< 17 March	19 March >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was merge to David Korten. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Turning[edit]

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

Advertising for a non-notable book, I only found one borderline no idea if it's a reliable source in The Sun and all the other sources listed aren't reliable, such as blogs, personal wiki, etc borderline speedy Delete Secret ^account 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, but just a brief book synopsis, into the article on the author. This book doesnt have enough notability yet. I will copy this material to my sandbox, and add the bare minimum to the author article, if no one else does. Id rather see this material go away for a while than have it stay here as extremely poorly sourced promotional material. I am a big fan of Macy and of this idea, but i dont like how articles on subjects like this go into way more esoteric detail than is justified by their notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:49, 8 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 10 March 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, T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Korten. Non-notable book and concept. Mercurywoodrose has saved the information and has stated intent to include it in the author's page. — Bility (talk) 00:21, 19 March 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 result was keep. Redirect can be discussed on talk page (non-admin closure) CTJF83 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1642 in Ireland[edit]

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

Essentially no content, unsourced, needs to be redirected. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to what article exactly. SunCountryGuy 01 23:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WP:SK ground 1 apply here for a speedy keep? Nominator proposes redirection, but you don't need an AfD to redirect.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without this article, the Category:1640s in Ireland category would be missing an important article. Pburka (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a bigger scheme of years in Ireland in the 1640s. Maybe it should be merged into 1640s in Ireland, but that discussion isn't for here. Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Did the nom think it couldn't be sourced? Articles are only deleted if they are unverifiable, not merely unverified at present. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wilks[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Sources provided are unreliable or primary. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are very unreliable. SunCountryGuy 01 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources given are either primary, not independent or the subject, or do not give significant enough coverage of the person. As for sources outside the article, there appear to be none which suggest he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Since he doesn't fall into any of the other categories at WP:MUSICBIO, and does not qualify for WP:TEACHER because he is not a professor or major research figure, although he may be head of music at a school, unfortunately he fails to meet notability guidelines. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Michael[edit]

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

Perennial candidate does not meet notability requirements. Recommend delete or maybe redirect to some independent candidate page (if there is one). Suttungr (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fringe candidate never elected. Fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. PK T(alk) 23:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur. SunCountryGuy 01 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a losing candidate, she fails WP:POLITICIAN and you can't overcome that by losing lots of elections instead of just a couple. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, the number of elections lost does not make them more notable. Aaaccc (talk), 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a great many articles written about perennial candidates. If it is sourced it should be kept. - Pictureprovince (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each of these people need to be judged on their own merits. This person doesn't. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of perennial candidates includes many who were elected to high office at some point in their careers. It includes many who achieved notability in fields other than electoral politics. It includes some who should probably be deleted. Just because some perennial candidates are notable doesn't mean this one is. She isn't. All I can find are a couple of sentences that recommend her as a possible protest vote. That isn't in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Sorry, but it isn't. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achille Raspantini[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) Lack of reliable third party sources indicating notability. Most of the sources given in the article are not independent of the subject or are not reliable sources. Delete Safiel (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. There are vague claims that that are fluffed up to sound notable like being "the driver behind ABC's development of the parabolic microphone system". What exactly did he do that was notable? It's hard to tell with all the peacock language in the article, and it can't be discerned from independent reliable sources outside of the article as I could find none. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly does not pass the threshold for WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was REDIRECT. Anyone who wants to merge anything can just take what they want from the article history. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koby Mandell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Koby Mandell

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

This article fails to meet notability per WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO1E. Passionless -Talk 19:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this article about Koby Mandell should have its own article, there is an article about the "Stoning murder of Israeli teens", which is about Koby Mandell, and that articles notability itself is questionable.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You beat me to this, I was going to nominate it myself. Classic failure of the guidelines named above. Big Dom 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stoning murder of Israeli teens in the event that article is kept. If not, delete as it certainly fails the standards given in the nom as a stand-alone article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoning murder of Israeli teens (which should in turn be renamed Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran for consistency of other articles involving murder). There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources regarding the event, Koby Mandell, and the Koby Mandell Act. Location (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close/merge—it wasn't very nice listing this article for deletion when the main discussion is going on at the AfD for Stoning murder of Israeli teens. The two articles are related, so whatever the outcome of the other AfD, it will be relevant for this article as well. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to the article on his murder, not independently notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stoning murder of Israeli teens which I think has a very faint chance of being deleted its-self. The articles have similar information and the murder was the most significant part of the story.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stoning murder of Israeli teens. Add parts about U.S. Congressional acts to stoning article. Koby Mandell's death is well known and still discussed in the U.S., regardless of articles. But,it should be the event that has the article. Sposer (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stoning murder of Israeli teens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stoning murder of Israeli teens

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

The article fails to have notability per WP:EVENT- this was merely a non significant double murder. Passionless -Talk 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Still find it significant enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator also wants the article on one of the victims to be merged to this article. As ofcourse the murder victim in this particular case isnt notable in himself but the event itself is. Which tells me this article should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very notable case. United States Congress named the act for one of the victims.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran for consistency of other articles involving murder. It passes WP:EVENT and its various subguidelines (e.g. it meets WP:EFFECT given the legislation that was ~~passed~~ proposed). There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources regarding the event, Koby Mandell, and the Koby Mandell Act. Location (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran and merge info from Koby Mandell. This was a highly notable attack covered in the international media and discussed in several documentaries on the conflict. The extent of coverage and the uniqueness of the attack vs. other attacks can be derived from the sources currently in the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with info merged as above. WP:N/CA implies that strong media coverage may indicate notability; in this case, I'd say there is such. There is a lasting impact in the form of the new legislation, and the dates on the sources indicate ongoing coverage for years afterwards. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets the proper guidelines and is a very notable subject. SunCountryGuy 01 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:EVENT from sources in Google Books (although sources actually cited in article don't seem to be adequate). Legislation ~~never passed, though~~ isn't as important or directly influenced as you're making out, and I'll add a note at the article to this effect. Re-name. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so I guess I should counter the claims being made above in favour of the article's notability, being that out of the three sources published post 2001- the first is an opinion piece in the JPost which dedicates an entire two sentences to the murders out of pages of text, therefore this source does not show notability as it is in passing. The second is a piece in the entertainment section of the JPost, which talks about the comedy act named 'Comedy for Koby', nothing about the murders. The third is again in a local paper-the JPost, which is an interview with the father of Koby talking about the Itamar attacks, not about the murder of Koby. I think it is quite clear outside Israel the murders are quite unimportant and not talked about. Also, according to Roscelese the legislation in the US congress which many of the keep voters mentioned was never passed. So, I think this murder case is like many that happen everyday, it is in the local news, and possibly international news when it is part of a greater conflict or a famous person, but by the end of the week it is non-notable. Passionless -Talk 01:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction and apology: the law itself was never passed, but elements of it were added into an omnibus spending bill which was passed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this the act did pass. And how about all other sources used ABC News, New York Times; BBC, Guardian; USA Today; Daily Mail. There are many more, but I believe those should be enough!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said post 2001 coverage- news coverage at the time of the event is meaningless in this discussion per WP:NOTNEWS-"most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Passionless -Talk 01:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you still forgot about this one published in 2007.And I just added this one from the end of 2007. There are quite a few other books that mention the murder as well.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. This is a news happening, not a historic event. Carrite (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an event that sparked enough attention as to have a US act of congress named after it several years after the fact can't be described as "not notable after the end of the first week". this is from 2006, this from 2007. There are many others. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran per above suggestion and naming conventions. Current title is vague.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep I disagree with the nominator's assertion that this act was a "non significant double murder". It is well covered and received responses from several organizations, the pope and had a proposed bill. The article can use a little clean-up though. I also think Koby Mandell (with its own AfD) should be merged in.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant keep? Passionless -Talk 02:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whoops.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are murders everyday around the world, sadly–and we can't start articles about them all. The response to this event appears to exceptional rather than routine, however. It was widely reported in international media sources and caused a government half-way across the world to pass a new law in response. That indicates to me that it is a notable criminal event. I will note that like 95% of Wikipedia articles some cleanup is needed, but as a wise old man once said, "AFD is not the place to bring articles just because they need some cleaning up". Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ynhockey -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 05:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add U.S. Congressional acts from Koby Mandell article assuming it is deleted. Sposer (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in this article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in accordance with every policy I can think of. I suggest that passionless reads some real material and not the junk of Haaretz. Broccolo (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move as prev suggestion to Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, and kindly lay off the 'junk of Haaretz' talk. It cheapens the discussion, and we don't want it descending into the usual 'anti-arab' vs 'anti-semite' BS that occurs too often on this sort of contentious article. Not taking sides here (I myself am Jewish by race if not practice, and a supporter of a free Palestine, make of the contradiction what you will...), just can't be bothered with the flamewarring. Bennydigital (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Simms[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is not important enough to have an article. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the mayor of the second largest city in Newfoundland and Labrador, he meets WP:POLITICIAN . Individual assertions of importance or non-importance are not relevant, but consensus notability guidelines are very relevant in this debate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pearl has a population of 24,000 alot less than St. John's 100,000. Therefore being the Mayor of the second biggest city in a province doesn't always guarantee notability. Aaaccc (talk), 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, notable per WP:POLITICIAN (we may want to improve those guidelines). –SJ + 19:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The guideline says that "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion". You are right, Aaaccc, that this isn't a "guarantee", but I believe that Mount Pearl is of "regional importance". Others may disagree. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject meets the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. I'd like to see more sources and coverage, but the subject's claim to notability is sufficient at this point to satisfy our requirements. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing and NPOV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel (2011 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no secondary source coverage, or claims of significance. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the stub's meager two sentences make searches possible,[1][2] the predictive nature of the limited coverage would seem indicative of this stub beeing WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I concur and this article is poorly written and cites absolutely no sources neither is it categorized. SunCountryGuy 01 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It already has articles written just about it, such as [3]. You can see a few others at Google news archive search for "Rebel" AND "Raghava Lawrence" Dream Focus 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm surprised this didn't get nominated for Speedy Deletion as Spam. It's really just promotional in how it's written. The film may be notable, but the article reads like a (poorly written) ad. Bagheera (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Santiago[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Originally nominated for deletion in 2009, no consensus. Article issues identified in the AfD, which are as massive as the article, have not been corrected, and the article simply fails WP:NOTE. Article is hagiography, and subject has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is pegged to Wikipedia activity of subject (see text just removed[4], sourced to the Wikipedia Signpost). This just doesn't make the cut. Article relies far too heavily on original research and primary sources, and two sources used to establish notability, El Boricua and Somos Primos, employ Santiago. Their articles are promotional and not independent of the subject. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second, not third AfD. First AfD was for a wrestler by the same name. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hopefully all commenters will stay focused on substantive arguments and discussions of policy and leave ad hominem, tempers, and accusations of bad faith out. Thx in advance, Agricola44 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support deletion. Meets standards for WP:V but not for WP:N and nowhere close for WP:BOLP, even after a year and a half of opportunity for improvements. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose deletion. Tony Santiago is the person who has most demonstrated the influence of this medium, Wikipedia, as a source of credible information in Puerto Rico. His notability is well-established by the recognitions he has received from prominent Puerto Rican leaders and institutions. In 2007, a delegation of state senators held an event in Phoenix, the city where he lives, to recognize his work. In 2008, he shared the limelight with former President Clinton and then-senator Clinton, when the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly dedicated its Memorial Day activity in recognition of having become Puerto Rico's most widely read military historian. Puerto Rico's Governor, Luis Fortuño, and Lt. Governor, Kenneth McClintock have spoken publicly about Tony Santiago's notability, which should not be questioned. I have provided some edits to this article over time and am not conflicted in doing so, as I am not related to Tony, but have come to admire his work in broadcasting facts about Puerto Rico's military history that was little known in Puerto Rico.Some of the work that he has done allowing families of heroic soldiers to meet the beneficiaries of such heroism are documented in easily verifiable reliable third-party sources. While the article, as many, could be edited and perhaps, shortened somewhat, it has a place in Wikipedia, and only awaits the attention of editors willing to devote some time to the hard work of editing, rather than the easy work of deletion. Pr4ever (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point; I've begun editing it, so that we can focus on the main issue here, which is notability. Perhaps, if reduced to a stub, a genuine and non-tribute-page article can be built here, if the notability issue is resolved and if we can find a sufficient number of reliable third-party sources unconnected with the subject of the article. However, I'm not seeing that established, especially given that he is employed by two of the sources utilized to establish his notability, El Boricua and Somos Primos. In addition to the use of Wikipedia, Facebook and Wikipedia images as sources, which I've just removed, I have concerns about the reliability of the other sources utilized here. It relies far too heavily on original research and primary sources. Even with substantial cutting I carried out since the this article was nommed for deletion, it reads like a tribute page that belongs on a family website. The bulk of the article is devoted to tributes to the Santiago relying on OR and primary sources, not having received coverage in reliable third-party sources.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zero interest in or knowledge of subject here - certainly no axes to grind. After reading through previous AfD discussion, notability seems clear enough. The level of energy and even the length of the article suggest as much. Tchicken7 (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wether the notability is tied to Wikipedia or not I believe the person is notable, especially for readers from Puerto Rico. Also as mentioned above this has been nominated before and the consensus was keep. Although I do admit the article could use some cleanup. Also, IMO notability is subjective and although he may not be notable to someone in Germany for instance or people who are interested in Football, he could and is notable to folks in Puerto rico and media. As long as there are some good references which there are the notability criteria is less important. --Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. The result of the previous deletion discussion was "no consensus." Two years have passed since then without material changes to the article apart from the ones I've carried out within the past few minutes. FYI, I became aware of this article because of a conspicuously long entry on Tony Santiago in the article South Bronx. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. As suggested above I've engaged in the hard work of trying to bring this article into shape, and I've failed. There is simply insufficient independent secondary sourcing in sources unconnected with Santiago to create an article. There was multiple sourcing to Wikipedia and websites of questionable reliability like a Crispy News, a lengthy block of text sourced to Facebook, and much of the article remains based on primary sources and articles in two publications employed by the Santiago. The lead's original assertion of notability, based on his work on Wikipedia, was actually sourced to Wikipedia Signpost! There is a lengthy section, still overlong after cut, consisting of tributes from politicians that received zero coverage in reliable sources. The section on his work is sourced to publications that employ him. His writings have received zero professional and outside recognition in secondary sources. Politicians give tributes to constituents frequently; in order to be notable they have to receive coverage in secondary sources. There is none of that here, and the article utterly fails the requirement that the subject of the article be the subject of multiple sources independent of the subject of the article. Given that this article is about a Wikipedia administrator, and that this article was created by that editor's son, it behooves us to apply Wikipedia policies strictly here. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "tributes to constituents" were about someone who has lived for years in Phoenix, AZ, not quite a constituent of Puerto Rico. Second, the tributes went beyond the usual resolution or floor speech, an annual Memorial Day commemorative event, in which he shared the spotlight with a former President and a then-U.S. senator, was dedicated to him, precisely because of his work for Wikipedia, and a ceremony was held in Phoenix to present a commendation to him which was attended, based on one of the photos I saw, by 6 or 7 legislators, not exactly your run-of-the-mill tribute. Third, traditional media is not spending much space to extolling Wikipedia or other new media that competes with them. Fourth, having united the family of a hero with a notable figure that benefitted from the heroism is a particularly notable accomplishment. Once again, Edit but don't delete! Pr4ever (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that "a ceremony was held in Phoenix to present a commendation to him"? Does the article says that? I don't think so. And your excuse for lack of media coverage is also weak. --Damiens.rf 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that: "On November 28, 2007, Santiago became the first Puerto Rican to be honored by the Government of Puerto Rico for his work on behalf of Puerto Rico in Wikipedia when the Senate of Puerto Rico recognized him as a military historian and paid him tribute with a Resolution #3603.[citation needed] The resolution was presented at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel by then President of the Senate of Puerto Rico and current Secretary of State, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock and senators Lucy Arce, Juan Eugenio Hernández Mayoral and Jorge Suárez Cáceres on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico." The statement is accompanied by a photograph that shows Tony being presented with something and McClintock, Arce, Suárez and the bulky figure of Sen. Hernández Mayoral are clearly identifiable. Pr4ever (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that received coverage in which reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? I agree with Damiens.rf below. Ignoring all rules on biographies, which is basically what is being asked here, is inappropriate for an AfD discussion, particularly when there is a COI element. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the answer is "none." ScottyBerg (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the 10 articles used as references are inappropriate. At least 4 of them (used in a total of 6 points) are written by Tony himself. Another one (used as repeatedly as reference #7 and #8) is an web article that cites Tony's Wikipedia user page as a reference. In more than one case, dead-links are used as references to passages aggrandizing the subject.

