< 7 May	9 May >

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 keep. Though I'm going to AFG on the nomination. The oldafd tag from the previous AFD wasn't on the article's talk page (but the first AFD was in the article's recent history). Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania (album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER. It can be recreated when there's material. In the meantime, even a redirect doesn't really work because no one is going to search Wikipedia for "Oceania (album)". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note – an AFD for this album was just closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) with a result of keep. The title of the article was moved after the discussion was opened. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Fezmar just said, this was just discussed, and it was decided to be kept. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For reasons noted above. It's a waste of wikimembers time and an insult to our collective intelligence to have the same issue brought up again after it had clearly been resolved. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the previous discussion was created under a different name for the article, it likely wasn't clear that it had been resolved already. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A note of that change was included in the previous discussion. In fact, it looks like you were the one who included the note. It was clear then, so I don't see what the problem is. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But how would the nominator have been aware of the previous discussion? Usually there's either a template placed on the talk page of the nominated article notifying editors of previous discussions, or when trying to open a new AFD, you're just linked to original discussion forcing you to rename it as the second nomination. Neither of those are applicable to this situation since Oceania (album) was never nominated for deletion, Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) was. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Assuming good faith that the nominator here didn't know that the possible deletion of this article was already discussed, the fact that there exists a page on record to show that this discussion has taken place and been resolved should merit the closure of this deletion nomination immediately. The fact that we're going on and on about it here is only proving my point that this is a waste of time, and I am finished discussing this with you as I consider the matter to be rather moot. If you wish to discuss further then message me on my talk page as I will no longer continue this conversation here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. While I can understand how someone could nominate it because no note was put on the discussion page, I can't understand why this hasn't been closed yet now that this all has been brought to light. (Unless it's just a matter of time.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Speedy Close - assuming good faith for everyone involved so far, but this AfD is completely frivolous in light of the previous one. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:42, 10 May 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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony DeFalco[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements for either indoor football players or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article stands, it appears the subject has not achieved notability standards for Wikipedia (WP:GNG, etc.) I would change my position if more noteworthy information surfaces or a good amount of reliable, independent sources were to surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing that shows this person is notable. The article fails to show he meets any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul MCDonald. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Maule[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this person, whilst perhaps being an excellent photographer, passes the requirements laid out at WP:BIO and specifically at WP:CREATIVE. The article has been in existence for over 2 years and thus the primary author, who also seems to be the subject of the article, should have become familiar with syntax, etc. (see last edit summary). As the primary author contested the prod, which is his right, I would like the larger wikipedia community to weigh in on this article and decide whether the subject has sufficient notability as pertains to Wikipedia biographical articles. Thank you. Avi (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As-is, it fails WP:CREATIVE. Insufficient sources to assert notability. Being a fashion photographer, with no major awards, is to me no different than any other professional earning a living at their job, no matter how good they are at it. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep; inherently notable as a degree granting institution. I've moved it to Independent College Dublin as that seems to be what it is branded as. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Colleges[edit]

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

Unremarkable small independent college. Article is written like and advert and unreferenced. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Can't find anything about it from WP:RS online. Mr. Credible (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Independent News & Media if you can't find sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Irish Independent described the new college on January 7, 2008. Add "Dublin" to the Google search terms. There is a very strong presumption that a degree-awarding institution of higher learning is notable, even if relatively new and small, and with a name that is not very distinctive in Google searches. Cullen328 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Independent owns the college, so it's no surprise that it would feature in an article in the paper. Although the paper itself is notable enough, that doesn't automatically to extend to everything associated with it. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although that is true, I still believe that pretty much all legitimate institutions of higher learning are presumed to be notable. I also think that there is sufficient differentiation between a newspaper and a college both owned by a media company that a neutral article written by that paper's news staff can be used to establish notability. If the article is blatantly promotional and differs from the paper's coverage of other similar colleges, then I would ignore the coverage. In this case, it resembles their coverage of other small Dublin colleges. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All accredited institutions are, but not unaccredited. (You can open up a clown college in your basement, that doesn't make it notable). In this instance, the citation from the Irish Independent would fail WP:V as they are not independent of the subject matter. Would be fine to use as refs as much as you would any primary source, but not to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I disagree, as the Irish Independent has Editorial independence from the media company that owns it. That newspaper is not a house organ for this college. Small and new as this educational institution is, I do not believe it helpful to compare it to a clown college. It offers graduate and postgraduate degrees in law and accounting, for example. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to compare it to a clown college, simply meant to say that anyone can call any venture a "college" legally. That was just the smallest venture that entered my mind. Had I thought that, I wouldn't have !voted to merge above. The issue is finding independent sources, which I have attempted, and concluded that the institution exists but may yet be short of the criteria for inclusion as a separate article here. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have long accepted first degree-awarding institutions as notable and this one also awards post-graduate degrees and has a Law Faculty which are normally notable in their own right. I would add that we don't delete likely notable subjects for the lack of sources; we clean then up and tag for improvement. TerriersFan (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 22:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the policy is to treat all high schools/secondary schools and above as notable, I don't think it is reasonable not to accept the Independent Colleges. The paucity of reliable sources is surely then relevant to the deletion discussion only if there is serious doubt that these colleges are what they claim to be, and they are adequate for that. Qualifax, for example, cited as a source, is part of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland and lists courses there. The fact that the colleges are not actually awarding the qualifications works in their favour. Schools, for example, enter candidates for external examination, as do many colleges, whilst the ones to look out for are the institutions claiming to offer their own qualifications without any indepndent scrutiny. --AJHingston (talk) 00:30, 2 May 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. On the side of deletion, it is fairly clear that Abraham himself does not pass any inclusion guidelines, as admitted by most of the commenters below. However, Dweller's point that Abraham's story might be notable is good, valid, and those favoring deletion come nowhere near refuting it. However, there is no discussion about whether the story is itself actually widely known or reported, so I am not willing to close as keep. Relisting is unlikely to change this result to delete, so a further week seems pointless. lifebaka++ 10:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Reuel[edit]

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

It's a lovely story, but because it only appears in one reliable source, "A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes," it quite badly fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, I'm afraid. (Note that the article has five references: two are to the same book, two aren't about Abraham and are only cited for the effects of the Holocaust, and one is a non-RS website promoting conversion to Judaism.) Nor does searching bring up anything else.

