One mention in a table and the index and that's it. Three sentences. Is that "significant coverage"? Does this add up to notability supporting a free-standing article. I say no. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:30, 19 June 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 speedily deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Booiaka[edit]

Booiaka (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 a dance-style subject. There are some obviously promotional areas on some of this page, but the main problem is, I cannot find any news sources to establish notability. Minima© (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The dance is copyrighted. It has no cultural significance.Curb Chain (talk) 12:41, 12 June 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. Favonian (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Wayne Cole[edit]

Jeffrey Wayne Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. One-time councilperson, so may meet WP:GNG if someone can find sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem notableCurb Chain (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more or less per nom. Seems to be no sign of significance as a political candidate, apparently lost the city council race, getting between 1% and 1.5% of the votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 14 June 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. Favonian (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Sajid Ali Howlader[edit]

Mohammad Sajid Ali Howlader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All the sources appear to be in Bengali and I can't find a program to translate that, but judging on the titles of the already cited articles he meets the GNG. jorgenev

• Delete: Fails WP:PROF. The article is also an autobiography as the subject himself wrote most of it. (@Jorgenev, I can help translate a Bengali news article if you want). --Ragib (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with no cites on GS. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I searched for references in an both Google and Yahoo and didn't find anything reliable, except for a Facebook and linkedin page. There is zero notability for this person. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:45, 17 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-born Vietnamese footballers[edit]

Foreign-born Vietnamese footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Generally, we do not categorize people by their nation of origin. In addition, WP:LIST says that lists should include only people for whom it is a defining feature. None of these people are notable for being from outside of Vietnam, they are notable for being football players. In addition it is typical to make lists on the basis of what people are, rather than what they are not. If this was a category I'd say it was overcategorization, and that same argument applies to the list. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. There's nothing inherently special about a football player being born outside Vietnam but currently living in Vietnam. JIP | Talk 06:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial cross-categorisation, fails WP:NOTDIR. --Anthem
  • Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [47]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please don't keep an article that will establish a precedent for a nonnotable set of articles.Curb Chain (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Listcruft, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT; consensus also exists that these kind of articles aren't notable, such as this AfD. GiantSnowman 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 12 June 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.