That one finds User:Marine_69-71 a wonderful contributor should no interfere on a judgment about the appropriateness of this article. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject has been advertising this afd on the Puerto Rico wikiproject, where many editors are his wikifriends. I reinforce the point that we're discussing the deletion of an article, and not of an user. Great users don't deserve articles. They deserve barnstars. --Damiens.rf 21:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The text of that notice is problematic, in that an AfD is not a "vote" and I hope is not interpreted as such by the closing administrator. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The text of it is fine, it's neutral, and everybody calls it voting, even those who know it isn't a vote. The issue is whether approaching WikiProject PuertoRico was likely to solicit a biased response. I'd say advertising this on ANI has more than nullified any such effect, assuming the closer wasn't even looking for it in the first place, which he/she should be as a matter of course. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My post there was about COI, and not a solicitation to participate in this AfD, though it was mentioned. Your point re "biased response" articulates my concern. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in secondary sources (sorry, Tony); all I could find was this. I think per WP:GNG and WP:BLP, this page just doesn't make it. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ok, ok, he is my dad. So I might be biased, but, I still have a right to opine and this is my opinion. Antonio Magno Martin (Aqui) 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also created the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable military historian. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Tony, there is nothing in the article, even as originally formulated, showing any of the trappings of being a historian, in terms of scholarly publications or books. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: [5]. He is a notable military historian and has been recognized as such, and this meets or exceeds the necessary criteria. One can safely work outside the confines of academia and many notable people do just that. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. From these [6][7] I'm just about satisfied that a basic opening statement of Tony Santiago is a notable Wikipedia editor specialising in writing about Peurto-Rican history is likely to be supportable (I'm AGF'ing that there is complete separation between the subject and this newspaper). Whether this article is any good at explaining that is another matter, it pretty much needs a top down rewrite by experienced editors, preferably people far far removed from the topics and subject at hand. The previous NC outcome is only relevant if the lack of progress had been down to active resistance, rather than what appears to have been just no real interest from others in kick-starting the development (judging by the lack of talk page activity anyway). As a very obvious starting point - primary and secondary sources can be listed in two separate reflists using the group parameter or other methods. As far as COI goes, I think it would only be fair if Damiens.rf noted in this Afd his on-Wiki prior history with the article subject too [8]. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles are the only secondary sources in the article, and I don't see how they can conceivably be considered "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Only the second one supports the claim to notability. None of the honors given to this person have been mentioned in Puerto Rican media outlets apart from the ones that employ this person. This isn't Wikipedia Signpost. Would we be seriously considering salvaging this article if this wasn't a Wikipedia administrator? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've written biographies for non-Wikipedians with less coverage than this tbh. I've also tried to get some deleted too, and failed - see Tim Marriott pre-cricketing accident. As for articles on Wikipedians, compare those two sources to the independent secondary coverage offered up in something like William Connolley and you'll probably see where I'm coming from. I'm setting the bar at comparing sentences/paragraphs (trivial) to whole pieces (significant), whereas you're probably comparing single pieces to whole books. I know nothing about Peurto Rican media outlets, so I don't feel in the least bit qualified in saying anything either way. I do know however that even 'local news' for somewhere as big as Arizona is like national news attention for pretty much anywhere else. I really do doubt those are the only two 'proper' sources out there, but I fully appreciate that's not something you can prove me wrong on, so I'm happy for the closer to weigh this accordingly. It's a weak keep after all. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this article was created by the subject's son, I think it's inconceivable that there are other secondary sources, "proper" or not, apart from the two in the AZ Republic. I don't think that you need to know anything about Puerto Rican newspapers to recognize that they have not written about Tony Santiago unless he's been on their payroll. The Connelley article has been a source of constant grief, for Connelley among others. I don't think that comparison is a strong argument for keeping. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the second ref offered above more carefully. Its own reference circularizes back to WP, specifically to the subject's user page. The only mainstream independent source seems to be the one AZ republic art. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I stand corrected. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources do not give the impression of substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. (I've found this via the ANI thread.) Sandstein 12:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all due respect to Tony and the great work he has done for WP, the problem is that there are few, actually just 1 legitimate source that is independent of him. This article has been around for 3 years and many people close to the subject have edited, suggesting the extreme improbability of any other sources being out there. I think this makes it a clear policy-based "delete" (although I realize that that doesn't always hold proper sway, as in the Friedman AfD yesterday). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - what Agricola44 just said. I appreciate Tony's contributions to Wikipedia, but he doesn't pass our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The references are minimal, and many of the "keep" !voters describe their !vote as weak or dependent on some kind of change. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey C. Grabowski[edit]

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

No Claims of notability other then worked on some games but nothing that he himself is personally notable. article just claims he worked on some games and is friends with some people. Someone removed a previous prod that another editor had added so Im bringing it to afd. also has zero references. Tracer9999 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No notability, the author himself, probably isn't personally notable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now has two references as ELs. Industry sources show him working for the last 15+ years in the industry, contributing to many publications. I don't see that he's won any awards yet, but persistence in an industry with so much turnover seems a credible argument for notability to me. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Alot of people work 20 years + in an industry and are not notable...if time put in an industry makes you notable then my aunt who works at a local walmart store must be totally notable as thier is so much turnover..and she has been there forever. The question is wether the references establish any personal notability -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep In my opinion this is a tricky decision as clearly the article is lacking proper references. The number of publications he has contributed means that in the RPG community he will certainly have recognition. The D&D world tend to have print publications and Exalted does appear to comfortably meet the notability standards and there will be RS. While there is the issue of whether being important in the D&D world makes someone notable enough for an encyclopedia... I think that this is a reasonable page to keep that interlinks with many other wikipedia pages that don't seem to have issues.

The issue for me is much larger than considering this single page. There are many wiki biographies that are highly dubious that interlink with many equally dubious articles.

This is largely a failure of projects failing to detail the criteria to include a page, list of reliable sources, etc. Then the only thing to monitor should be objectivityTetron76 (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if (and only if) more references can be found, as the page is very sparse right now. Otherwise delete. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:22, 17 March 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, J04n(talk page) 18:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero claim to notability; the external links on the page merely prove existence. — Bility (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive coverage of this individual [9]. LibStar (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in field. Better notability guideline needed here. –SJ + 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Was searching for this author this evening and finally came upon this discussion. The article on the author is extremely poorly written. This author has at least 16 books listed on Amazon.com, as co-author. The link to Amazon is here: [[10]]. If co-authoring 16 or more books published by established houses does not qualify an author as notable on Wikipedia, what exactly does? I am also curious as to how this has been missed by everyone who performed searches on this author's work. Perhaps someone should add his bibliography to his page because it reads weakly at present and probably contributed to his being selected for deletion. Thanks for your time. Bookman5000 (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Bookman5000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia quite clearly defines that being an author does not automatically make someone notable i.e. WP:AUTHOR. These criteria if met should be verifiable from WP:RS that are independent of the person. Now, while there are clearly many subjective terms each point really should be clearly met in the criteria being used and with Co-creators this should show include they had a major contribution to the notable creation. If WP:ANYBIO is considered there is the two pronged Well-known and significant award both of which really should be more closely defined, is a RS using these exact terms needed? It is the significant that can often become an issue when there are multiple categories and much stronger awards such as Hall of Fame for the awards available.

A large part of the problem is that there is an oral tradition in board games that does not apply to video games which means that a person can have significant blog and forum attention but lack the RS to show the expertise. The ideal impartial coverage would be articles about the person in more than one national newspaper about more than one event. The further away the sources are from this the greater the notability issues are likely to be.Tetron76 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

number of books sold on Amazon is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references seem to be adequate, although they are a bit thin and could stand some improvement. BOZ (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ch interpreter[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion

There are no independent sources to establish notability and Googling suggests there probably aren't any available anyway. Virtually all of the content is advertising and has been added by a series of SPAs, most of them identified only by an IP address. Other editors have already raised questions about neutrality and notability. I call attention also to the large number of Wikipedia spam links found by What links here. (It was this edit that first caught my attention to the article.)

The citations offered are insufficient. Harry Cheng was the designer of the Ch interpreter which makes anything he wrote about it a primary source and not usable to establish notability. The only secondary sources cited are Francis Glassborow's "Member Experiences" of Ch and Tom Huber's "An Introduction to C and Ch." The Huber citation is unhelpful as it's actually not a secondary source discussing Ch, it's a book review. The Glassborow article is a weak citation: This isn't a PDF, there's no page number and all we have is the text of the article, posted to the website of the vendor. It's not clear if Glassborow article was in a print or online publication and the title and lede suggests this may not have been intended a formal review so much as simply yet another member experience post to a discussion group. Msnicki (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a contested WP:PROD. Fails notability, doesn't seem to have multiple independant sources. Google Scholar offers 15 hits on the phrase "Ch interpreter" going back to 1824, only a few of which are relevant and none of them seem to be in-depth discussion of this software. The Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a catalog of every programmer's tool ever written. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—SoftIntegration, the company that provides this software, may itself be notable. In the worst case, we could summarize this topic on a company article page. But the fact that Ch Interpreter is being used in a CS class may lend it at least some notability.[11] It is also being used in an independent commercial product, PSIM.[12]—RJH (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I couldn't find anything on Google about "Softintegration", the company, aside from a couple of resellers of software - Google Books was unhelpful and I couldn't find it on Google Scholar. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was curious whether the company is only Harry Cheng and a few students (which seems to be common in scenarios like this - look at the location and numerous advertisements). Internet archive on www.softintegration.com/company/career/openings/ provides some insight (looks like it's moribund - only some sales openings unfilled since late 2002). So the company probably isn't notable - I've found no mention of it other than self-adverts TEDickey (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The author is an academic and has published quite a number of article on the subject in question in reliable journals and a book by a large publisher. However, I could not find any citations of his papers or the book at the ACM Digital library, although I did not check all the papers. —Ruud 21:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multi-aliased WP:SPA who is not responding to requests for WP:RS TEDickey (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, Tedickey makes a good observation that the pattern of spamming about Ch with SPAs extends beyond Wikipedia: Notice the striking difference between the one-star and the five-star reviews of the product on Amazon. (Chuser has tried twice to delete Tedickey's comment.) Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent to Tedickey stating my reason before the deletion: Based on the guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I am not sure how wiki structure works. If he is a system admin, he can delete the article and blocks me. It is OK with me Chuser (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Chuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Msnicki, I posted to the other administrator's site to ask the help to remove Tedickey's comment earlier today before seeing your comment, but I eventually gave up after a second thought and deleted my post a couple of minutes later. I believe people come here with a good intention to make a contribution to the wiki. It is a waste of wiki's resource and people's time to get involved for something trivial. After all, it is an internet and everybody can say whatever they like and have their opinion. Also, it looks that you don't like your C shell to be related with Ch for shell programming. It is not a problem for me to suggest SoftIntegration to remove anything related to C Shell from its website. Hope everybody happy. Chuser (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Chuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment

1) The page for the article written by Francis Glassborow is updated in wiki. I talked to Dr. Harry Cheng via email and he has a hard copy of the journal. 2) The article written by Tom Hubber in IEEE is a review about both the book and software used in the class for teaching. it is not a book review only article. 3) Another article "Ch Solves Portability Headaches" published in IEEE by Professor Gary Wang is missed to mention. 4) Two additional articles published in mactech and DrDobbs are updated in wiki. One is "Ch, A C/C++ Interpreter -- New possibilities for people who like C and Unix" published in MACTECH, the journal of Apple technology. Another is "Open-RJ and Ch" published in Dr Dobbs. one more note, the reason I think Ch shell is related to C shell can be based on the above article and the additional information from the vendor [13]. Chuser (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Chuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 5) who created the link at the top? I appreciate it. Just click around and find a new article "Anchor-based programming teaching embedded with Ch platform" published last year in IEEE conference. Just updated the link in wiki. Chuser (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Chuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

google also points out that your new source is coauthored by someone who's been one of "Harry Cheng"'s close associates. That's also the case for at least one of the other links in the topic. Third party sources are what we're interested in. TEDickey (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. Both Matt Campbell and Zhaoqing Wang have co-authored papers with Harry Cheng. In addition, Cheng was the director of the UC Davis Integration Engineering Laboratory where Campbell was a master's candidate. Msnicki (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google also found this [14], which casts Gary Wang's paper in a different light. TEDickey (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Wiki modified its rules regarding reliable source and make definition of "associates" and "close associates" (like how close? living in the same building or drinking beer together in the past?), then declare all publications (no matter what and no matter when) authored or co-authored by those "close associates" cannot be used as a second source. That is nothing we can do. otherwise, the arguments goes nowhere. You can write whatever you like about anything, but can you publish whatever you like? Chuser (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Chuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For one thing, they're not second sources, since some of the information they're reporting is directly based on their interaction with Harry Cheng, rather than indirectly, via his writing alone. Further, they are (like Huber, who appears to be a little known associate professor of physics), not experts in the field, who would be useful as WP:RS. Just anyone with an opinion in print doesn't qualify in this case. TEDickey (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I got a great tip and located another article "The Ch Language Environment" published in Byte magazine. I have just updated it in wiki. An interesting article. It compares Ch against Hamilton C Shell and Matlab. Many weaknesses in earlier version of Ch were discovered. Chuser (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Chuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Anyone who wants to merge/redirect can pursue that through normal article discussion/editing. postdlf (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Power Rangers[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Prod reason was "Expansion of Power_Rangers_Samurai#Rangers that adds ranger color navigation templates. All references point at the series character descriptions and therefore not independent sources."