update: Qrsdogg has one more. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if the article is kept, it should be moved to Reuel Abraham as the last and first name are currently in the wrong order. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Searching on his pre-conversion name gets a lot of hits for a completely different person, a Stasi spy. ~~I'm starting to doubt that this guy exists.~~ Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing remarkable about this. This is a very common name. There is a journalist of that name (polluting searches a lot), a politician, and there are four people of that name in the Berlin telephone directory. Hans Adler 22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm trying to forestall "look how many hits his name gets in Google!" arguments (with the finding of the Miami article, you'll note that I struck through my suspicion of a hoax). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing isn't great, but between this newspaper article and this book source I think WP:BASIC is reached, albeit not by much. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two stories doesn't really cut it, in my opinion. It's technically "multiple," but I don't think that's really in the spirit of the notability guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep After Qrsdogg (thank you,Qrsdogg), found another RS, and I also found one more source (I honestly do not know, if it is RS, but the author, Marnie Winston-Macauley seems to be notable enough to have an article about her on Wikipedia), I believe this article should be speedy kept. I just added one more RS from San Francisco Chronicle --Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SF Chronicle is not significant coverage and thus does not attest notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant to observe that Mbz1 created this article, I believe. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A) I found that in my initial search, but it's probably not a reliable source and isn't significant coverage in any case, B) thanks for calling my attention to the Macaulay article, she seems utterly non-notable, C) no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is so adorable. There is really only one source for this story: Rabbi Reuben Kahane, an apparently ultra-orthodox rabbi and member of the Supreme Religious Council of Israel in the 1960s. This chestnut of his, which would certainly make fine fodder for a homily ("If an ex nazi can keep all 363 precepts of Jewish law then so can you!") makes its way into the Jewish anecdotes book (whose title alone should disqualify it from being used ever as a source for facts, or as wikipedia has it "factiness") and one or two other places, all via the wire service article from the 1960s (by a defunct wire that was believed by some to be a front for the CIA in the '50s and '60s... but i digress). Has anyone ever interviewed this man? Are there historical records/the work of actual historians to back any of this up? Any evidence than anyone serious -- anywhere -- has done a proper fact check here? No. None whatsoever. Which is stunning given the material. You'd think someone would have made a biopic by now! In fact, it's such a "neat" story of villainy, toil, and redemption (all three acts -- don't even need a Hollywood script-doctor to tailor the real history) that it's likelier that it was just a part of the Rabbi's patter. What to be done? There are thousands of articles like this on Wikipedia, written by people ignorant of what the work of history requires, and reviewed by the incompetent and lazy (this one of course was on the main page as a "DYK"). Deleting it is the right thing to do, but won't address the real problem.99.120.1.227 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was rather skeptical of the story, especially after reading the nomination, but The Miami News article rather convinces me that this is legit and notable. The other refs probably aren't enough on thier own, but with the credibility of one good RS, they establish the bio as worthy of the GNG. It's thin, but good enough, I think. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certain that no such person ever existed, what the North American Newspaper Alliance "reported" decades ago notwithstanding. This migh be helpful: Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources).99.120.1.227 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he exists or not is mostly irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. See WP:V.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether he exists or not is mostly irrelevant." Wow. Just wow. Are you parodying the stereotype of the typical wikipedia editor deliberately? That a poorly sourced wire service article from decades ago exists doesn't "verify" anything. The absence of any follow up -- anywhere -- tells us something. No obituary, no interview (ever, anywhere, in any language) no death notice, no evidence that the wife was ever procured for him, etc... What it tells us (or at least people who know how to think) is that it's highly unlikely this person ever existed and, on balance, this article serves to spread misinformation, or, if you prefer, unknowledge. It is one of literally thousands of such bits of misinformation that exist on wikipedia, apparently because its editors are incapable of critical thought and don't understand the actual meaning of words like "reliable" and "verification."99.120.1.227 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it was probably poorly worded, the point about verifibility is there, in that what is estblished in the sources overrides any individual editor's opinion on truth. There is no real reason to assume that the wire service article is faulty except for your insistance that it is not. The lack of further evidence is not evidence of anything in and of itself in this case (i.e. a logical fallacy in confusing the absence of evidence with evidence of absence). The Miami News is reliable enough to verify the claims in the article, and unless you can come up with something that suggests the cited news article is wrong, or to establish a reason why it would be suspicious no other records have been found (it's not uncommon at all for things like this to be hard to find, and something tells me that an exhaustive search hasn't been done with both governments in question), then you're just spouting hot air about our policies. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single wire service article from 40 years ago is the entire history of this story (then repeated in the anecdotes book). No other evidence that this man ever existed -- whose over-the-top hollywoodesque story was told by a single rabbi. And wikipedia morons consider it "verified." Proving without a shadow of a doubt this man never existed would require a flight to germany or israel and a few days of primary research (which -- oops! -- wikipedia doesn't allow, never mind the expense) but proving that he did exist simply requires a newspaper article from 40 years ago. Do you have any fucking idea how often newspapers are wrong, and how often sources fib to them? Did you read the article about the middleton's dog. It's... informative, but only for those with ears (and brains) to hear.99.120.1.227 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which rather proves my point: you have no way to prove that the source is wrong, and are not willing to take any further effort to establish "beyond a shadow of doubt" that the lack of online sources means anything. You have no idea if there is any further evidence this man existed or not unless you do the research, and claiming that newspaper are sometimes wrong doesn't mean that this one was with this story. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Story is notable. Whether it is true or not is an irrelevance for deletion procedures - it's relevant for editing. We have many articles about things that are not true: Humpty Dumpty and Piltdown Man come to mind. We have articles about them not because they're true, but because they're notable. We also have many articles about things that may or may not be true, such as Robin Hood, Creationism and Roswell UFO incident. Disregard your skepticism about the nature of the story and look at how it stacks against WP:V: it's a keeper. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one says the Miami News article isn't verifiable, only that the story fails WP:BIO among other criteria. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E. If this person ever existed, he's known only for his conversion to Judaism, and that only in a single newspaper article. This policy reads, in part:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view... The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

The Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes doesn't pass the giggle test as a reliable source; it's a charming, cute book, but it contains ... well, anecdotes, not history or biography. ( Look at some of the other myth/legends/anecdotes it includes. Many are clearly apocryphal, the kind of things some parents read to kids around the fireplace before their bedtime. ) So do we have "persistent coverage in reliable sources"? Nope. We have a single newspaper story, which we have considerable reason to doubt.