In addition de-prodder claimed "just only been created and arguments are invalid". Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a recently created stub article that has not been expanded upon yet. There is no policy on Wikipedia that forbids splitting off character lists from parent articles and there is certainly no mandatory length requirement on when these should be made. The subject of the article passes notability and previous articles of this type have been kept at AFD because they are completely allowed under Wikipedia policy. On a similar AFD, Hasteur is inaccurately stating that the creation of the article violates WP:CRYSTAL for some yet to be explained reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[CITATION NEEDED]] Please strike your personal attack on me as I am applying WP policy Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attack?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On a similar AFD, Hasteur is inaccurately stating that the creation of the article violates WP:CRYSTAL for some yet to be explained reason." That constitutes an ad hominem attack on the person by bringing behavior on annother discussion in play. I express sadness at your lack of understanding of the wikipedia policies and procedures. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stating my thoughts on your application of policy is not a personal attack in any sense of the term. And the AFDs are related so I am most certainly allowed to mention it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article needs a lot of help at this point, it appears to be appropriate and tie into an existing franchise. Bagheera (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Power Rangers Samurai#Rangers: Per WP:Notability which says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" and WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists which says "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". Powergate92Talk 02:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a stand alone list and it is not subject to the standard notability guidelines as articles have.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted, every power rangers series has an article like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.213.143 (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Without an appropriate merge target, this is the only viable option. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Williams[edit]

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

People known for a single event should not have their own article. No evidence that this event generated anything more than momentary news coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the incident has continued to receive attention, as stated in the article, shows that it is notable. The article is really about the event, it is just named for the rescued person for convenience. It could also be named for the rescuer just as well. A title like "Arizona midair rescue" would be kind of awkward. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a class "single event" for which the Guiness Book is great, but not Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until a suitable merge target is created. This is a classic BLP1E case, but BLP1E gives no guidance on what do do when the central event is notable but lacks an article. Therefore, WP:PRESERVE would appear to be controlling policy, and the "good information" here should be kept even though the form of the article is not preferred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Hullaballoo's well-stated reasoning. The content of this article seems worthwhile and significant to the general topic of skydiving; however, when I poked around in Category:Parachuting I didn't see an obvious target--something like skydiving rescues or even skydiving safety might be appropriate, if it existed. Parachuting does have a list of Records, but there's probably more worthwhile content here than would fit on a list. If someone can suggest an appropriate rename for this, that would be fine too.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skydiving accident investigation where it would fit (as being about the event of an accident), and also remove that article from being woefully lacking in solid content. BLP1E would then not be a problem, for the person is absolutely BLP1E. Collect (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate other article. Perhaps a new one should be created--Skydiving rescues or Skydiving safety like Arxiloxos mentioned above, perhaps. It seems like it's something notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, but doesn't need its own article. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:16, 17 March 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, J04n(talk page) 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the subject (BLP1E) nor the event (seems pretty ROUTINE) are notable. — Bility (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My red pencil says, poor use of the word routine in a sentence. ROUTINE is for events scheduled in advance. Anarchangel (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when the next "bear-in-a-tree" event is scheduled, as I would like to attend.

— Bility (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The helpfully intended suggestion of 'Skydiving accident investigation' is not a pertinent target and is not lacking. I don't know why everyone keeps trying to push everything, however vaguely related to 'single events' all the time; perhaps they read the essay Wikipedia:Recentism that is cruising for a bruising if anyone ever notices that it directly contradicts one of the Pillars of WP, WP:N's WP:NTEMP. Anarchangel (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn without objection. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rags (singer)[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. His name being such a common word made the search particularly diificult, but combined with Sivaje (which unfortunately was a "rags to riches story") was unsuccesful. Even if a source is found for him signing this one song, the article would still need more to meet out Notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His full name seems to be Ravi Khote. It's much easier to find references for that. I took the liberty of moving the article before I realized it was in AfD (I thought it had just been PRODded). I've put a list of possible references on the article's talk page. Pburka (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. Great save by Pburka in identifying the subject's real name, two of the refs that he added to the talkpage have been added to the article. J04n(talk page) 02:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 11:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Technologies[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Created by purportedly paid editor. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. But it was created in 2008 and survied deletion till now. I could be made better. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find the depth of coverage required to satisfy WP:CORP. Note that the creator denied on their talk page being paid to create articles, and in any case that is not relevant to this debate as the article should be judged on it's own merits - --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another business that provides Information Technology, Software and web-based technology services. Only claims to minimal importance are to inclusion in "Inc. 5000" and similar lists. No showing that this business has had any significant effects on history, technology, or culture of the kind that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge into Moorestown Township. Definitely no reason to delete rather than rdr to the town. We're not made of paper, this business is verifiably established (for over 10 years) and locally notable, the article could be improved. –SJ + 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete below par for this sort of company article. We are not and should not be in the practice of redirecting /merging local businesses to the won. We are NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Waronker[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Created by purportedly paid editor. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why do you say it was created by a paid editor? I see nothing to indicate that that is the case. But it should not matter because if the subject is notable then he deserves an article, regardless of who created it. Onthegogo (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a vanity page for a non-notable real estate developer. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG as he is a notable person who was the founder and commissioner of WHA2, and the owner of several sport franchises. Sources including [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and many, many others from Google News [21], confirms that this article should stay on Wikipedia. Onthegogo (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or prune significantly and merge with WHA2. While most of those links would provide a good deal of coverage with which to build a solid article on the WHA2, the mentions of Waronker appear to all be trivial for a biography of Waronker himself. Not seeing and kind of coverge that makes him notable as a hockey owner/commissioner or as a developer. Reso lute 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news media considers him notable. All the articles that quote him or talk about him that I try to click on require payment to view. Just search for his name and add in "hockey" or even "real estate" and its clearly him they are all talking about. Dream Focus 04:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tangential mentions in a couple articles does not bestow notability on someone. --Sloane (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This [22] article is all about Waronker, and meets GNP. Also the google news search shows lots and lots of articles about him. It is obvious that a person who has owned at least eight minor league hockey teams, and who also founded an entire hockey league is going to be notable. Waronker has had a notable impact on those city where he has tried to establish a hockey presence, and he has much more than trivial mentions in the media. He is included as a featured person in the 2010 publication “American Ice Hockey Administrators” ISBN 1158330243 [23] Waronker is notable. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villains in Power Rangers Samurai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai

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

Declined Prod. Prod reason was "Content fork from Power_Rangers_Samurai#Villains. We don't need descriptions of every antagonist of the episode." Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ammended: Content on this page is very qualifying for a merge to the main article. Article is also unreferenced and lacking independent reliability. As such this article warrants deletion Hasteur (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? It was just split off from the main article. Character lists are allowed to do this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. We should have more details about the main villains and any villains who become more recurring. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. This page is not substantially larger than the page it is expanding on. This page is also unreferences. Hasteur (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has only just been started and will likely build up into a completely valid list of characters that is allowed on Wikipedia as the content will only clutter the parent Power Rangers Samurai article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please read WP:CRYSTAL. Feel free to userfy but in it's current iteration it violates Notability, independent reliable sources, and does not expand meaningfuly on what is in the main article for the series. I'm not on a crusade against these articles, I'm applying Wikipedia's Policies. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL either. Perhaps you can clarify which bulletpoint a list of characters of a month-or-so old television program violates.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"just been started and will likely build up into a" That's a future and speculative reasoning. The content that is in this page that is not in the series page is small enough that we can easily leave it in the main. Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is in no way a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It's not speculative to believe that a recently created article will expand into a larger and more well written article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does not violate any wikipedia rules, and certainley does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Power Rangers Samurai#Villains: Per WP:Notability which says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Powergate92Talk 00:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was recently split off. Merging it back is redundant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Recently split off or not, this should not have it's own article per WP:Notability. Powergate92Talk 00:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, you are not knowledged in what a proper application of WP:SPINOUT and WP:SAL are. As established in similar AFDs, lists are not subject to the same notability guidelines as standard articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:Splitting says "but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia", WP:SAL says "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies", and WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists says "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". Powergate92Talk 01:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's being split off as a list which is only short right now. Give it time to expand and as I have told you in the past, finding reliable sources for programs of this nature is going to be difficult because no one in the mainstream press will even think of covering a kiddie show.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Take a look at WP:SPINOUT again... Main article length and sub-article length combined does not exceed the 30k guideline. Even if this were true, we still couldn't support this article because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). As such the individual "Monster of the Episode" section doesn't qualify for inclusion as each of these are unsourced entireley and consist of a significant plot summary for the episode. If we do drop the "Monster" section this comes down to almost the exact same content as the section we propose to merge to. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Ryulong, you say that previous AfDs along similar topics have passed. Can you please provide concrete links to them here so that we can evaluate if the precedent is valid? Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The only one that comes to mind is WP:Articles for deletion/List of Kamen Rider Ryuki characters, however the content there was able to be referenced because the Japanese media will release magazines and books and mooks (books with magazine-like pages) on these topics. In American media, this is not going to be as prevalent. The "Monster of the episode" section could very well be shortened down to simple bulleted list entries, but that is beside the point. The fact is that these articles were created so that character lists could be made considering the program has been on for over a month and that should give plenty opportunity to write more than one sentence on the character which would be better suited for separate character lists rather than turning the article into a series of lists of characters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Again WP:Notability says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." So if you can't find reliable third-party sources for the info in this article then it should not be a separate article right now. Powergate92Talk 01:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a list. Not an article. Lists are held to a different standard than normal articles because of the nature of the content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have to agree with Ryulong on this one. This never happened to the other villain pages for Power Rangers. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rtkat3, you can't vote 2 times. Powergate92Talk 04:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:All of the other PR series have a villian page, therefore, by the end of the season, the article will be long enough User:cooluncle55 1833, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete per A7. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplebotics®[edit]

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

This fails the general notability guideline. Links to YouTube do not establish notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has also just been incorrectly speedy deleted under A7, as A7 does not apply to methods of building robots. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was primarily about the user's claim to "found" a "project" of a youtube video series, thus making it a piece of web content/an organization and deletable under A7 (Also, this title was used because me and another admin deleted his first title under A7 as well here and after 3 deletions I salted the page). Best, Mifter (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AquaBounty technologies[edit]

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

Comment -Initially I nominated it for speedy deletion. I changed it to AfD to give the author some time to flesh this out and to see other editors consensus. I will not be involved with the article from this point on other than to monitor. Thank you. -- Golgofrinchian (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This companies only product according to its home page is a Genetically modified salmon. This was still undergoing FDA approval in September 2010[24]. The Salmon is definately notable, as if approved it will be the first GM animal commercialised and is already the subject of controversy. This could make the company notable as well, but as it stands it is a company with no availible products. Might be best to wait for approval and release of the product before starting this article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: its not the first GM animal commercialised (GloFish), but the first animal destined for human consumption. AIRcorn (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their invention of the first genetically modified salmon is an industry first, according to the New York Times. The subject may well be best covered at the article on genetically modified salmon, but this strikes me as the sort of achievement that confers historical and technical significance on a business, whatever may come of their attempt to market it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is notable because it has been covered in depth in many independent reliable sources even though its main product is not yet on the market. The unique and controversial nature of the genetically modified salmon it developed has brought the company genuine notability.Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. Those interested in this topic should reevaluate notability after the band releases their EP. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Echoes[edit]

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

Contested speedy which on reflection I thought might be better at AfD, since some assertion of notability is made. However, the band does not appear to meet notability (in Wikipedia terms) as set out at WP:BAND. EyeSerene^talk 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no third party reliable sources could be found, fails to meet WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They have not placed in a major music competition and have certainly not performed for a work of notable media. Fails every point of WP:BAND. Perhaps they will be notable some day, but at the moment they are far from it. Postrock1 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Markdashney is the author of this article and can not vote. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect Spada. Mark's input on this AfD is as welcome and as valid as anyone else's. I've restored their comment below. EyeSerene^talk 14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the band may not have been the subject of multiple newspaper articles, they did appear to have met notability by placing in a major music competition and performing music in a television show for a work of media that is notable. Therefore, two standards have been met at WP:BAND. Markdashney (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that all third party sources mention the band's previous name "Escaping Anxiety" before the name was changed to Among the Echoes. Rogers TV is a notable media. It is owned by Rogers Communications, which "is one of Canada's largest communications companies, particularly in the field of wireless communications and cable television". The major music competition, Bandwarz, has been run for seventeen consistent years and has acts enter from the area of the Regional Municipality of Durham, "but acts from all over Southern Ontario also enter the competition". Markdashney (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~Note both of the above keep votes are from the same user.~~ Rogers TV is a community channel and thus anyone could go on and play music on there, which would not make them notable. From what I've looked up about it surely Bandwarz cannot count as a notable competition, it seems so minor and has no article on WP. That point of WP:BAND refers to competitions such as BBC Young Musician of the Year etc. Postrock1 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability standards, as the band is unsigned as of yet nd has only released one EP, another one of which appears to be upcoming. There are also some sourcing problems and external link violations. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Or should that be "Jeep"? Big Dom 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University[edit]

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

Information in article is duplicate of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, just without pictures. Even the lead is generic to the Nobel Prize and has little to do with Cornell. —Eustress ^talk 13:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The photos could be added to the names already on the other list. Add them as a link after the name so the table structure remains the same. The article in question has some good qualities that could be added to the Cornell section. Golgofrinchian (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article seems to me to be part of a worthwhile trend in the expansion of Wikipedia -- an innovation that should be encouraged, not quashed. It is one of at least twelve articles about the Nobel laureates affiliated with a specific university. The individual articles include far more information (not just photos, but information content) than List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, and the individual articles are more convenient for linking from the individual university articles. Also, unlike List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, this article doesn't violate accessibility standards by requiring the reader to be able to see colors in order to tell what categories the awards are in. ~~However, I confess that I haven't been able to figure out how this list is sorted -- the laureates seem to be in random order.~~ --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that four other lists of Nobel laureates by university, all similar to this one, are Featured lists. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw some of the FLs (e.g., List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University) and was surprised -- looks like content forking to me -- and not much additional information provided that isn't either provided in List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or the individual university alumni lists. I also don't think linking to laureates for individual universities is an issue (e.g., List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#Cornell_University). —Eustress ^talk 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have different perceptions of what constitutes "information." In addition to pictures, these university-specific lists include the dates of the Nobel prizes (the general list does not), describe the nature of the person's affiliation with the university and give the dates of affiliation (the general list just classifies them as "graduate" or "academic staff," and indicates whether they were on the staff before or after the Nobel prize), and tell what contribution(s) were honored by the award (the general list does not contain this information). I call all these elements "information." Additionally, these specific university lists use text to indicate the award category (instead of color-coding, which is not accessible to many people with visual limitations) and the lists are sortable tables. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely room for improvement for List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, but I think in the end it'll be easier to maintain one centralized list. Either way, there seems to be a lot of redundant information between the various lists. —Eustress ^talk 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing why the List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation would be considered the only appropriate place for this content. It's a huge page (113k or so, the last I looked) in spite of having only outline-level content, and a mega-page like that one is not a particularly useful information resource for a user whose main interest is in the famous people associated with a particular university. If anything, I see that page as a statistical comparison page (although it is not set up as such) and an outline-level list that can be used to direct readers to more specific articles, including articles like List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University. I know that one person's summary-style article split can be another person's content fork, but I fail to see how an article on Cornell's Nobel laureates could be an inappropriate content fork. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep per Orlady — it appears that the nominator is objecting to this list because of its scope. I don't see any difference between the qualitative value of this list and the Princeton list, so both should stay or both should go, and (barring copyright problems) I can't imagine a good reason to get rid of a featured list. In other words: since consensus has determined that the Princeton list is a good thing to have, we should keep this list. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here: it depends on the mere existence (or nonexistence) of something, while here we're talking about some of Wikipedia's most heavily reviwed content: basing an argument on something that passes the featured criteria is significantly different from basing an article on something that might fail dozens of guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both lists are ok, they show different information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list contains useful information not present the primary article, which if incorporated there would probably cause it to be oversized. I am puzzled (?) that none of the other articles containing specific lists of Nobel recipients affiliated with other universities have been nominated for deletion. bonze blayk (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable intersection. These pages are best keep separate, with the combination page a summary. As alsmost all such people have multiple affiliations, it will be useful to have separate lists, and usefulness is one of the criteria for lists. This is basic useful encyclopedic information in an appropriate place for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Tripathi[edit]

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

~~Autobiographical article~~. Created by an editor with a possible conflict of interest. As an assistant professor, the area of WP:PROF most likely to be met would be #1. I'm not seeing a significant amount of citations in Google Scholar. No indication of awards, chairs, or other items which would help meet WP:PROF Article is nearly completely a copy and past of his bio on the university website. RadioFan (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a few questions. How did you determine that the article is an autobiography? Is it significant to the deletion process? What do we do with the general notability guideline, when the subject doesn't meet the topical notability guidelines? What do we do when the article is nearly completely a copyvio? Thanks, Cind.amuse 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was tagged as an autobiography by the article's creator (who identifies himself as the subject of this article here). While not a sole reason to delete, its something that will be considered. Nearly complete copyvio's may be speedily deletable, I opted for AFD to give the article more of a chance, especially since reliable sources may be more difficult for me to find than someone more familiar with available resources. When a topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, we either find sufficient references in 3rd party sources to help it meet those guidelines, the consensus among editors participating in the AFD is to delete the article. Keep in mind that not only does WP:GNG apply here WP:PROF does as well and it's restrictions are far more stringent.--RadioFan (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I guess I should have mentioned that the questions were rhetorical.

If you had reviewed the editor's history, it would have been clear that many of the articles which the creator of this article starts are very similar to one another. The editor uses one article or section from another article as a template for the rest and slowly edits in the mainspace. While certainly not ideal, the article is clearly not an autobiography. The editor (User:Abhiparlib) has self-disclosed that he is Abhishek Verma, a Library and Information Sciences employee working in the Library of the Indian Parliament in New Delhi. While he is a struggling member of the Wikipedia community, with limited understanding of the English language, his goal is to write articles on notable members of Parliament. He has access to a tremendous wealth of resources and has a desire to work with Wikipedia. My goal is to work with him and attempt to find an experienced editor on the English Wikipedia that speaks his native language and would be willing to mentor him. The majority of the editor's work on Wikipedia has been deleted as a copyright violation. Whether due to a failure to grasp the English language, or a determined goal to game the system, he consistently claims ownership of images in hopes to appear that he is merely offering content or images to support the encyclopedia. I choose to assume good faith. In all though, this is not an autobiography.
While autobiographies are strongly discouraged and often deleted, the deletion policy does not call for or provide consideration for deletion based on the autobiographical motive of the article. Sure, it bugs me to no end when an individual gets on Wikipedia to write an article about themselves. Makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes. That said, it can't be deleted simply because it is an autobiography. The article is held to the same standards as all the others articles on Wikipedia.
When a subject does not meet the general notability guideline, it is deleted. Notability is established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything short of that calls for deletion. That said, the rhetorical question was "What do we do with the general notability guideline, when the subject doesn't meet the topical notability guidelines?" If the subject meets the GNG criteria, we follow the guideline accordingly and keep the article.
You state "Keep in mind that not only does WP:GNG apply here WP:PROF does as well and it's restrictions are far more stringent." In reality, the topical notability criteria serves as an indicator that reliable sources are likely. A presumption of notability, but not a confirmation. Meeting the topical notability criteria does not in and of itself solidify notability appropriate for an article. See WP:NRVE. Some academics may not meet any of the topical criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. Conversely, it is possible for an academic to be notable according to the PROF test, and still not meet the criteria appropriate topic for an article on Wikipedia, due to a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see WP:Verifiability. It all goes back to the WP:GNG criteria.
And finally, if an article is nearly completely a copyvio, the goal is to remove the copyvio from the article. If the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed. If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If no non-infringing version exists, the article is a clear G12 criteria calling for speedy deletion. The copyvio should have been addressed appropriately, prior to sending the article for deletion discussion.
At this point, we need to backtrack and address the copyright violation. Revert to an earlier version and stub it down if you have to, in order to remove the copyvio. Once that is done, pending viable content remaining, the article clearly meets the general notability guideline, as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Addressing each of the points above.

1. The creator of the article added the ((:template:autobiography)) template and then uploaded an image with the comment "I hereby affirm that I, (Dr. Aditya Tripathi) am is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of photograph". If these are 2 different people, it's hard to tell that from the edits. I'm still left wondering why that editor would tag it as autobiographical if it isn't.

This diff should be able to answer your question. [25] Essentially, the editor copied an Indian Academics Infobox template from another article. When the copy was made, the autobiography template was inadvertently picked up and placed in the newly created article. Note that while the editor attempted to edit the new infobox, the birthdate from the previous article is overlooked and remains intact. As far as the image permissions assertion, according to your understanding, the editor is like ten different people now. In reviewing the editor's talk page, it is clear that numerous images uploaded by this editor have been deleted, lacking copyright permissions. The particular image for Tripathi has been previously deleted four times. The latest attempt to ensure the upload remains is an assertion that the editor is the individual in the image, giving copyright permission to use the image. The image is currently flagged for deletion, lacking further evidence of permission. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. while no policy calls for consideration of the autobiographical nature of an articles to be considered but neither does any policy prevent it from being considered. Since the original creator of the article

Content and articles are deleted according to Wikipedia policy. Outside of the deletion policy, we really can't pick and choose reasons to delete, based on our own personal preferences. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Let's stick to discussing the notability of this article, questions about WP:GNG or WP:PROF should be placed on their respective talk pages.

I don't have questions about these guidelines. This discussion relates to your failure to acknowledge the existing sources provided in the article which clearly indicate significant coverage as covered in the general notability guidelines. Based on your assertions, it was apparent that you were minimizing the requirement to establish notability through verifiable evidence and sources. See WP:NRVE. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is policy and adresses the appropriateness of sources which is a separate question than notability. An article can have 100 references to verifiable sources but that doesn't make the subject notable necessarily.

4. I think we are getting a bit bogged down in semantics but both WP:GNG and WP:PROF are both guidelines and both will likely be used here. WP:PROF represents established consensus about determining the notability of academics. Niether trump the other, because neither are policy, they are guidelines, tools in forming a consensus. The only thing it all goes back to is that consensus.

The specifics were brought up due to your rationale for deletion focusing solely on the subject's failure to meet WP:PROF. While notability is a guideline, verifiability is a policy. Accordingly, the verifiability policy clearly addresses notability based on significant coverage presented through reliable and independent sources. Some academics may not meet the PROF test, but may still be notable, based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article in question clearly has significant sources.

5. If you feel that stubbing the article down is the right thing to do, please do. Copy/paste of the publication list in particular is concerning.

While the lede prose needs cleaned up, the publication list is not a copyright violation. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. The notability issue must still be addressed however. I'm not seeing indication evidence of significant impact by this person's research, any indication awards or recognition, editing of an established scholarly journal , significant impact outside of academia or any of the other criteria in WP:PROF. The references provide demonstrate that he has had his papers published in a number of journals, this doesn't help satisfy WP:GNG however.

You're not seeing evidence of significant impact by Tripathi's research? Under the WP:PROF guidelines, impact is "broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Under the WP:GNG guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Impact has been demonstrated and notability has been established accordingly. In addition to the 25+ references offered in the article, additional source material includes [26][27] Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence of significant impact. The bulk of the references in the article are to papers authored by or other information hosted on the department website, that doesn't do much to establish notability. See the discussion of GS hits below for specifics on how papers authored figure into determining notability. Also WP:GHITS dont help establish notability, especially for academics. Google is a tool here, not a scoreboard.--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. And finally, this is a discussion, any questions asked are likely to get answered, rhetorical or not.--RadioFan (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The puzzlement was not in the question, but in the response. 1. An existing autobiography is not an appropriate reason for deletion. However, you presented this in your rationale for deletion. 2. You disregard the general notability guideline. 3. You failed to follow process on addressing copyright violations. Puzzling. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I clarified that. Nothing tells us we have to delete autobiographies but it is something worth pointing out. Turns out it's not an autobiography but it turns out that there is a potential conflict of interest here. The relationship has not been clarified. Is the creator of the article a 3rd party who came across the subject's work and was motivated to create the article or are they an employee of the department where the subject works? I, and many other editors, are going to view an article created by an independent 3rd party very differently than one created by the subject of the article or someone closely associated with the subject of the article. Its worth discussion and clarification.--RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a tiny presence on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I get a return of 26 hits. What would you consider significant? Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get no citations of any of his paper. It means Google Scholar display citation different in different computers!!!!!!!!!--Open3215 (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look back at that Google Scholar search and you'll see that 20 of those hits are to papers or entries in proceedings authored by this person and 6 are citations to those works. For academics, citations of works by others is a good indication of notability, which doesn't seem to be the case here. An academic who publishes 1 paper and is cited 100 times will much more easily meet WP:PROF than an one who publishes 100 papers and only 1 is cited.--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only too true. The idea has been encapsulated in the notion of h index, which is often used in these academic AfD debates. An h index of at least 10 is usually needed for a pass of WP:Prof#C1; the index of this candidate does not remotely approach this. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In determining the notability of an academic subject, we look at a set of criteria presented under WP:PROF and/or WP:GNG. Under the WP:PROF guidelines, impact is "broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Under the WP:GNG guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Impact has been demonstrated and notability has been established accordingly. In addition to the 25+ references offered in the article, source material includes [28][29] Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, there are a large number of references, but they are nearly all things that he has written, and that is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF (where a note says: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1") or the WP:GNG which asks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the word rerefence, citation is used in mixed. No work of Tripathi has received any citation as indicates in GS. He is in his most publications serving as joint author, so credibility is unknown. He make available all his work which is available in other webs resources. That does not means refercnes. It is siply link. He nevear received any awards. Finally, all the programs/software he claimed that he has developed are really matter of confirmation that whether they are in paper, or any existence.--Open3215 (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to post your CV (WP:NOTRESUME). There is no indication given in the article of notability under either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I was unable to find any evidence of notability on Google scholar either. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any chance for a nomination that contains the ad hominem argument COI that does not begin with that as the first rationale? Anarchangel (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete put simple, does not meet the relevant criterion of WP:PROF, and no wonder at that, because few assistant professors do, and the actual publication record is typical (& even a little on the low side) for an assistant professor. I would obviously like to get as many professors in my own subject included, but we should start at higher levels. Perhaps the contributor can be brought to realize this. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedied. Although not entirely clear from the article (partly because of a pagemove), this is an article about a real person, who is a high-school teacher. It was obviously created by students at the school, principally by one who has edited nothing else. It is not clear whether the students intended to mock and harass their teacher or to affectionately poke fun at him as part of some sort of local joking, but this BLP content obviously cannot remain. The decline of a speedy nomination occurred at a much earlier and less problematic stage of the article, so I do not feel I am wheel-warring by deleting it now, particularly since the information in the first edit that might have created an arguable hook for notability is blatantly false. It is dismaying that this article was overlooked in our internal patrolling and had to be brought to our attention offsite by a bitter critic of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Brian Jamal Read[edit]

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

BLP vio and/or hoax. CSD declined by Jclemens. Neither book cited in the article are in worldcat. none of the titles listed under "Publications" are in worldcat. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Born 1848, degree in wizardry, professor at Cambridge University, dormant for 100 years. The author of this isn't even trying to pass it off as genuine. The only thing I can believe is that the subject might be on the staff of Plymouth-Canton Educational Park. AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Why is it not under CSD? 'Wizardry' is simply ridiculous. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. ttonyb (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert lanz Racelis[edit]

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

Article appears to be nonsense, person identified is not notable, google search only turns up facebook pages. Becky Sayles (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No secondary source coverage. Non-notable basketball player. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – nn individual. CSD removed my Anon IP sockpuppet. ttonyb (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon (band)[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Non-notable band. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie VI[edit]

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

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

The subject of this article, a secondary school annual event, does not appear to meet the notability criteria WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, along with Siglap's ELDDS SYF and Siglap's Thinking Day. Feezo (Talk) 09:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding these two articles to the nomination. VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient secondary source coverage. Non-notable event. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 10:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - since both fail to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. There is a flood of related blog-type entries, with pleas of "don't delete, I have to do it for my project." I have directed one of the authors to WP:NOTWEBHOST and asked them to point the instructor to WP:School and university projects. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space Chimps (video game)[edit]

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

non notable video game, only references provided are from its developer and IMDB. WuhWuzDat 07:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good secondary source coverage. A fair number of third-party links found. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Reviewed at IGN, Variety, Official Xbox Magazine, IGN (again), NGamer magazine, there are more than likely other magazine sources. It's not a major release but a strange choice for AFD considering it's been released on several consoles. Someone another 17:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep More than properly sourced.--Sloane (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WarMonster[edit]

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

non notable game for mobile phones, all but one of the references provided are from its developers. WuhWuzDat 07:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient secondary source coverage. Non-notable mobile game. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find very little on this game other then what's on the developer's page. Next to no discussion on IGN. Blue nacho (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldnt find information about it via search engines. Second source does not cover much. 43?9enter (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eh. You guys just didn't look hard enough. I assume the page you found on IGN was this? That's for Gameboy Color, not the new mobile version.