No reporter has ever met the man. If he really existed he'd be an international celebrity. There'd be photos of him, television interviews, talk show appearances; The History Channel would have done a piece about him, there'd probably be a movie or two, multiple biographies, an autobiography, dozens of RS stories would have been done, and he would have been asked to speak at every large Holocaust Memorial event and large Jewish group event that wanted to attract attention. So maybe we need a policy for "Biographies of imaginary people who are known only for one event." We really do our readers a disservice to present this as a factual occurrence based on such thin and implausible evidence. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my comment above. The truth of the story is irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read your comment. If you want the letter of the law, my objection was based on BLP1E. But since I doubt that this person ever existed, it seemed pretty absurd to invoke a policy about biographies of living persons. So I invoked a policy about biographies of imaginary persons. Re your "truth is irrelevant" contention, you've a right to make the statement, and I understand your basis for doing so. I just prefer that we not fib to our readers. If you feel a need to have a policy basis for that notion, that we shouldn't fib, go with IAR. ;-) Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:BIO. This putative person has not "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and intellectually independent of each other". We have one newspaper article, documenting a claimed religious conversion. This is not enough to establish notability. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have two RS - a book and a newspaper. Our usual bar is two substantial mentions in RS. We have two substantial mentions in RS. As far as preferring not to "fib" to our readers - that's not a reason for deletion. Present RS that deny the truth of the story. Truth or otherwise is irrelevant - the article passes WP:V. --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we have two RS. The book is a collection of anecdotes. No references, no discernable scholarship, a lot of folksy tales about Jewish matters from as long ago as 1900 BCE. Anecdotes: not history, not biography, anecdotes. Oh, and did I mention that the book is a collection of anecdotes? – OhioStandard (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of Jewish Anecdotes does have a citation for the story, which appears on page 255. Specifically, the citation is to the February 1970 issue of "Jewish Digest", pages 47-48. Yes it is a book of folksy anecdotes, but the book does indicate that it got the story from a legitimate publication. GabrielF (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by "a legitimate publication" you mean "a reliable source for this purpose", I would have to take exception. It's difficult to judge since none of has seen the issue, but it's my understanding that the publication you name couldn't have been any more ~~unquestionably~~ unquestioningly supportive of all things Israel while it was still being published. It's not the "supportive" I object to, please note, but the ~~"unquestionably"~~ "unquestioningly"; it was without a doubt a very ardent POV/advocacy publication. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me understand why this publication's editorial positions would be relevant to this case? GabrielF (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's rather moot since we don't have the publication itself, but I dont' mind answering anyway: I was imprecise with my description, and have modified my previous to more accurately reflect my intention. Take a look at a page from what calls itself the "successor publication" to Jewish Digest. It reports as fact that "Science Confirms What Rabbis Understood: Jewish Practice Makes You Happier and More Fulfilled". Read that article; no scientist is cited who has said any such thing. If the "predecessor publication" takes the same liberties with the facts that its claimed successor does ... well, advocacy publications can be reliable sources, but not if they extend their advocacy beyond editorial pages and let it overwhelm their factual reporting like that. Reliable sources don't operate that way. – OhioStandard (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1680&bih=888&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws "A treasury of Jewish anecdotes" is listed under Scholar . Of course it is a reliable source.--Broccolo (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, very scholarly. Of the seven times GS lists the book as having been referenced by others, two are the author of Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes citing himself, three are from some guy who self-publishes on lulu.com, one more is by a different guy who self-publishes on lulu.com, and the last one is to a legit journal alright, but it's an article about the value of using metaphor and narrative in psychological therapy. Of course it's not a reliable source. It's a book of anecdotes. Not history, not biography: Anecdotes. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Beautiful story. Definitely not BLP1E. According to the newspaper article from 1966, he spent 20 years working in coal mines and donating 2/3 of his income anonymously. Then he became an orthodox Jew, changed his name and moved from Germany to Israel. That's not "one event", that's a life story. This life story seems to have been all over the American press in 1966, presumably it was also a big thing in Germany and in Israel at the time (although we don't have any German or Israeli sources at the moment), and it was taken up by a book. In my opinion notability is established just so, and given the fact that there is actually an article to write about a significant part of his life there seems to be no reason no to have this article. (Shameless promotion of one of my articles: If you liked this story, you may be interested in the somewhat more disturbing story of Hans Ernst Schneider.) Hans Adler 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hans. I agree it's a great story, but why do you say this "seems to have been all over the American press in 1966" when we've all been able to find just the one article?

I've searched multiple proprietary newspaper databases encompassing many millions of articles, and found nothing more, either. Nothing in ProQuest, GeneralOneFile, Gale, etc. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1966 was a long time ago, and only a few things from that era are digitised. This was a North American Newspaper Alliance story. Note that this was reported in the Miami News, with no apparent geographic or other relation to the events themselves. When I get home I will see if I find something in German newspaper archives, but digitisation in Germany is far behind. Hans Adler 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'd be great if you'd check German language sources; thanks. The proprietary databases I mentioned go back as far as 1900, though. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back as far as 1900 is not the problem. The question is, do they go forward as far as 1966? For the US, everything after 1923 is a problem because they would have to own or acquire the rights somehow. Unfortunately the German databases are even worse than I remembered them. Completely useless for everything that happened in the 20th century, except a few things before 1945. For me the big question is whether the story is (approximately) true or not. If it is true I have no doubt that it has been reported in various places and that he is actually notable. I will ask a friend who I hope has contact to the Frankfurt synagogue. As the story seems to be relatively well known, they might be aware of it, in which case they probably have an opinion about its veracity. Hans Adler 22:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk volunteers couldn't find anything in German or Hebrew about this story. Re your comment about databases and 1966 coverage, about half of the newspapers included in the databases I named have continuous coverage from very early days to the present day, or close to the present day, anyway. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no mention of this story on any database that does not originate with the wire service article, which itself only quotes one person for this extraordinary story. I'm sure that article was picked up by more than the Miami News (entirely unsurprising they would have though there readers interested i this tale, by the way) the day it moved. Since that single story? No one, ever, reported a lick on it. No follow up, no obituary, no fleshing out of the story. The few low quality sources that repeat it like the jewish anecdotes book are entirely reliant on the original telling of the tale.99.120.1.227 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for the Jewish Digest article which is the cited source for the Anecdotes book and also for a search of Hebrew-language publications from that era. I agree that English-language sources are very sparse but I don't necessarily think that means this is a hoax. Many people have WW2 stories that haven't been told, and the Nazi era was not as widely discussed in the '60s as it is today. Having said that, two sources is a very small basis for writing an article. GabrielF (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my argument at this point. I originally nominated it for lack of notability, had a few minutes where I thought the story might be a hoax because it's a suspiciously common name and I hadn't found other sources, was cured of this misapprehension, but still think it's not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked for help searching in German and Hebrew, at the reference desk. No hits found in German or Hebrew; two volunteers have so far found nothing in either language, although one commented that it was unlikely a boy would have "organized Hitler youth battalions" as A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes claims. The one reliable source report we have does not convince me of the notability of any such person, or even that he ever existed. Based on the dearth of evidence for what would have been a world-famous story if it were true, it looks very much to me like we have another WP:OTTO on our hands, here. – OhioStandard (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another source This sociologist quotes the story directly from the book, "Conversion to Judaism: A Guidebook". --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sociologist were writing about the story directly, that would be one thing, but s/he's just quoting from a book by the same author as the Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes, the source isn't independent. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This fascinating article states that Nazi converts to Judaism are notorious for trying to avoid publicity. Perhaps that's why it's so tough to find articles on him. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, fascinating article, thanks for posting it. Other editors have suggested that should Reuel Abraham have existed he would have certainly been used as a propaganda tool. The Guardian article does an excellent job of demonstrating how silly this reasoning is. The kind of person who makes such a major life change as converting to a religion and moving to a new country, leaving his family behind, is likely too intellectually independent to become anyone's "poster boy" and the Israeli attitude towards these converts is clearly complex and multifaceted. GabrielF (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. There have been some last-minute changes to the article, starting with a string of three IP edits beginning at 15:01, 14 May 2011 UTC that resulted in his preferred version here. The article's creator, Mbz1 immediately reverted that, and after some back-and-forth she presented this version that included a ref to a Chronicle article that mentions the story in a single sentence. I objected to that, and presented this version, which is current as I write this. I'd also request that the closing admin please examine the policy basis for the !votes expressed here rather than just comparing relative counts of "keeps" versus "deletes". – OhioStandard (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ( Last sentence added at 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