That being said: Delete as non-notable/not enough coverage. – Ajl^talk 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm actually a little surprised this wasn't tagged as Spam. The article as written reads like a promotion, rather than an article. Bagheera (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Snowball Close?– Ajl^talk 05:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still here in the morning, I'll csd nominate it per ((db-spam)).– Ajl^talk 05:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above--Sloane (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked Witch Software as a plausible search term. Could not locate any coverage other than the IGN Gameboy preview. Marasmusine (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daichi Kiyono[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Acting career and sports seem to only be at the university level, and thus likely amateur. Someone with Japanese proficiency is greatly needed though. Ravendrop 07:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient secondary source coverage. Non-notable person. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring additional sourcing being found, I had made a good-faith effort when I added the one source present. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity (play)[edit]

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

Play performed only 21 time, the refs given are only routine reviews or from a book that "discusses every Broadway production" (so cant be used to show any play is worthy of notice) Mtking (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On a brief look, I couldn't find any notability standards for theater. I suggest that Broadway plays should be considered automatically notable, the way we do certain political, geographical and other categories. A Broadway play which ran only 21 performances would also be a notable flop. Broadway is the most significant venue for American theater, requires a lot of expense and preparation, tends to use more notable actors and almost always to get coverage in reliable, third party sources such as The New York Times. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references to the NYT, a third-party, reliable source. Inherent notability per status as Broadway play. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would disagree that a Broadway play has inherent notability, but would say that they almost invariably attract notice and would be covered in reliable sources no matter how bad the play may be. Witness the thrashing of the yet to open Spiderman play. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The play was reviewed by the NY Times, and has the book reference shows that it is a notable part of the history of American theatre. Note that this all focuses on one single production of the play. the play itself is by a notable French playwright, with more academic sources available for expansion. [30], and a couple of JSTOR articles that I do not have access to but snippet views note that GB Shaw's wife did a translation of the play. [31], [32]. These are just eh English language results. As French playwright, there appears to be more material available in French, but my language skills are not up to it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Boyle[edit]

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

A basketball player for the Milwaukee Panthers. One of the star players on his college team, but not notable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Insufficient secondary source coverage. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TYelliot, unlikely to be drafted or play professionally. Royal broil 12:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete additional 5 nominations below for the same reason. Royal broil 03:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles per request by User:Jrcla2. Articles were created by same person who created Tone Boyle and all three players are on the same Milwaukee basketball team. Bgwhite (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC):[reply]

Delete every nomination per explanations above, which also apply to these newest two nominations. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added Mitchell Carter, Ja'Rob McCallum and Lonnie Boga to this list because it's been the same user who's been creating these stub, non-notable players because of WP:CRUFT. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every nomination as not notable as a professional per WP:NBASKETBALL nor as a college player per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless CPUs[edit]

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

Not notable. No coverage in the Microprocessor Report, no non-trivial coverage elsewhere. Rilak (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary source coverage. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete. This is also coatrack spam. Its barely-English text is apparently intended to advertise various Wavecom products: The Quik series is designed for medium to large scale industrial M2M and automotive product design and is built in to a product design PCB. ARM7 and ARM9 core processors provide the ANSI C application execution environment.... The Wireless Microprocessor is designed for high volume manufacturing and has an ARM9 core processor to provide the ANSI C application execution environment. The form factor is BGA based, enabling high volume manufacting techniques to be used. If you don't know what this is about already, you apparently won't learn from this. I have no idea whether "wireless CPU" is a meaningful general product category that would support an article not focused on selling a particular product line, but this is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RouterTech[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Rilak (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary source coverage. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Note also that there is a woodworking tool business also using the same name. Of the handful of GNews hits this gets, several are false positives. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human code[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:V and WP:N. The article has two references. The first is a 1993 book by Steve McConnell titled Code Complete, published by Microsoft Press; and the second is a 2000 paper by Ilkka Tuomi titled "Internet, Innovation, and Open Source: Actors in the Network". Since the article does not provide enough bibliographic information for the second reference, it is assumed that the paper is what the article is referring to.

Searching the book (using Google Books) and the paper (using a cached HTML version from Google) for instances of "human code" and "human-readable code" (what the topic is alternatively known as, according the article), returns no results. These two references are therefore not able to verify that the topic exists, prove that the content is not original research and/or improper synthesis, and that the topic is notable. Additionally, the book is about how to program, and the paper is about the development of Linux from a social perspective. It is not obvious how these references are relevant.

Searching Google Books and Google Scholar for human code and human-readable code returns no relevant results in the first 30 or 40 results. Searching for any of the previous terms in combination with any of the following terms also returns no relevant results: computing, computer, and computer science. These terms were chosen because it can be expected that coverage in reliable sources contains these terms. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination; also, appears to be a neologism. Dialectric (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hryhory Bazhul[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO, nothing in gnews for his name in both English and Ukrainian. even in google his name in Ukrainian only reveals WP mirros [33]. gbooks reveals 6 hits but no evidence of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are non-English sources.
Delete He is mentioned in some books, but he is not the subject of them. Otherwise fails WP:BIO. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reply to above unsigned comment: please provide links to these sources. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever tried googling? http://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9+%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B6%D1%83%D0%BB&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:uk:official&client=firefox-a .--Galassi (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

many seem WP mirrors. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. There is a monograph currently being prepared for publication about him. There is also a corner in a state museum in Ukraine with his instrument, paintings and concert posters on display. Google gives us 3500 hit in articles where he is mentioned. ````

this monograph is not published so can't count as a source. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did take up about a third of my doctorate dissertation which is published and also an english language book on Ukrainian Folk Instruments published in Melbourne in 1984. Bandurist (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then you should have no problem supplying us third party sources. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional tertiary sources have been added. Bandurist (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please add as inline citation as per WP:INCITE. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, assuming citations are added, are we done here or do you have other concerns? These affairs sometimes turn into an endless series of "but now, what about this?" hurdles, just checking. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Again, another irresponsible nomination by User:LibStar targeting Ukrainian-related articles. I strongly oppose this nomination on these grounds:

As evidenced previously the nominator has no competency in this area, and not having a basic command of Ukrainian makes it impossible for him to do effective internet searches to justify his nominations (or to properly assess the significance of a Ukrainian-related subject). As suggested by another editor — User:LibStar "should be required to contact someone who knows the language in the proper Wikiproject before trying to delete an article".
The nominator has improperly claimed as a 'fact' that not having 'hits' on Google News = "failing WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO". Nowhere in any WP policies does it say that 'hits' on any search site should be used as the only criterion for deletion. It is also ridiculous to expect Google News (which only has limited access to some archived news media) to have hits on all notable people who have been dead since 1989!
Wikipedia deletions policy and etiquette (WP:BEFORE) requires that a ((notability)) or other appropriate tag should be placed, instead of a deletion notice as a first step. I quote: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." (WP:ATD. Unfortunately, User:LibStar does not even bother notifying the creator/main contributor of the article, thus preventing anyone the opportunity to improve the article, before it is potentially deleted without their knowledge.

Someone competent in the Ukrainian language would find, just using the internet, that Hryhory Bazhul was notable enough to be mentioned in:

Ukrainian news articles:
- Кравченко, М. "Все про кобзарство", Київська Правда № 13 (22649) понеділок 7 лютого 2011 року (Kravchenko, M. "All about kobzar art", an article about the Kobzar-bandura museum in Pereyaslava-Khmelnytska in Ukraine).
- Атаманюк, Ю. "Гнат Хоткевич і гуцульський театр", «Час і Події», Львів 01/03/2008 номер #2008-01 (Atamaniuk, Y. "Hnat Khotkevych and the hutzul theatre", Time and Events, Lviv 01/03/2008)
At least ten issues (between 1972 and 1995) of the largest circulating Ukrainian-language diaspora newspaper Svoboda (existing since 1893, and all issues available online):
At least one issue of the largest English-language Ukrainian newspaper in the Ukrainian diaspora, The Ukrainian Weekly:
- The_Ukrainian_Weekly_1990-48.pdf
The international Bandura journal (issued in New York):
- Мішалов В. "Перший семінар присвячений харківському способу гри на бандурі" / ("First seminar commemorating the Kharkiv style of bandura playing") Bandura № (75) 2001, p. 22.
- Кобза i пiсня - Ансамбль бандуристiв iм. Г. Хоткевича (Австралiя), Петро Деряжний-керiвник Review: "The kobza and song - The Hnat Khotkevych Ukrainian Bandurist Ensemble, conducted by Peter Deriashnyj, conductor. Bandura №2(6) 1982
These journals, mostly available in full from the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine:
- Стенограма засідання спеціалізованої вченої ради Д 64.807.01 Харківської державної академії культури, Протокол № 35, 20 лютого 2009 (Verbatim record — Minutes No.35, 20 February 2009, of the special academic board of the uk:Kharkiv National Academy of Culture, in the evaluation of the thesis "The cultural-artistic aspects of the genesis and development of the Kharkiv method of bandura playing" by doctorate candidate Victor Mishalow.) Record of discussion by 16 academic experts.
- Жеплинський, Б. М., Кобзарськими стежинами: науково-публіцистичне дослідження НАН України, Львівська наукова бібліотека ім. В.Стефаника. - Л. : [б.в., 2002. - 277 с.: фотоіл.] ISBN 966-02-1422-7 (Zheplynsky B. M, Paths of the Kobzars: scientific publication investigations, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Lviv National Library Lviv).
- Обух, Л. Типологія освітніх інституцій кобзарського мистецтва українського зарубіжжя (за матеріалами журналу ,,Бандура”) // Наукові збірки Львівської національної музичної академії ім. М.В. Лисенка, Вип. 21 2009 (Obukh, L. Typology of educational institutions of kobzar art in the Ukrainian diaspora) — available online from the The Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
- Дутчак, В. "Музична і науково-методична спадщина Гната Хоткевича в українському зарубіжжі." Вісник Прикарпатського університету. Мистецтвознавство 2008. Вип. 12. (Karas, H. "Activities of educational institutions in kobzar art in the diaspora", Newsletter Precarpathian University. Art studies issue № 12, p.151-155) — available online from the The Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
- Карась, Г. "Діяльність освітніх інституцій кобзарського мистецтва в діаспорі: джерелознавчий аспект", Вісник Прикарпатського університету. Мистецтвознавство 2009. Вип. 15–16. (Karas, H. "Activities of educational institutions in kobzar art in the diaspora", Newsletter Precarpathian University. Art studies issue № 15–16) — available online from the The Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
- Бобченко, О. "Жіноче бандурне виконавство в українському зарубіжжі: персоналії та колективи", «Виконавці та виконавство» Музикознавчі студії Інституту мистецтв Волинського національного університету імені Лесі Українки та Національної музичної академії України імені П. І. Чайковського (Bobchenko, O. "Ladies bandura performance in the Ukrainian diaspora: personalities and groups.") — available online from the The Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
- Дутчак В. Г. "Традиції харківського способу гри в практиці бандуристів українського зарубіжжя" «Проблеми сучасної педагогічної освіти» Випуск №14, частина 1 (Dutchak V. "Traditional Kharkiv style of playing by bandurists in the Ukrainian diaspora") — available online from the The Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
- Зьола, М. "Кобзарське мистецтво в грамзапису" журнал «Вітчизна» №7-8, 2005 р (Літературно-художній та громадсько-політичний журнал письменників України) (Zolia, M. "Kobzar art in gramophone recordings", Motherland)

NOTE: most of the above references also mention the Hnat Khotkevych Ukrainian Bandurist Ensemble — as Hryhory Bazhul was its founder, and also mention that Bazhul was the student of another famous Ukrainian bandurist — Hnat Khotkevych. --Pkravchenko (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ADHOM you should not attack the nominator. WP does not require users to know all foreign languages to participate. LibStar (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) Yes, there are plenty of WP policies regarding etiquette, including the requirement, to notify creators/significant authors of articles if you are nominating their article for deletion (with the privileged powers of an administrator). In my opinion, the act of nominating an article for deletion, without first trying to improve it, and without notifying the author, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and certainly not in accordance with the "high standard of conduct" expected of administrators.

b) "participating" is a long way off from nominating an article for deletion, especially if you don't have any background in the subject, or language. --Pkravchenko (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100s of articles are nominated each week for deletion, and in the vast majority of cases the creator is not notified. There is no requirement to, and I don't see you complaining at other AfDs about this. Nor can this be an argument for keeping. WP places no restriction/prequalification on what articles can be nominated for deletion by a user. Perhaps you feel you WP:OWN Ukrainian subject articles in WP and no one else can nominate them? LibStar (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sources are sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dino D-Day[edit]

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

Let's settle this pointless fight. This is the article I made... I believe the topic of nazi dinosaurs are notable. The sources agree. I have lots of sources here. Are they? Merrill Stubing (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game itself is notable, not the fact that it consists of nazi dinosaurs. The game is being released on Steam later this month, and multiple notable game sites have commented and previewed it. I do not think that the article should be deleted. Kevinmon•talk•trib 04:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? are you now requesting deletion? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to want process so I started the process to delete an article to settle this. Next time don't accuse innocent people of vandalizing. I would still like an apology for that. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get it. Are you just having a bored day or are you here to annoy people? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what is your problem? Sorry I decided to help this stupid website every couple days or weeks. Fuck you too. Harass me some more why don't you Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you step away from your computer and get some sleep or whatever helps you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop harassing others. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merrill, consider this your final warning about being WP:CIVIL in discussions here. You wrote something, someone else thought the topic was not viable, someone else said it was and tried to help keep the article from being deleted. If you don't want to work with others collaboratively, then Wikipedia is probably not for you. However, there are numerous ways to resolve disputes and try to figure out why someone said something (and it's possible the other person used an excessively loaded word or something). Again, you need to be willing to discuss--that really is the primary way anything happens here. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but seriously--this guy accused me of vandalism and refused to apologize. That is bullying. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This should be closed as a speedy keep, under the first point: "The nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion." The nominator actually wants the article kept, and is forcing this nomination because it was recommended for speedy deletion (which has since been removed). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative decline for speedy-close keep-per-policy, as LordVetinari has now advanced an actual basis for deletion. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources (i.e. exclusing anything resulting from press releases for a new product). The game doesn't exist yet, severely retarding any claim to notability. LordVetinari (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that this edit clearly shows third-party reliable sources that are covering this game. Granted, the information or inline citations are not yet included in the article, but there is notability. Kevinmon•talk•trib 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[34] merely briefly describes and promotes the game
[35] merely briefly describes and promotes the game
[36] merely briefly describes and promotes the game
[37] merely briefly describes the game
[38] merely briefly describes and promotes the game
[39] merely briefly describes and promotes the game
[40] merely briefly describes the game
[41] Inaccessible
[42] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[43] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[44] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[45] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[46] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[47] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[48] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[49] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[50] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[51] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[52] merely briefly describes the game
[53] An extremely brief mention
[54] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[55] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[56] Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
[57] merely briefly describes the game
[58] merely briefly describes the game
[59] merely briefly describes the game
[60] An extremely brief mention
[61] merely briefly describes the game
[62] Twitter? Seriously??
[63] merely briefly describes the game
[64] merely briefly describes the game