Yes, that's right may I please ask a closing administrator to take a look at the language User:Ohiostandard used to justify its removing of the sourced information from the article: "I find I can't allow". Is this the way to discuss the article's content?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I originally wrote "I find I can't in good conscience allow..." but I expected that you'd ridicule that, too, given that you've repeatedly told me, as well as others who oppose your wishes, that we don't have any dignity. It really is pretty unseemly, in my opinion, for one of the most aggressively derisive editors many of us have come across to pick at others' language so.

If it makes you feel better, though, I don't mind restating: "I find I can't in good conscience allow the single-sentence mention from the Chronicle to stand. It adds nothing that isn't already present in the article from other sources, and its presence appears to be a kind of Hail Mary pass to shore up a claim to notability. A single-sentence mention does nothing to establish notability, however; its presence give a false appearance that there are three reliable sources for this story, when there's really just the one, the Miami News article." – OhioStandard (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've made clear my opinion that A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes isn't a reliable source for our purpose here: I concur with the IP above who observed that there's really only one source for this story, Rabbi Reuben Kahane, the ultra-orthodox rabbi who was a member of the Supreme Religious Council of Israel in the 1960s. I'll just observe here that I've expanded on this at article talk, and note that the a blurb for the second such book by the author of the Anecdotes book, a similarly "inspirational" book for Jewish readers, says of the stories that book includes, "Nor are they always verifiable. Some of the stories are folktales, others are exaggerations". Please see "A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes" section on article talk for details. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This particular story is quite verifiable by two reliable sources with the latest being removed from the article by User:Ohiostandard--Mbz1 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one: the Miami News article is the one source that works; no one objects to that, as you know. Re your apparent claim that the second one, the single-sentence mention of the story in the Chronicle shores up any claim to notability, well, we've all of us here discussed that at some length. My own most recent comments about that single-sentence mention occur above, where I refer to a "Hail Mary pass". I'd use a corresponding Jewish metaphor if I knew of one, btw, but I don't. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin. Please note a delete vote by a proxy IP. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some evidence that the IP is editing via a proxy server? – OhioStandard (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting subject that seems to be sufficiently supported by references, including those that are currently removed. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that."

But to respond to the comment re the removal of the Chronicle's single-sentence mention of this story, I'll quote another user, from above, about that: "The SF Chronicle is not significant coverage and thus does not attest notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG."

Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously, Mbz1 is the creator of this article. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The Princess Bride. There's no consensus to delete this article but the minority suggestion to redirect makes a lot of sense at this time so I'm going to do this as a personal editorial decision. Creating a character list also sounds like a good idea. Consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Pirate Roberts[edit]

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

No assertion of evidence of WP:GNG. Long flagged, with no improvement, for expansion of sources and real-world treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick look at books.google.com lists tons of mentioned of the Dread Pirate in literature, being quoted in books on other subjects. This proves he's notable. Yes, this article needs more sources, but deletion is NOT the answer to an article needing sources. Mathewignash (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known fictional character, if discussed by reliable sources an article should be fine. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think that sources could very well exist, and the character is notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and others into a List of Princess Bride characters, per our typical standard outcomes for major characters appearing in but one fictional work. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either Redirect to The Princess Bride or Merge into a List of The Princess Bride characters. Does not appear to be independently notable of The Princess Bridge but I could reasonably see someone looking this up. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Article does 'not' qualify for speedy deletion. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swampy Zombie Fever[edit]

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

Band signed to a minor label. Two singles look like they have been produced independently, and an album that is not yet out. No independent reliable sources giving significant coverage Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I already deleted the myspace and facebook links. This would be covered under WP:TOOSOON to be notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as I originally tagged it. Not even close to being notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I love the name, I can't find anything that meets Wikipedia notability standards. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert M. Samuelson[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. The article says he is a professor and author. It then tells where he works and lists some of the books he has written. I checked him out on Google and this seems to be true, or actually is certainly true. However I could not find any source that tells much more about him than that. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. BelloWello (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep explicitly meets WP:PROF criterion 5. "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." According to the article "He holds the Grossman Chair of Jewish Studies at Arizona State University," a leading US research university. Furthermore, notable as author. I added the rest of his major books, 2 were published by Cambridge University Press, a leading academic publisher,. His books have multiple reviews--as is invariably the case for books from such publishers. I added a few of them. Several dozen articles--I added some, but have not yet added the rest, nor the conference procedings he edited. I enquire of the nominator whether he is aware of WP:PROF? I inquire it also of the person who made the delete comment above. The necessary material to meet it was in the article at the time it was submitted, --at which point, it was actually nominated for A7 speedy! DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was canvassed to come participate here by the nominator. After thinking that I should probably close this AFD as Snow Keep, I decided to look at why I was actually informed of this AFD in the first place. It seems that I was the one who originally nominated this page for speedy deletion in August 2008. Irony <3 NW (Talk) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the advice on WP:AfD in the section "Notifying interested people." I wrote to 3 of the 4 people who had made more than one edit to the article at that time (the fourth was a banned user), and also posted a note on the Biography Project talk page since that was the only project listed for the article. I hope that is not against the no canvassing policy.Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, limit that only to people who have made very significant contributions to the article please.

Snow Keep - DGG beat me to the punch, and says it better, so I will just say "per DGG", under a named chair. And notability IS asserted, by virtue of the named chair. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be nice if the article said something about him that tells us why we should care. Jaque Hammer (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around a lot, I found his curriculum vitae (22 pages long!) and added some of the cogent details to the article. I think that's the real purpose of these AFDs–to spur editors to improve articles rather than trash them. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep This article about an obviously notable professor needs improvement, not an AFD.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and improve it. It's been around since 2008 and nobody seems to have cared. BigJim707 (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed, but I think I did improve it: I added the other books and some of the reviews. Other people have worked with it previously, but they seem to have mainly made technical corrections, which are also important. I'd suggest further improvements weeded are getting the basic bio of his education and appointments, adding the title of his thesis and advisor, checking for notable students, getting the rest of the reviews while adding some of the comments found there, and adding the other 3/4 of his papers and checking for citations. Often sources give information about family and the like, but I think that's rarely important. And then perhaps some of his books should be given as references or general reading in appropriate articles, and his name added to the notable alumni lists for his UG and Graduate colleges (& his high school, also). There's a lot to do, yes, and of our 3 million articles, about half need this sort of basic improvement. Articles about people in fields with much wider groups of interested people here are among them. Shall we delete the half that we haven't yet gotten to, or shall we work on them? What people here seem to care mostly to do, is write about their hobbies, as if only that were important. If that were enough, Facebook would do fine; we wouldn't need Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP standards. No reason to single this article out for deletion.BigJim707 (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BigJim707. WP:ACADEMIC is probably wrong in this case—if the article cannot be expanded to more than a curriculum vitae, then we're doing something wrong. But that is a fault of the community guidelines at large, not this one particular article. NW (Talk) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People at the top of any profession are notable. If the GNG doesnt show it, it's the GNG that is irrelevant. (in this field, at least, we recognize it doesn't show it, and we did therefore replace it. ) DGG ( talk ) 14:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and think that it isn't a failure of the GNG at all—I believe that that if there is no third party coverage of an individual, then it doesn't matter if they are the Chair of the Mathematics Department at MIT or not. But I recognize that enough of the community disagrees with me on that one, and also that it is not a conversation for here. NW (Talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" and "sources" are related, but not the same. In this case, the subject is notable per se by the position he holds under WP:PROF #5. There's an official university web page that vouches this fact and that's sufficient. Other tests of notability, like under GNG, rely much more heavily on sources because the person isn't notable per se, but rather only judged to be so because there is sufficient supporting evidence furnished by the sources. Those cases are much more subjective. This one is not. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Actually WP:ACADEMIC explicitly allows for that situation: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." It's just that most commenters on AfDs tend to ignore that caveat. Luckily, this article appears to be (very belatedly) moving beyond the point that this caveat is at issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My feeling is that WP:ACADEMIC exists to patch over a dilemma that would otherwise occur in deletion discussions here: most academics, even the boring low-impact ones that we want to keep out, have a high number of low-quality sources about them (e.g. their profile on their employer's web sites, citations to their work in papers of other academics, brief biographies in talk announcements or at the ends of papers, etc) but in-depth biographies of academics are generally reserved for the dead ones so that even the stars of the academic world are difficult to find truly high-quality sources for. By following the guidelines of WP:ACADEMIC, we can forestall debate on whether the lower-quality sources should count, we can keep the non-notable academics out more easily, we can improve our coverage to include significant academics who are still alive, and we can prevent Wikipedia's BLP section from being completely dominated by B-list celebrities. It is very occasionally true an academic who otherwise would seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC has surprisingly little that can be sourced, and in cases like that I've sometimes !voted to delete. But Samuelson's case was never even close to being one of those cases (as the present improvements to the article attest) so I think bringing up this kind of argument is a strawman in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasise along with David E, that the special criterion is needed for exclusion as well as inclusion: for any academic whose work is cited, a careful examination of the citations would probably find in somewhere like 1/4 of the a substantial discussion of their work by a third party, the citing author. Therefore, on the average, all academic with more than 8 or so references to their work would meet the GNG and therefore would be considered notable. This is an extremely wide standard, that in science would include most of the assistant professors at any doctoral level university or research institute. I don't thing anyone here would really support this kind of inclusion--I know I would certainly not. It would be a farce--even more so than the excessively broad inclusion some of us see in some other fields. Notability is intrinsic to what a person has accomplished. We just need to verify it DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: another of the messes of User:Firefly322 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Myself and numerous other editors have attempted to clean up this mess (the phrase 'making a silk purse out of sow's ear' comes to mind), but it is still woefully sub-standard. However, the topic does appear to meet WP:PROF criteria #5, and there does seem to be third-party sourcing (reviews) potentially available (but not yet in the article). But either the article needs to be expanded to beyond a thumbnail-sketch-of-a-cv (with a publications-list 'tail wagging the dog'), or it needs to be merged to Arizona State University#Faculty. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:Prof #5. I have encountered many such articles about professors in my work for WP:URBLP and can say that this professor is a prolific and internationally-recognized religious scholar. I formatted all the books and added links. Yoninah (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this is embarrassing, does WP:before mean nothing to you? will you now afd every bio that you don't "like" the references? firefly cleanup my ass: no, this is not a failure of GNG, this is a failure of editors who put their own "seat of the pants" over policy, consensus, or reason. listen to DGG when he talks to you, or you might look like an idiot. Slowking4 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur Snow Keep. As a holder of a named professorship at a major academic institution, Samuelson is notable per se according to WP:PROF #5. Conclusive keep, but let's remember to maintain civility too please. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notability is asserted and supported appropriately. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others. How on Earth is he not WP:NOTABLE with so many WP:RS yet? IZAK (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Prof #5. --Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Gage[edit]