None of these sources seem to do anything other than repeat a press release. Some are promotional. Some are inaccessible, therefore hindering verifiability. The game appears to break new ground in a genre that has been done to death (see [65]) but, as the game hasn't yet been released, there is no evidence that the gaming community considers it thus. In other words, there is no verifiable evidence that the gaming community considers this game notable. That a group of bloggers and journalists say its cool doesn't demonstrate anything other than that it exists. LordVetinari (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the game or the quality of the sources, I haven't checked, but "Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source" is an invalid argument. Articles may be completely based on sources not in English, and these sources are just as valid to determine notability as any other. Fram (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer, but I did say "inaccessible" not "invalid". As I mentioned in the last paragraph, some of the sources are inaccessible and this hinders verifiability. One source is inaccessible due to a server error. Others are inaccessible due to a language barrier. Therefore, until those latter sources translated, we only have guesswork and the word of the editor listing those sources that they are reliable. LordVetinari (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how sources work. A "language barrier" does not make a source inaccessible. They are easily translated either by a user or through machine translation that is good enough to understand the meaning behind the sources. Furthermore, yes, you are relying on the word of the editor, that's what assuming good faith means. We do that all the time for articles that have external non-internet sources (such as books). Most featured articles have references that are almost entirely not "accessible" by us online, but we assume good faith that the editor who put the information in did it correctly unless proven otherwise. None of that changes the reliability of the sources or the notability they confer onto their subject. Silver seren^C 10:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy so Merill can learn what an article looks like (as opposed to some pointy mess). Then move it back when it's ready. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice if the game proves notable after release. Most of the sources mention the game because of the novelty of the concept, but until it actually exists is seems premature to create an article. Seaphoto^Talk 05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, so by that sort of thinking any game not yet out shouldn't have an article? What about List_of_video_games_in_development? They all have pages Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game actually is a mod of Half-Life 2 and is a first-person shooter. Source Kevinmon•talk•trib 05:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but not every game in development (or even available) is notable, just like not every movie or book or musical album. Notability is based on a number of factors,not just a good premise. Seaphoto^Talk 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I updated the article with sources directly from Valve Corporation and from reputable sources both reviewing the game's features and what it will include when it is released. I believe that in its current state, and based on the references available, that the article should be kept and expanded upon when the game is released on Steam on April 8, 2011. Kevinmon•talk•trib 06:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close the curtain on this sorry AfD (i.e. Keep). I added two references to show that independent secondary sources were covering the thing. I see a lot of shrapnel above about other sources but didn't bother to go through it. The thing is being covered by the press, so it's notable, end of story. Wnt (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somebody sent this afd to slashdot, seems to be a habit...[66] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalms* I completely understand talking about the Old Man Murray article, but seriously, making a topic thread about this? I mean, I don't feel like voting right now (it would be a Keep), but the rationale in that thread is just stupid. Nazi dinosaurs have nothing to do with notability. Silver seren^C 10:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Until more sources become available (which is quite likely). TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think the sources given sufficiently establish notability for the article; they provide significant enough coverage. Merrill Stubing, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Knock it off. –MuZemike 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy It is a crystal ball article about something which has not yet been released, so it is prematurely in mainspace as an article. All the references (each amounting to "Way Kewl! Nazi Dinosaurs!) appear to be just one splash of coverage, mostly in blogs which may not qualify as reliable sources, deriving from a press release, and WP:NOTNEWS could be applied. Edison (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Incubate~~ Weak Keep* Maybe hatch the eggs at Jurassic Park. Agreed with Edison. Many games go into development but never see light of day. Anyone played Duke Nukem Forever its only been in production since 1996 so any day now we can expect to play it. Once this game has gone gold then maybe userfy the article. As it stands it needs a bunch of work. Golgofrinchian (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) * Changed it to weak keep due to its pending release. It does need some work, but I believe now it has some legs.Golgofrinchian (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its already set for sale next month. Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-orders are sold and the game is on the Steam store to be released in two weeks. The beta has been released for two weeks already. Kevinmon•talk•trib 20:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a game goes on sale is completely irrelevant to its notability. If a game is discussed in reliable sources and never gets released, then it becomes a famous example of vaporware. We're not supposed to be making absolute judgments about what is worth covering based on personal biases - Wikipedia is intended as much for the investor who is wondering whether he will lose everything he invests in a game, or the programmer looking for a dead project to restart, as it is for the player. This is not a "dumbed-down" encyclopedia meant only for the casual consumer. Wnt (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you may find some people do not believe Wikipedia should be allowed to be a platform to promote a game. If Valve is using Wikipedia to help shore up venture capital I think they have other issues at hand. That is not to say WP cannot be used to highlight games, quite the contrary. As long as the page follows the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines then I think you will find it will be accepted whole heartedly, at least by we gamers. What is going on under the surface is there is some very heated debate and attitudes that are causing some strife.

I have been on the side of the author a few times. It does tend to "freak one out" when they see so much discussion about an article. Heck there has been more written on this page than the article by a factor of 3 at least. What this page is, is a way to build consensus for a possible deletion. There is no set rule that says they will delete it due to what has been written. The tone of the first couple of posts tends to get people riled up. This can have a negative effect on the articles chance for life. Maybe if the author and his supporters can take a less aggressive tone, it can allow cooler heads to discuss this.

It is my opinion (and that is all that anyone has done sofar), that the game being this close to release, that it is mentioned in several independent places, it does have some legs. You will see there is more support here than I think you and the author believe. Its just a bunch of people voicing their opinions. We are all Wikipedia editors to some extent, nothing fancy. The adage that you can get more bees with honey does help in this case. Although maybe a beer or two would help grease the wheels. ;) Golgofrinchian (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do object when I feel like the FAC process is used to promote video games, i.e. to feature them prominently in coordination with a recent release. Though it may also be true of mere article creation, I don't have a problem with that: everyone has a reason for participating in Wikipedia and bothering to create an article. "Promoting" the product by creating an article using reliable sources is a fair reward, because everyone can do the same thing.

When I mentioned investors, I didn't mean literally investors in this particular project; rather, anyone who might look back at a variety of accomplished versus "vaporware" projects to try to reason out what the differences are. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now, per golgofrinchan. –SJ + 19:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep terrible afd, and enough sources for the article.--Sloane (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to School of Oriental and African Studies. It is possible that source #1 offers significant coverage. But without outside support from other valid sources, this one source is insufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson House (London)[edit]

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

Another article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry Mtking (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well actually merge such as it is into the main SOAS article (which itself could do with a fair bit of work, the alumni list could do with splitting out.) Le Deluge (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary source coverage. I'm surpised it's not under CSD. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — there are important historical African American associations with this building. I have added the history and easily found references. There is no evidence that WP:BEFORE, especially points 4 & 6, was followed before proposing this article for deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that seems completely misleading. It was named after a famous African-American, but there doesn't seem to be any historical connection, and being named after someone famous does not give automatic notability. Indeed, a fair bit of this article probably needs to be removed; a bit of background on its namesake is fine, but as of now there's too much info on him unrelated to the building itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this gives the background on why the building is so-named, outlining Paul Robeson's association with the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) that led to the naming of a SOAS building, with a book reference.

Regardless, however, a ton of sources about the man himself don't give any reason for the notability of this building. He may have been associated with the SOAS, but this is a dorm building for SOAS students, something he was not at all associated with.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of significant coverage to indicate notability. Being named after someone famous certainly does not transfer that person's notability to the subject. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see coverage for the Paul Robeson House in Philadelphia, but not for any such place in England. Do the books cited count as notable, and did they provide in depth coverage of it? Did any notable meetings take place at that location, something that got news coverage and influenced future politicians or whatnot? Dream Focus 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For clarification, there are two buildings with the same name (in the US and UK), both associated with the same person, with an appropriate Paul Robeson House disambiguation page. One of the books referenced (by English Heritage) has significant coverage (but not fully online), the other some mention in a historical context of Paul Robeson and Lorenzo Dow Turner. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more references and an external link in the context of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another university dorm that fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Faulty nom. New SPA account has been tagging an nominating a bunch of articles, but in this case he has given no valid reason to delete. Onthegogo (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's true, there's been a lot of delete votes with valid reasoning, so that is not a valid keep argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Sources demonstrate notability of the builiding in and of itself, and not just as a hall of residence of an important university. I also want to echo the comments above about the nomination process. Mtking has been tagging and nominating multiple article since recently setting up their account, in no cases have they attempted to improve the articles in question, to find sources demonstrating notability, or to engage others in discussion on the articles Talk pages first, and the multiple deletion discussions which have been brought about by them have wasted considerable time.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources meet the GNG, at all. Please state which sources you feel do if that's going to be your argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Squeaks by GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Please actually state which of the sources meet the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville: Survey of London' is good enough for me, the others merely seal the deal.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source absolutely does not count as more than trivial coverage. It says that the building (along with another) occupy the site of a former depot. That's it. Literally nothing else. It goes on to describe the depot, but says absolutely nothing more about this subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: have you read the whole of page 368 of the book in hard copy? (I haven't) Only a small snippet is available on Google Books. However the name of the building is given in bold, which suggests strongly to me that the book is conveying that it has far more than in-passing notability.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap are you being serious? It's listed in bold, so we can assume there's more coverage proving its notability even if we can't find it? I have honestly never heard a worse argument for notability in my life.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, we have the index visible, which shows that it is not referenced on any other page!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that's a no then.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course I haven't. But are you suggesting that we assume the index is lying and that there are more mentions, just because it's a bold word?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how, exactly, do you know that there is no other text on that page about this building? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I technically can't say that for sure. But what matters is that you can't say there is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you so desperate to delete this article then? The name of the building is in bold, that clearly suggests importance. It is pretty likely that there is more text on the page, another editor has suggested as much above. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty likely? The fact that it mentions the house and then goes on to discuss something else means it probably doesn't mention it again. And being in bold does not confer notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a bit moot anyhow, as I believe that the hall of residence building actually incorporates much of the old, highly historic, building. The old building was not knocked down but was renovated and extended. It is the extension which is visible in the article photo. This is just based on my memory from having walked past a number of times, but perhaps another editor more familiar with it could confirm this?Rangoon11 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What counts as a suitable source is a matter of judgement and it appears there is no consensus here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just a matter of judgement if none of the sources meet WP:GNG. Which source meets it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's run through the actual sources in the article before this AfD closes:

1. It says that the building (along with another) occupy the site of a former depot. That's it. Literally nothing else. It goes on to describe the depot, but says absolutely nothing more about this subject.

2.Published by the school, not independent.

3.Published by the company that manages the residence, not independent.

4.A wiki anyone can edit, not acceptable for the GNG.

5.Another wiki.

6. A site telling it's members how to book a room at the house for their upcoming trip. Clearly not significant coverage.

7. A totally reliable source, but one that simply mentions in its biography of Paul Robeson that a building was named after him. Not significant coverage.

8.Published by the school alumni association, not independent.

As for other sources, there seem to be no GNews hits, and I've so far failed to find any other real coverage, although I'll keep trying. --Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerseyboy Hero[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Print articles coming march 24th, 2011. Release is in a few weeks. was featured as Cover Story in Asbury park Press _ Article on archive site --- http://www.asburyparklibrary.org/BSSC/BSSC_Articles.htm _ Headline - 3/9/08 "Vaughn snags Springsteen for documentary." Don't Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creditcamp (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I saw the article through NPP after creation. I started a search for sources to add to the article, but was unable to find any. I went back to the article and added a PROD2, which was removed. Notability not established for the film. We need significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. They just aren't there. Additionally, Wikipedia is not here to serve as a promotional outlet for upcoming or future film releases. Cind.amuse 04:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. I found the 2006 press release, and the 2008 article in Asbury Park Press,[67] and while noting it having a "rough cut" screening at the Garden State Film Festival in 2010,[68] and happy for Vaughn that after 5 years his film will finally make its debut,[69] the lack of coverage for this one still fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was G3 speedy delete; NAC. TheTito ^Discuss 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle of the Human Liver[edit]

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

Notability not established. Appears to fail WP:NB. Unreferenced. No evidence that novel exists. "Literary analysis" section replete with gibberish. Was proposed for deletion but contested by author with no explanation or improvement. LordVetinari (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be a fake article, look at the references.Jnast1 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wow, is this even a real book? The story in the first section sounds fragmented and makes little sense. It all appears to be made up. How could the author write the book after he was dead shot by the co-author. Sounds ridiculous needs some serious work and explanation to keep. Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Criticism of the BBC. No demonstration of independent notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Plett[edit]

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

I don't think that the subject meets the general notability guidelines, and the article certainly doesn't establish how she does if she does. I spent some time independently looking, and came up empty - but I'm not very accustomed to applying the people-related notability guidelines, so please point out if I am wrong. Additionally, my understanding is that in general wikipedia's policy is that individuals who are noted only for specific controversies should not have independent articles about themselves, and also that articles should not exist primarily to disparage their subjects, and I think this article is probably running afoul of both of those guidelines. (Relevant policies probably include wp:blp and wp:coatrack. Mention of the commentary may belong on Criticism of the BBC or a similar page, but it seems inappropriate for a standalone biography. Unless independent notability can be established, I think the page should be deleted.Kgorman-ucb (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who first raised the wp:NPOV issue re this article. I would rather it be deleted than languish in its current, biased form but regarding Ms Plett's notability, I would observe that 1) she has obvious notoriety and 2) Lyse Doucet, Ms Plett's contemporary and likewise a Canadian journalist with a career history as a BBC foreign correspondent, already has a modest biosketch devoted to her. 87.86.118.227 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is an obvious WP:COATRACK, and has little on the subject herself - those who have edited the article seem to have expended little effort in attempting to find any either - or if they have, they have failed. WP:BLP1E seems thus to apply. If it was established that the subject were notable, the single event that seems to have led to the article creation would seemingly merit little weight in any case. It belongs instead in Criticism of the BBC, as noted above. In response to the posting by 87.86.118.227, above, I'd point out that over the years Wikipedia policy regarding biographies has been changing, and what may have been acceptable in the past may not now be so. I'm sure both journalists are creditable professionals, but that in itself may not establish 'notability' by current Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Wikipedia's desire to raise the threshold for including a given journalist's biography on the basis of notability but if the 'public recognition' factor means anything (and I'm sure it does), Lyse Doucet and Barbara Plett are notable, as BBC World News correspondents, for appearing on hundreds of millions of TV screens (and on BBC World Service radio) around the globe every time there's a crisis in the Middle East and at the UN to be reported (as right now, during the Arab Spring - this is what prompted me to look up Barbara Plett's biography-cum-coatrack on Wikipedia in the first place). Surely in their cases, there are enough news junkies wanting to know the backgrounds of those who regularly report world-shaking events to them, to warrant Wikipedia publishing their biographies (not least to allow one to guage their journalistic credentials and perspectives - and to this end, I advocate semi-protecting a balanced, modest, well-referenced treatment of Plett's Arafat episode in non-edit mode so it can't be maliciously deleted, while crucially leaving the remainder of the expanded biography open for editing). Barbara Plett and Lyse Doucet are not your local 'cub' reporters: as long-serving and respected BBC foreign journalists, they're at the top of their profession in one of the most well-known news organisations on the planet. In short, they're the epitome of 'reality TV' - no grandstanding, fly-by-night celebrities these! 87.86.118.227 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also based on WP:BLP1E. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either fix or MERGE to already-existing subsection of Criticism of the BBC -- I think Barbara Plett is notable enough to have a full article written about her, but if after four years no-one is going to write anything except on the Arafat affair, then maybe it's time to give up vaguely hoping for future expansion. If it is decided to eliminate it as a separate article, then relevant useful content should be transferred to the already-existing subsection of page Criticism of the BBC... AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, thanks for the above contribution to the debate but to clarify, the reason no one added to the Arafat episode is that, outrageously, the author of this coatrack - masquerading as a complete biography - was allowed to manipulate things by completely eliminating the 'edit' function, so no one could! (Till now...) 87.86.118.227 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - I made an edit to what looks to me like a better version that the one that was there, an IP made some edits that look like improvement to me but they were all reverted by user Neutralhomer who called them vandalism. They clearly were not vandalism at all. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, Off2riorob. (Why am I not surprised that a reverse-evolutionist crawled out of the woodwork to allege vandalism of Barbara Plett's living biography?) To Wikipedia's editors: I respectfully submit that you owe it to Ms Plett - whose journalistic reputation has been unfairly denigrated for years by this heretofore-uneditable, coatrack snippet on your website - to research, post and archive a balanced, modest biography of her. (If it becomes vandalised, then if necessary administrators should restore, page-protect and maintain the biography in non-edit mode, with a public note that the protection is due to a prior history of vandalism and coatracking.) 87.86.118.227 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or merge to already-existing subsection of Criticism of the BBC -- As User:AnonMoos said, "I think Barbara Plett is notable enough to have a full article written about her, but if after four years no-one is going to write anything except on the Arafat affair, then maybe it's time to give up vaguely hoping for future expansion". Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, you overlooked my earlier reply to AnonMoos (above): No one was allowed to expand this biography ~~for four years~~ because it was (ill-advisedly) fully page-protected! (I'm losing the will to live...) 87.86.118.227 (talk)