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

~~I've tried cleaning it up and finding sources, but only primary sources on article and no RS sources found. Not notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note I might also add that the original creator keeps linking the first mention of his name to his website. I've already reverted once, not going to get into an edit war on an article that is likely to be deleted anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Gage is a mystery writer. We are currently in the process of learning Wikipedia's policies and editing procedures. His books have been praised in the New York Times and other literary publications. Leighton is published by SoHo press in the U.S. and has Finish and Dutch translations, making him an internationally known author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratters77 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC) — Ratters77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Who is "we"? Dennis Brown (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His family. Please remove the deletion tag. I will work diligently over the next week to ensure there are proper references and citations. Thank You, Christien —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratters77 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply While being family doesn't disqualify you from writing an article on him, it is discouraged. Please read WP:COI. The tag has to stay for 1 week (sometimes longer) and others will review and insert their opinions on the article passing the criteria. It is a well thought out process and not an instant thing. For that matter, if you were able to "clean up" the article to the point that notability was obvious, I would request to withdraw the nomination. For the record, it is pretty tough to write an "acceptable" article on Wikipedia on your first attempt. There are a lot of guidelines, rules and what not. There really is a good reason for it. I will keep checking on it. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This author's works have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources. A Google News search turns up many reviews, some behind pay walls. These are a few of the ones available for view: NY Times Feb 2008, NY Times Dec 2010, Globe and Mail Feb 2010, Star-Tribune Feb 2011, Boston Globe Jan 2010. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've cleaned up the article to conform with the manual of style, added references, and removed some promotional language. As such I've cleared the clean up tags. If the those with a conflict of interest wish to edit the article, I'd be more than willing to assist them to ensure that the article continues to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn, requesting speedy close - Whpq found and inserted many good cites that I had not been able to find, and cleaned the article up to boot. At this time, it would appear obvious that the author is indeed notable. Good work. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per G6. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winklevoss twin (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambig page, see Winklevoss twins S_peakF_ree (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mostert[edit]

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

Non-notable church leader. Was leader of a mid-level organizational structure for a few years. Being President of a Union within the Adventist Church does not automatically confer notability, there is at least one for every country in the world and seven or more in the U.S. BelloWello (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced BLP, no indication that topic meets WP:BIO, only tangential third party coverage (related to Adventist Health, Ban on Women Clergy & the like). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found a news article about his retirement from Adventist Health, sort of like a gold watch, but nothing else. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Burton[edit]

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

Character in the soap opera Hollyoaks that would seem non-notable at best, but I can't find any sources (reliable or more fan-based) that indicates that the character exists, including searches using the actor asserted. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlikely to have any significance if she does exist, as there is so little coverage. --Anthem of joy (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noticed that the character article for the fictional mother asserted, Liz Burton, doesn't seem to have a mention off this character either. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources exist to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Smergut[edit]

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

Delete Fails to meet the notability requirements for tennis players. The article used as a reference (and copied verbatim) is a local paper human interest story and doesn't constitute in-depth coverage. I wish her all the best, but an article is not warranted at this time. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, does not meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG (only coverage is in a local newspaper). Jenks24 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 21:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma primary electoral system[edit]

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

Non-notable electoral system. The phrase "Oklahoma primary electoral system" returns precisely zero hits on Google Books, Google News or Google Scholar. The four hits on Google Web relate to this article. It seems that there is no evidence that this name has general acceptance as a recognised voting system. The Luce reference clearly describes this as one of several examples of the "Hare system", that is Single transferable vote with Hare quota. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep because the nominator really needs to explain what is wrong with the ten listed references, which include books, multiple academic journals, laws and court rulings, and range in date from 1925 to 2006. The subject of the article is analysed directly and in detail. I agree that the title of the article is not ideal, but despite my extensive researches, I have not managed to find a recognised name for the system. I sought advice and have followed it to the best of my ability. But the topic clearly meets the WP:GNG, not least since the ten listed references include one academic article solely about the subject, so I'm not clear quite what the problem is? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 18:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Notability is determined, as we know, by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The four mentions in American Political Science Review are just that, mentions -- oh, and three of the four are incorrectly cited, they cannot all be volume 20(2). The state constitution guide mentions the case Dove v Oglesby and does not give any details of the voting system at all. Three are primary sources from the state itself, not independent, not secondary. The Luce reference is from 1930 reprinted in 2006 and as stated above, simply mentions it as an example of the "Hare system". No signficant coverage at all. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National municipal review is a publication of the National Municipal League, an advocacy organisation. It does not appear to be a scholarly publication. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you've not read the articles in American Political Science Review otherwise you would be aware that they analyse the subject directly and in detail, particularly the one by P Orman Ray (though you're right, I did mis-cite some of them, I'll correct that now). The National Municipal Review has a whole article on the system – even if it doesn't meet your threshold of 'scholarly' that doesn't rule it out from being a reliable source, obviously. The Supreme Court ruling ruling the system unconstitutional can confer notability onto the system (of course) as can all the articles which note the ruling's effect. The Luce book doesn't seem to say that this is an example of the Hare system (that doesn't sound right to me – can you quote the passage in question?) and does discuss the system's operation, one of its key elements being that it forces voters to rank all their choices; this observation was also made by P Orman Ray. Clearly significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"More important is the third method of transferring votes -- by the voter himself. This is known as the Hare system from its English originator. [...] An Oklahoma statute of 1925 applying the system to primary elections made certain requirements of the voter as to the number of candidates for whom he should vote and on this account was nullified by the Supreme Court in Dove vs Oglesby". Luce, pp.258-259. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. On that basis, I guess that all systems of preferential voting should be merged into the same article because none of them have individual notability if they happen to be a possible application of one particular principle? [Wanders off muttering and eye-rolling...] ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 19:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Oklahoma preferential voting system is distinctive enough to merit encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Duper Strong Mega Keep: Notable with enough references. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete by WP:CSD#G12 of [1]. lifebaka++ 19:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise Picture[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, have secondary sources used the term "Tom Cruise Picture" or "Tom Cruise Forumla"? -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article would be better off if it was renamed to Analysis of Tom Cruise films. After all, it is not information about a new film with Tom Cruise but an analysis of films with Tom Cruise in it. GVnayR (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the mainstay of the text was lifted from here. Copyright issue?Asnac (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - the wording of the text could be altered to avert copyright issues. GVnayR (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Dearing[edit]

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

Not notable. Subject is a reporter at a radio station. The show he reports on won a regional RTNDA award, but he personally did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKT (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 14:20, 24 April 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) 00:01, 1 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. The award does not appear to be a significant one, and in particular, the source that shows he won it is a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. An hour short of the full seven days, but as this likely qualifies as a speedy keep (not to mention WP:SNOW), there's little point in waiting until the official deadline. Owen× ☎ 15:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge of Glory[edit]

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

Article started against the advisement of other experienced editors; shows no material in toe with the music notability guideline. Portions of the article are also unsourced. This article was also created after consensus went against it at Born This Way (check out the history of this page and Born This Way). I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Song has coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and in 24 hours it will have heaps more coverage when it receives radio airplay. It was premature to create the article, but it is not premature to show that the subject is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP : This song is amazing, and keeping this page would help her little monsters see all the reception that this song gets. I'm sure that the song will get mostly positive reviews. Not to mention, it would help this song get more publicity, as well as, learn more about the background of this song (beats, the composition, the message...etc)
- Note: Read WP:ATA. Then return and make a argument. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 03:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lady Gaga has confirmed on her website that the song will be released tomorrow. Lady Gaga is a reliable source, and it will have more coverage once it is released. Mi.bryson (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)--Mi.bryson (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons given above: the deletion of this article is silly. Although it technically might fall under WP:CRYSTAL, there really is no point in deleting an article on a something which will have the fairly predictable popularity of a Lady Gaga single because it was created before the day before it is released. This is bordering on a bureaucratic, pointy and silly nomination. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the single is in the process of its release. More details are becoming available rapidly, and the single will be out in less than 24 hours. ★ Auree _talk 20:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article will soon prove its notability, although this may fall under WP:CRYSTAL as previously stated, there is little point in deleting something that will obviously be re-created. --Jennie--x (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure if I have an opinion in this discussion, given that I'm an anon, but I want to give my two cents. Given that this song is a promotional single of Born This Way, that it has sources to back up the information, that it will be released tomorrow and that it will gain considerable attention... we should keep this article. Just like Gaga's Dance In The Dark or Monster. --201.240.246.133 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Deleting this article the day before the song is released as a single would be really foolish. The song is already getting a bit of attention -- an article the websites of both Billboard and Rolling Stone. This is already a notable song and it hasn't even been released yet. Come now. 60.230.153.168 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's like Dance in the Dark and soon will be on charts.--Aaa16 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll see.--Aaa16 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's officially been announced by Lady Gaga that it's the next single,and is coming out today, so I see no reason to delete it.--Nyswimmer (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album's article. The mere existence of a single does not make it notable. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born This Way until it becomes notable. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. –anemone projectors– 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a confirmed single, why is this discussion about deletion still active?? now that's a fail... calvin999 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The single has been released, and is the subject of much media speculation as to the success of the new album "Born This Way". The single's release is the number one news item on MTV.com. I and others have come to Wikipedia specifically for information related to this song, and it looks bad for Wikipedia to have a page that is set to recieve so many page views be marked as potentially deleted' --jon1379 (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Everyone, please note that when it comes to music, existence is not a criteria to be included in this encyclopedia. Please review WP:NMUSIC. Even if it does eventually meet these guidelines, it doesn't now and predicting when it does is diving into WP:CRYSTAL. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: From Wikipedia's own policies as delineated in NSONG - "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Being the First Headline Article on MTV.com constitutes significant independent coverage, at least in the United States --jon1379 (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly it's been announced as a single. If the mere existence of a single does not make it notable, then you have a LOT of wikipedia pages to delete. Let it go! Keep the page, obviously it's going to chart on the Billboards!--mikomango (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep:There is no need to get rid of The Edge of Glory's page. We want to know more about the song. The album page probably wouldn't have as much info as the page---- SM64DSi {talk}
Strong Keep: More information will be released, increasing the notability of the article. DAP388 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2011
Delete, per proposal. This is just going to be yet another Wiki exercise in democracy, because it's all about the tyranny of the majority here. (not withstanding those select few who boldly exercise their administrative abilities in spite of popular fancruft) 70.153.123.13 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason given to delete this article, as the subject is most clearly notable. The song is currently the top selling on iTunes, for example. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Changing my opinion, this is most certainly charting in many countries, seeing the iTunes sales at present. It should be kept. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a PROMO single. It has a single cover. It has been released to iTunes as a promo single. Just keep it. Usher even has pages for Buzz singles. Why do people nominate things for deletion practically straight away without letting the article flourish first???? ffs just keep it!calvin999 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Completely futile to delete it because it will definitely chart. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though much expansion is needed at this time (including the number of sources). Even "You and I" has more sources. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has been officially released to iTunes and has had significant media coverage from independent sources, as stated in the article itself. Redirecting to the Born This Way album page is unadvisable because said page won't have the same information (and if it were added would make the album page too long and cumbersome). (Paul237 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Will most certainly chart this week in several markets and does feature a lot of information.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: How much is this discussion gonna take? We have already 19 "keeps" against 3 "redirects" and 1 "delete". This discussion can't last forever and the delete template honestly decreases the value of the article. --190.232.80.52 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual discussion period is seven days. Also note that AFD is not a vote, and just because the "keeps" far outweigh everything else, doesn't necessarily mean the result will be "keep". –anemoneprojectors– 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is ridiculous. This discussion is bogus, and the implication is that the voting process is useless (while we're taking a vote, even though the AfD page says it's not a vote, even though you're asked to vote) speaks volumes about why Wikipedia is having a hard time retaining editors. What is the purpose of this page if it's going to be ignored?--mikomango (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing that its practically snowing here, I think it can be closed prematurely. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think so. Unless you mean it's snowing crystal balls ;) –anemone projectors– 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Personally I am sick of these BS deletion discussions which waste everybody's time. "It hasn't charted, therefore it shouldn't have an article" is a load of codswallop. It is covered in reliable sources, is a single, and (it's OR, but it's still true) apparently it will chart in various places anyway. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also sick of this happening. This happened when I started the California King Bed article, it was deleted...and it was ultimately re-created about 2 weeks later, which makes no sense at all. Basically, someone who isn't a fan of the artist decides to preemptively remove a shitload of work that everyone else has done. The page will ultimately be reverted to what it was before this discussion. It's pathetic...and this is exactly why Wikipedia has a new editor retention problem. Because of users like the power-hungry egomaniacal nincompoop who proposed the deletion of this article. (Whoever you are, I'm not trying to hurt you, but I am entitled to my opinion). Ultimately, no one is removing the song pages of more obscure artists whose haters don't come out in droves to delete things as soon as they are typed.--mikomango (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please be reminded of Wikipedia's no personal attack policy mikomango. If you have a problem with the process, you aer welcome to put your points in the talk page of WP:AFD, but please don't come here to post unnecessary things. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that I did not personally attack anyone specifically. I merely stated my opinion, intended to support User:Adabow in his/her correct assessment that this process is total BS. If that's unnecessary, then perhaps you should blank out the entire thread. In the meantime, thank you, User:Legolas, for your continued dictatorial tendencies on English Wikipedia. Feel free to delete all I've offered since it's obviously your decision to make. Thanks and I'm done here.