Hi, I looked for that in the logs (see here) but didn't find anything , that doesn't mean your not correct though, as a note - I am leaning towards keep and improve. In regard to losing the will to live - please don't do that, wiki can do that to you though, we usually get there in the end and it can seem a little bemusing and process blinded sometimes.Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Off2riorob. The biography was page-protected because I found it that way: the page's Edit tab had been removed without explanation, so I couldn't update it with the subject's current role as UN Correspondent, or anything else. (The BBC on behalf of Ms Plett got the protection removed, earlier this month.) My experience suggests that Wikipedia was the unwitting participant in a coatracking exercise: the site-administrator who protected the page in its entirety (perhaps at the request of the coatracker) showed poor judgement at best, and bias at worst. If I'd been in their shoes, after verifying the passage on the Arafat incident I would at most have semi-protected it and left the rest of the page open for editing, for fairness' sake. 87.86.118.227 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

87.86.118.227 -- I really don't understand your complaint. From just the editing history, the article could not have been fully protected for even six consecutive months (let alone four solid years), and anonymous IPs seem to have edited from time to time, including yourself in June 2010... AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, my complaint is this: between 21 February and 5 March 2011 at a bare minimum, Barbara Plett's biography on Wikipedia was page-protected as a wp:coatrack (and before you ask, both Kgorman-ucb and AndyTheGrump will back me up on the latter characterisation). This injustice might have continued ad infinitum had the BBC not complained to Wikipedia. The website has to take some of the blame because as I understand it, only a site-administrator can page-protect a biography. Under these circumstances, and given Ms Plett's longstanding, high public profile worldwide as described above, for Kgorman-ucb to put her biography on death row seems harsh, no? (Btw, I don't recall editing this biography before yesterday, and then only to correct her surname from Plopp(!) to Plett. Character-assassination by a thousand cuts... ) 87.86.118.227 (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that another BBC foreign correspondent, Orla Guerin, also had a 'Mideast moment' not unlike Plett's. 87.86.118.227 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get an article kept is to improve it. If the subject has received notable awards and add any articles that discuss her. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, with respect I'm not plumping to be Barbara Plett's biographer. All I did was point out an obvious injustice that highlights a possible systemic weakness in Wikipedia's publishing protocol, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Barbara_Plett. Someone else proposed deletion as the solution and if the upshot is that her biography gets wiped from the Wikisphere then I'd be content, if not in agreement. 87.86.118.227 (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this wikipedia is far from a perfect place, things happen that are against policy, some users vote as they like without consideration to policy and guidelines. Some users care and some don't, some users here don't even like the project and attempt to destroy it from within. Some users are 10 year old children. Some users are only here to attack and add as negative content as possible about their real life enemies. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the money, Off2riorob! Wikipedia needs the cyber-equivalent of a smart-bomb to stop this mischief. :) 87.86.118.227 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A comparison of the plump talk page to the emaciated article is evidence that some WP editors would rather fight than work, and diversion of attention from content to balance on this article has has led to nothing but an AFD that should never have happened. Anarchangel (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content disputes are not a good reason for deletion. The person is decidedly notable. Collect (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Deriashnyj[edit]

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

for someone that has been supposedly active in the music scene from 1980 to 2007 he gets no gnews hits [70]. gbooks mainly reveals listing or WP mirrors. [71]. the article is basically based on one source. fails WP:BIO, WP:COMPOSER and WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is generally known much better in the Ukrainian ethnic community. Goodle gives 2,020 (0.23 сек.) in english sources http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Peter+Deriashnyj&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 and 2,920 (0.26 сек.) for the Cyrrillic version of his name Петро Деряжний. Keep also in mind that Deriashnyj is a transliteration of his surname via German, Often in articles they use other transliterations such as Deriazhny Bandurist (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cyryllic search yields http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=uk&client=safari&rls=en&q=%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= .--Galassi (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is an invalid argument. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really! Well your argument about "lack of gnews" is equally invalid. --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, WP:GOOGLEHITS does not apply to gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article would benefit from serious editing, but wiki etiquette and policy (WP:BEFORE) says that a ((notability)) tag should have been placed, instead of a deletion notice. Before targeting Ukrainian-related articles for deletion, User:LibStar, should ideally first learn a bit of Ukrainian. This would help him immensely in doing his internet searches. Using just the internet, Peter Deriashnyj is notable enough to be:

Featured and interviewed by the Australian Government Broadcasting Service (SBS):
- on 18 Oct 2010 (podcast available)
- on 23 June 2009 (mp3 of interview available).
Featured in the Ukrainian language edition of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (a broadcaster funded by the U.S. Congress):
- "Kobzar Festival ends" 17.11.2008
Featured in the international Bandura journal:
- Кобза i пiсня - Ансамбль бандуристiв iм. Г. Хоткевича (Австралiя), Петро Деряжний-керiвник Review: "The kobza and song - The Hnat Khotkevych Ukrainian Bandurist Ensemble, conducted by Peter Deriashnyj, conductor. Bandura №2(6) 1982
Mentioned (as performing) in at least nine issues (between 1976 and 2008) of the largest circulating Ukrainian-language diaspora newspaper (existing since 1893), Svoboda:
Mentioned (as performing) in at least one issue of the largest English-language Ukrainian newspaper in the Ukrainian diaspora, The Ukrainian Weekly:
- The_Ukrainian_Weekly_1985-25.pdf
Featured (as performing) in a number of Ukrainian-language online media:
- "Австралійські подвижники „харківської” бандури у Харкові ("Australian devotees of the Kharkiv-style bandura in Kharkiv") — official site of the Ukrainian Youth Association (worldwide body). Photos of Peter playing bandura in article.
Mentioned (as performing and/or conducting) in a number of Ukrainian and English-language online media:

--Pkravchenko (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources for other printed encyclopedia entries:
Tarnawska O. Deriashnyj Peter in Encyclopedia of the Ukrainian Diaspora Vol 4. (Australia-Asia-Africa) Австралія-Азія-Африка) Shevchenko Scientific Society, Kyiv - NY - Chicago - Melbourne, 1995. p. 71
Dutchak V. - Deriazhny Petro // Ukrainian Music Encylopedia, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, 2006 Vol 1, p.601

````

Keep – article needs serious trimming and more sources, but subject meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work Pkravchenko. With articles like this you can't usually find anything unless someone knows the language. They really should be required to contact someone who knows the language in the proper Wikiproject before trying to delete an article. Dream Focus 21:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable artist as has been verified by the sources included in this discussion. Onthegogo (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Borough High Street#David Bomberg House. The "keep" !voters all fail to address which specific source(s) can be used to estabilish notability under WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Bomberg House[edit]

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

Another article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry Mtking (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no justification of notability Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — there are plenty of references and the building has cultural associations with an artist of importance. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verifiable likely notable, needs work, and is being rescued. –SJ + 19:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question : where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the coverage is about David Bomberg and the fact he has had a building named after him ? Mtking (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Many of the current sources though are dubious. Needs solid sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per lack of verifiable independent sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. The fact that a good third of the article is simply about the man it was named after (who seems to have no other connection to the actual building) is telling. Indeed, I find it odd that editors would argue that simply being named after someone famous implies notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has voted twice (see above). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was meant to go over my old comment, I guess when it didn't load the first time I accidentally added it to the end instead. I just deleted the old comment since it wasn't really as substantive.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG. Onthegogo (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain to me which sources show this is notable. From what I can tell, there are sources from the site of the school, which aren't independent, one that just lists the school's dorms, and one on ratemyarea.com. The sources about Paul Bomberg himself are totally unrelated to the subject of the article, and if they mention the building it's nothing more than "there is a dorm named after him". The only potentially acceptable one is from London Se1 community website, although that is about how a store below the dorm received a late night license; it is an incredible stretch to call this any more than trivial coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem sufficient per GNG to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? Which source possibly makes this sufficient to the GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage.--Sloane (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, seriously, which of these sources are showing notability of the subject as per the GNG? It seems absurd that there are so many keep votes saying the sources are good; which ones are you referring to?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one gnews hit is hardly significantly coverage. [75]. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I really want to give the keep !voters a chance to explain this before this closes. All of the votes saying the sources are good and this meets the GNG are essentially meaningless, since, quite frankly, they don't; please show me which source possibly meets these requirements. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Borough High Street#David Bomberg House The sources do not cover David Bomberg House in sufficient depth to establish notability. Analysis of the sources in the article:
1. BNP Parabas Real Estate (July 2010). "Southwark Student Housing Study". List of halls in Southwark arranged by Institution. Southwark Council, London, UK. p. 13. Retrieved March 20, 2011. – This source is a directory of the numerous student housing facilities in Southwark. David Bomberg House is listed on page 13 and shares that page with another student housing facility. Directory entries do not establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
2. Boehm, Klaus; , Lees-Spalding, Jenny (2006). Student Book 2007. Crimson Publishing. p. 492. ISBN 9781844550739. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) – the subject receives merely a passing mention: "Campus accommodation offers four halls of residence: McLaren House, Dante Road, New Kent Road and David Bomberg House – pretty decent considering the location." David Bomberg House is not discussed in a significant manner in this source.
3. "David Bomberg House". RateMyArea.com. Retrieved March 18, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) – this source is a directory listing.
4. "David Bomberg House: Resident's Handbook 2006–07" (PDF). London South Bank University, UK. 2006. Retrieved March 20, 2011. – a student handbook, a primary source, cannot be used to establish notability.
5. "The artist David Bomberg". Digital Ladywood, UK. Retrieved March 18, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) – this article's subject is David Bomberg, the namesake of the housing facility, which receives a passing mention: "One of the Halls of residences, David Bomberg House is named after him."
6. David Bomberg Burton-on-Trent Bomb Store Picture to Sell at Bonhams, artdaily.org – the bottom of the source states, "(With information from Wikipedia)". Wikipedia mirrors do not pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
7. "A Lasting Legacy" (PDF). Connected. 6. London South Bank University: 11–13. Spring 2009. – this article discusses David Bomberg the artist but fails to mention David Bomberg House.
8. "Late night licence in Borough High Street granted despite dozens of objections". London SE1, UK. 9 December 2009. Retrieved March 20, 2011. ((cite news)): External link in |publisher= (help) – the subject receives only a passing mention: "A petition signed by 112 students living at David Bomberg House above the premises was also received and the building's freeholder London South Bank University formally registered an objection."
The references are either primary source or passing mentions, neither of which enable David Bomberg House to pass Wikipedia:Notability. A Google News Archive search returns one source (see ref #8 above) and a Google Books search returns two sources, one of which is ref #2 above and the other of which cites its source as Wikipedia. Generally, I would support deletion. However, there are plausible merge targets for this article. Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) has merged the article to Borough High Street#David Bomberg House, an action which I endorse per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added further news references concerning recent developments at the building. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which are absolutely unacceptable at proving notability. They are two sources about a restaurant opened on the ground floor of the building, and that's literally the only mention. Basically, Cunard's comments on source 8 apply, only this time the mentions seem even more trivial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources demonstrate notability of the builiding in and of itself, and not just as a hall of residence of an important university. I also want to make some comments about the nomination process. Mtking has been tagging and nominating multiple article since recently setting up their account, in no cases have they attempted to improve the articles in question, to find sources demonstrating notability, or to engage others in discussion on the articles Talk pages first, and the multiple deletion discussions which have been brought about by them have wasted considerable time.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Sources demonstrate notability" doesn't really mean anything if they don't. Which sources do you think meet the GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What counts as a suitable source is a matter of judgement and it appears there is no consensus here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just a matter of judgement if none of the sources meet WP:GNG. Which source meets it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since this can possibly close within the next few hours I want to ask one last time. Which source in this passes the GNG? (and preferably explain why Cunard's thorough analysis is incorrect). Seriously, I'm making this just about as easy as possible.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how, in your view, will the Wikipedia project be improved through the deletion of this article? I only ask because you seem so passionate about getting it deleted. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of good reasons why articles without inherent notability should at least meet the GNG, and why it's important this is enforced; there are quite a few essays and discussions on this that can be found with just a bit of searching. If you really want to know my personal opinions, I'm happy to give them, but ask on my talk page, since getting into that lengthy discussion would be going quite off topic here. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Goetz[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an advertising-only account (Jperfettini (talk · contribs) Marketing Executive / SEO at Sequoia Capital^[76] with no other edits other than to seed wikipedia with numerous Sequoia Capital vanity Bios, and promote her company.
I am also nominating the following vanity pages, Part of this spam campaign:

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Hu12 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to just comment that COI is ad hominem and that the rules that form its only valid basis be applied instead, but it turns out this nomination is itself proof of that. Just assuming that there is no basis for the article, simply because the writer has a COI, is a false assumption. The New York Times covers Sequoia Capital and Jim Goetz. You just have to search for "Jim Goetz" plus "Sequoia Capital" Anarchangel (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI != summary grounds for removal of a notable topic. What is called for is depuffing. Collect (talk) 12:51, 15 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, per Collect. –SJ + 19:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Strategy of the Dolphin[edit]

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

Promotional spam for an obscure self-help book. Doesn't appear to be at all notable. I can't find a single review for it, for instance: the only Google News hits are from advertisements. —Chowbok ☠ 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Obscure book about somebody's made-up management theory. GNews finds only two reviews contemporary with the release. No showing that this book has had any kind of historical impact or depth. If you wonder why I think most management theories are patent nonsense, this is why: The result is a model of four major stages of human thinking and valuing skills and qualities. These four stages are compared to sharks, carps, "pseudo-enlightened carps" and dolphins to shed light on their distinct behaviors. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...but...but..."The authors admit that it (pseudo-enlightened carps) was a difficult naming choice"!

Talk about " The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse " Anarchangel (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One flaw of both sharks and carps, apparently, is that they "believe in scarcity". Makes you wonder if the authors are able to balance their checkbooks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerdis. –SJ + 19:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. As a contested PROD, this is ineligible for soft deletion. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Krainz[edit]

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

Failed PROD. Article does not appear to meet notability guideline under WP:BIO, particularly those outlined under WP:CREATIVE. The subject of the article is mentioned in a variety of 3rd party source in reference to the projects he has been associated with, but has not been the subject of any in depth coverage himself. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. according to IMDB has been screenwriter for 2 films with total estimated budget of $700k between them. Coverage of those would help here, but the only one to be released yet has apparently flopped. No reason to be on visual arts list. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 6 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in light of the fact that this article has been sitting in AFD for almost three weeks with no votes for keep or deletion, and due to the fact that this was a failed PROD because the original author/WP:SPA simply removed the PROD without addressing or commenting on the proposed deletion, and that the original and primary author recently blanked the page can I suggest a deletion of this account without prejudice? Barkeep^{Chat | $} 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barkeep plus my inability to find reliable, secondary sources providing significant coverage. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. As this AfD was closed due to insufficient participation, anyone may request for the article to be undeleted at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LifeStyle[edit]

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

Per WP:HAMMER. Seems to be a cut-and-paste move, and the album is not (yet) notable. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAGteach[edit]

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

Note: The AfD was originally written for the article Tag teach. However, this was a recently created duplicate of TAGteach, and has now been deleted, so this AfD has been modified to refer to the currently existing title of what was effectively the same article. Closing admin, if this discussion results in "delete" then please also delete the redirect which I have created at Tag teach. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the science behind the subject is correct, it seems to pseudo-advertise something called TAGteach in which there is a website online [77] promoting teacher seminars. Also, references are to science of Behaviorism only, and not the subject itself. Also, user generated content from Scribe calls in to question of WP:RS. Phearson (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: Correct, TAGteachInternational is a company promoting teacher seminars. However, TAGteach is nowadays a well renown concept in the clicker training community (differentiating the training of humans - where verbal instructions can be used - from the training of animals), and spreading rapidly in other communities (like special education, sports instructions, et c) as well. I also disagree with the critique of the references:

References within Wikipedia: TAGteach is referred to on "Karen Pryor" and on "Clicker training", and "Behaviorism" is relevant since TAGteach is a part of this underlying science.

The other references (books and articles) do refer to litterature where TAGteach (not just the underlying science) is discussed in detail.

Leebee118 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it uses such science does not excuse it from relevant policies, such as WP:RS. Also, review WP:PEW if any if it applies. Phearson (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anlie8
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Delete This is taking too long. Phearson (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clicker training seems to be about the operant conditioning of animals. This seems to be promoting a non-notable product relating to training teachers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written spam with the sole purpose of promoting the website in the external link section RadioFan (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. The "keep" !votes are quite weak, but there is by no means a consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geek humor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is an essentially unsourced amalgamation of original research and trivia. It narrowly escaped deletion in July of last year where, although the general feeling was that it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, it was given the benefit of the doubt and allowed some time for improvements. Since then, the only thing that's happened to this article is the addition of more unsourced trivia. This must now be taken as evidence that the required sources are not out there, and that the promised improvements are impossible. Reyk _YO! 01:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable brand of entertainment. Systemic bias to consider geekdom notable. While I am indeed White and Nerdy that does not imply support for articles on geek branded sub-strata of notable activities. MLA (talk) 10:32, 12 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I too am a major geek, but I find humor in all things, humor is not exclusive to an IQ. Some of the jokes mentioned in the article can be found on T-Shirts at Think Geek.com. The reason I am supporting it as an article is that there are several other humor types mentioned here on WP Types of Humor . The article needs a good deal of work. However, as a form of humor it may have some legs to stand on. If the article gets some shoring up then its a solid Keep. If the main editor cannot bring the quality up then I recommend Delete. Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A shame it hasn't been improved yet, but its not my preferred subject matter. But like the 1st AfD, it seemed notable to me then and i cited some sources at that time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is not inherently notable, any more than the jokes in any field of interest or endeavor might be, and the cited references, while relevant, don't seem sufficient to me to meet GNG. Cnilep (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with Milowent. And I don't see that anything has changed since the last AfD: this is still an article on a pretty clearly notable topic[78] that hasn't been improved yet. No real reason to delete this now, better to preserve.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep and improve. –SJ + 19:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly has plenty of room for improvement. For example, it currently makes no mention of The Big Bang Theory - an example of geek humour which is a mainstream success and which is reviewed in detail in this context by Science magazine. Our editing policy in such cases is to keep the article in mainspace and we have no deadline for specific improvements. The nomination is thus an example of an argument to avoid:- WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, even if the article is lacking. Systemic bias is not an excuse for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Help me understand how the topic is notable. Would, for example, "Motor-enthusiast cuisine" or "Poets' fashion" or any other Cultural sub-group's aspect of culture topic be similarly notable? If not, what makes this particularly worthy of notice? If so, doesn't that open the door to a sort of reductio ad absurdum? If everything is notable, then nothing is.

If there are systematic studies of geek humor, that suggests that the topic is notable and can be properly treated here. The current Further reading and External links, however, are a book of essays on hacker culture and a string of examples - not discussions - of geek humor.

I don't accept that existence or even ubiquity (A Google book search for "geek humor" finds hundreds of hits, but with two exceptions all the books I saw were examples, not analyses. One exception is already listed under Further reading; the other was a mention of the Annals of Improbable Research) equals notability, though I am willing to be convinced. Most of what I see here seems like WP:ILIKEIT, or perhaps a sort of twin to WP:Just not notable which we could call "Clearly notable." Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As always, hose who think it should be improved are welcome to improve it. As always, the cure for low quality articles is not deletion. As always, "failure to improve" is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Reynolds[edit]

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

Delete. - non-notable extremely minor fictional character who appeared in a handful of TV episodes a decade and a half ago. The character is mentioned in passing in a number of sources mostly because she was played by Hilary Swank but the notability of the person who played the character doesn't make the character notable. Lafe Smith (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that it occurred "a decade and a half ago" is meaningless. Just because Kurt from Glee is on TV now doesn't confer notability on him due to recency. But if Emily Valentine doesn't have her own article, there's no reason this shouldn't be redirected to Characters_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210#Other_characters.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unable to WP:verify notability. No sources out there. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia as a sock puppet. Is this nomination still valid? OCNative (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources to presume that the character Carly Reynolds meets the general notability guideline. Since it appears to have been a minor character, I don't think that a merge or redirect are needed. Jfgslo (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Engelage[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. The editor who removed the prod noted that this goalie set the OHL single-season record for wins with 46, however junior league records are not covered in NHOCKEY so I am bring this to AfD for the community to decide. Onthegogo (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the record falling under the "preeminent honours" section, it's the equivalent to a major award as it is a significant record and happens much less frequently.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Junior records most definitely are mentioned in WP:NHOCKEY in point #4. It specifically mentions the Canadian Hockey League. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Falls under point four. Patken4 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the season wins record for a league with the history of the OHL is a "preeminent honour".Canada Hky (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banja Luka Region[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is already deleted, but next few articles on non-existent regions are even more senseless without this. Republika Srpska is not divided in regions, see previous discusion. This untrue fact has spread all across Wikipedia.

Articles that should be deleted are:

Banja Luka Region
Trebinje Region
Bijeljina Region
Doboj Region
Foča Region
Vlasenica Region
Sarajevo-Romanija Region

Templates (and their corresponding categories) that should be deleted (and replaced are)

Template:BanjaLukaRegion-geo-stub
Template:TrebinjeRegion-geo-stub
Template:BijeljinaRegion-geo-stub
Template:DobojRegion-geo-stub
Template:FočaRegion-geo-stub
Template:VlasenicaRegion-geo-stub
Template:SarajevoRomanijaRegion-geo-stub

-- Bojan Talk 06:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles, they are clearly WP:OR. We had noticed this a long time ago, but it fell through the cracks, maybe it should even be speedy deleted... But, fact remains that stub sorting is useful, so these stub categories and templates should be renamed into just "BanjaLuka-geo-stub" etc, avoiding the idea that each of them is a Region(TM) and making it clear it's simply a geographical distinction. Perhaps some of them could be renamed further, e.g. if the geographical region of RS near Trebinje is best described as "East Herzegovina", then use that, or similar. Either way, WP:AFD is not WP:SFD. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the AFD process isn't complete, you still need to place AFD tags on Foča Region and Sarajevo-Romanija Region... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the administrative divisions of Republika Srpska btw? I can´t find it by now... FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 9 March 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, T. Canens (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This AfD was malformed and has been fixed. The seven-day clock should start to run at the time of the relisting. T. Canens (talk) 07:44, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the arguments made at the "previous discusion" link — these articles have virtually nothing other than nonexistent political geography, so keeping them to permit reworking wouldn't help at all. About the stubs: the whole reason that we have SFD is to simplify discussions that would otherwise require both a CFD and a TFD. In the spirit of simplifying discussions, I'd suggest that this discussion be used for deciding to delete or not to delete the stub templates (they're quite obviously dependent on the articles), and that we then transclude this discussion at SFD to ensure that its regulars don't miss out on this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta Racket Club[edit]

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

This article has stood unsourced since 2006 (last 5 years) so it does not conform with WP:V, hence making it difficult to ascertain whether the subject is notable. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like it could be notable, as it claims to be one of the oldest rackets clubs in the world, but I was unable to find anything approaching a reliable source for this. Jujutacular ^talk 14:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - can be worked on. might take a while though. 162.83.194.253 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book reviewed here has coverage of the club, and further confirmation of the foundation date can be seen here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 12 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage merely confirms it hosts events rather than coverage about the entity itself. fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, references of use and age exist. No reason to doubt its notability claim; lack of citations is a poor reason to delete. (as per 162. above) –SJ + 19:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable and lot of references and coverage available.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve with the references Shyamsunder and Phil Bridger speak of; it is clearly notable, if the claim of age can be verified, for that age alone; its current importance may be less so. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- found numerous sites containing good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbcaffiliate (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HP iPAQ rx1950[edit]

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

Delete - I don't see how the rx1950 stands out from other iPAQs. Additionally, this model is mentioned on the main iPAQ page. Whatever content that has gone into the article has been sourced from the latter. If there's additional information to be added, it should be added to the iPAQ page. Paul 1953 (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to warrant a separate page. It is listed elsewhere as part of the iPAQ family.Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. The fact that the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet has been taken into consideration. No prejudice against speedy renomination by another user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Sherman (Southland)[edit]

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

Delete. Fictional character that lacks real-world reliably sourced information. Does not meet general notability guidelines or specific fiction guidelines. Lafe Smith (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is quite obviously a personal attack, considering that the user "Lafe Smith" and I have been engaged in a miniature edit war over the John Cooper references for the past day. I expanded this page yesterday and while it may not fully adhere to the guidelines of a fictional character, it can certainly be improved by other users, one of whom could be user "Lafe Smith". Here's a thought: why not follow your own advice and concentrate on fixing things, instead of insisting they be deleted. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles require independent reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject. TNT, the network that broadcasts Southland, is not an independent source. As noted, there do not appear to be such sources for this character. It's not a question of "fully adhering" to guidelines; it's about not adhering to them at all. I am sorry that you choose to interpret this as a personal attack. I simply don't care enough about you to attack you. Lafe Smith (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of other sources; you just have to look for them: [79] [80] Nominating for deletion on the basis of a complaint about TNT being the only source is not the answer. Placing the tags ((primary sources)) and ((refimprove)) would be the appropriate response. See Jack McCoy, Alan Shore, Natalie Teeger, Fin Tutuola, or Sam Winchester, for example. OCNative (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the character is going to be mentioned in sources that are about the series. Passing mentions of the character in sources that aren't significantly about the character don't meet sourcing guidelines, otherwise every character who's mentioned in "What's on TV tonight" listings would qualify for an article. Neither does pointing out other unsourced or poorly sourced articles about other fictional characters. See WP:WAX. I did not nominate the article based on its current sourcing to TNT. I nominated it on the basis of the non-existence of independent reliable sources that are significantly about the character, which your Google search does not address. See WP:GHITS. The "appropriate response" would be not to write articles about fictional characters (or other subjects) until such time as there are reliable third-party sources about them. Lafe Smith (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've misunderstood my comment: Ben Sherman and the five examples I cited are all fictional characters who do have significant coverage from independent reliable sources, but whose Wikipedia articles fail to utilize the independent reliable sources, which is why the five examples are tagged ((primary sources)) and ((refimprove)) and why Ben Sherman should get those tags rather than be deleted. I will note significant coverage of Ben Sherman from the Wall Street Journal in the United States and The Telegraph in the United Kingdom, just to mention a couple of myriad sources with significant coverage of the character. You state that notability requires "...independent reliable sources that are significantly about the character," but I will note that Wikipedia's standard for significant coverage actually says: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source..." (emphasis mine). OCNative (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sentences in a multi-paragraph article doesn't constitute significant coverage of the character. "So-and-so plays such-and-such, a yadda yadda yadda on TV Series." isn't significant coverage. Lafe Smith (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The examples cited are longer than "a couple of sentences" and are more significant than "So-and-so plays such-and-such, a yadda yadda yadda on TV Series." as they go on to discuss the character. OCNative (talk) 15:07, 19 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete accusations of bad faith aside... there are good faith reasons for deleting this article. There are no reliable independent sources to WP:verify notability. Lots of google hits but not with the quality of source or depth of coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator Lafe Smith has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia as a sock puppet. Is this nomination still valid? OCNative (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is basically a plot-only description of a fictional work with no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to verify notability. Sources found with a search engine test, are from unreliable sources or plot description of the series, but none cover the character in detail or with critical commentary about the character. So, the article is an unneeded content fork of the article Southland (TV series) and, since the character Ben Sherman is not significantly covered in reliable sources, there is no presumption that the character meets the general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Ultraman Mebius monsters#Roberger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberuga[edit]

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

Most of the article is directly copied from [godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Roberger]. Also the character itself is not notable enough to merit an article. Suggest merge into article of series, or simply delete. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I kind-of enjoy Ultraman, or at least did one series of it, but I can't see secondary sources that provide sufficient notability, and the article would need a rewrite if any turned up. Redirect to List of Ultraman Mebius monsters#Roberger, which already has the bulk of the content. - Bilby (talk) 11:58, 12 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the list of monsters. No sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Squeaks by just barely on the basis of the slightly more than trivial coverage in the sources provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Lighthill House[edit]

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

Another article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry Mtking (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is insufficient third-party coverage of this building to create notability.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no prejudice to redirect) A dorm with no external notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone finds some evidence of notability for this specific building, redirect to University College London#Student housing. It's not an unreasonable search term, and redirects are cheap. LadyofShalott 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University_College_London#Student_housing as there doesn't seem to be any demonstration or indication of notability. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability shown. Bazonka (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It's non-notable, and has little to no third party coverage. Sellyme^Talk 08:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — there is historical information online and associations with Sir Michael James Lighthill, FRS, a significant applied mathematician. I have added historical information and updated the references. There is a lack of evidence that WP:BEFORE, especially points 4 & 6, was followed before proposing this article for deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, beyond it being named after him, what's the connection?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Johnathan Bowen. -- Lear's Fool 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following my vote above I have discovered the following sources which in my view demonstrate notability for the subject of this article: [81], [82], [83].Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should just add as a correction that the last of the three links in my previous post is to the same source that Jpbowen already added to the article, the first two are new however.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm somewhat confused by the assertions of historical value. From what I can tell, the only info on the actual history of the building is that it is on the site of a depot. The information on the building's namesake, while relevant, absolutely does not give the building notability, and I find it somewhat misleading to assert it is so, considering that there doesn't seem to be a major connection between him and the building besides his name. Notability is not inherited, and being named after someone famous does not make something notable; if somewhat said "keep, this is named after Albert Einstein, a famous scientist" their argument would be completely discounted. Of course, if I'm missing some stronger connection please tell me, but otherwise I find it absurd that people would vote keep based on this weak connection. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect you have failed to engage with the sources at all, and have completely ignored the two new ones which I have linked to above. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did read them, and I don't consider reports on the construction of new dorms from sites on building construction to mean a building is notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Why are construction magazines any different from any other third party coverage? I am aware of no Wikipedia policy which says this.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no reason it isn't an acceptable source for info. That being said, it seems that they cover most building projects throughout the area; coverage that says more than "this is being built, here are its amenities" is kinda needed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these publications have at least a UK national and in large part an international scope. They certainly do not give coverage to every new building project in the UK or even in London. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've created Halls of residence at the University College London. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article and those found by Rangoon11 has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG. Onthegogo (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by Rangoon11 do seem to make it notable. Dream Focus 04:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short mentions in only three sources, doesn't pass WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews. one source merely confirms number of rooms, another merely confirms they are self catered. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Google News - which is in any event of questionable relevance to a building such as this - then you are incorrect, because the two articles that I have linked to above are both available through the Google News archive.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Squeaks by on reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be enough third party significant coverage now. --Oakshade (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge Buildings are always named for someone, but that does not make them notable, and information to the effect is not encyclopedic, The only possibility here is the architecture, and I cannot tell whether this is just a routine listing or one showing particular significance. There's no reason to lose the information entirely, but no need for ti to be a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]