--mikomango (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article should never have even been nominated for deletion. It is a single from her upcoming album. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's her next single, it has begun receiving press coverage and it will only be re-created within a matter of weeks.--Endlessdan (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note — This has been confirmed as the official third single now, the Afd becomes moot. SAomeone close this please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The official third single from the album Born This Way. Peak 2 in the itnues charts and morning in the Billboard Hot 100.-- Xxvid (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Edge of Glory is due to be released very soon and has already achieved substantial notability via the internet and radio airplay. --Rayboy8 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "The Edge of Glory" topped the iTunes sales charts in 11 countries in two days and it's an official single now, not just promotional.[2] -- Frous (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Edge of Glory is confirmed as third single and looks likely to get number one in USA and UK in the next couple of weeks. It seems daft to delete an article of a notable song which is having a strong response and is providing new information than the album page. --Bbbnbbb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep are we kidding ourselves here??? It's Gaga, and the song is going to dominate charts worldwide in precisely one week! Theuhohreo (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're crystal clear. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per everyone above. KnowitallWiki (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Read WP:ATA. Then return and make a argument. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE, per original proposal. Article shows absolutely NO material in line with the music notability guideline. The mere existence of a single does not make it notable. Of course, Wiki-"democracy" (a.k.a. blind idolatry of a few fans who flock to Wikipedia) shall prevail... as usual. 98.206.160.80 (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your opinion and you have brought up valid points, but this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, which is why it is here. Please amend your view to a simple "delete". Thank you. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amended. 98.206.160.80 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this (User:98.206.160.80 view) could be disputed. WP:NMUSIC says that songs that have ranked on national or significant charts should be considered notable. "Edge of Glory" has ranked #1 in 11 different countries on the iTunes chart. --Jennie--x (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This does not mention nor include iTunes. Have you ever seen an iTunes chart mentioned in an article? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - iTunes charts are not to be mentioned in articles per WP:Badcharts.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although this entry meets the inclusion criteria because it's an official single now, I strongly disapprove the current trend where iTunes is routinely mentioned in sales figures, because sales figures by one retailer clearly belong BAD CHARTS (music charts that are not reliable or don't present the industry comprehensively). Just wanted to mention a discussion I started on the topic. -- Frous (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but you not need to be one to now that the song will chart before the next week ends (or even this). Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 01:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song is already at #7 in mid-week official UK charts - so it is already on course to be a top 10 hit in the UK by Sunday. DJ Mike TJG (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It's just a matter of time before this article is flourished with edits and more sources. Most if not all Gaga's single's have been hits, It would surprise me if this one wasn't. If it's topping charts, and already has this much 'keep' with valid reason's then It should definately stay. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - it's an official single that has topped in many charts around the world (see iTunes Top 10 in all the countries at this moment - http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10songs.html). --HC 5555 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Come on, let us use a modicum of common sense- if it gets deleted the page will have to be recreated within an hour. The single has been reported on in scores of major newspapers and it's in the British midweek charts (as well as others I'm sure) - what else does a single have to do to warrant an article? - Tom (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All of these votes saying, "It's an official single now," don't add up to much. It has to chart. Existence is a requirement (of course) but it is not a factor that calls for inclusion into this encyclopedia when it comes to music. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 21:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that, after topping many iTunes charts over the world the song will not be featured in Billoard's Hot 100? The song is a commercial success, it was played each hour on KISS radio, and it will chart, even if it charts at place 100. So your plan is to delete it to later bring it back? Wake up.--190.43.48.38 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The song has already charted in Finland. The nomination becomes moot now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it has also charted in Ireland. And it will chart all over the world eventually. This discussion should be ended right now, it's useless to keep discussing on an official single by the greatest pop artist of the moment. And I'm not saying to keep it because of that, but because it has garnered enough attention and has already charted. End this now --Evengan (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It has charted, though. And the page has been updated accordingly. Therefore, I don't see the need to even debate this now. It's an official single, it's charted, it has independent coverage from multiple sources and is being played in many countries. A bit of a pointy nomination in my opinion. (Paul237 (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Already an official release. Will chart in several countries in a matter of days. Has sufficient coverage.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Can we stop this discussion now? There's no reason to delete this article now. --Evengan (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from redirect), clearly now notable, plenty of sources have been added since this AFD started and the single has charted (though I do believe it was right to AFD this at the time) –anemone projectors– 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Nomination → Yay! It finally charted!! It finally has a reason to be in this encyclopedia!!! I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mad? --Evengan (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be?? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some sarcasm. If not, then we're all okay. --Evengan (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's sarcasm directed at some of the arguments in this discussion, but I'm not mad. I like the song. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some comments were wrong (for example the iTunes charts), but there's no reason to close the discussion with sarcasm which could be insulting to some editors. Just saying, not trying to judge you or start another discussion. We've had enough of that. --Evengan (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the few people who were against this article were citing the fact that it hadn't charted as being their main reason why they felt it didn't deserve its own page. Therefore, it's only natural for those of us who believe this entry is valid to confirm that the song has indeed charted. (Paul237 (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's time to close this discussion with the result of Keep, since the 'nomination' for deletion has been 'withdrawn'.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few other editors who indicated their preference of deletion or redirection, and they have not changed their view. Therefore, the fact that someone "withdraws" their nomination does not close a discussion. But the 7 days is up, so it will probably be closed by an uninvolved editor soon. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Yes, I did notice the 7 day period. Otherwise I wouldn't have said close.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus in 12 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Central Suffolk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was nominated for deletion in March, and the result was "no consensus". I believe that the article continues to merit deletion. It is almost entirely unsourced, except for a link to a petition (not a reliable source) which does not even mention most of the bus routes listed in this article. It appears to violate the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory, and it does not appear to be organized in a way that would actually help someone who wanted to take a bus from one specified location to another specified location in this region. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article covering the whole of Suffolk, per my reasoning last time, with the caveat that such merged article must not use colour-coded text in violation of WP:COLOUR. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is has created one therefore this page should NOT BE DELETED untill the page is made. Wilbysuffolk talk 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would help if the nominator could say what has changed in the relatively short time since the previous discussion, other than the decision not going the way they wanted? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much what has changed, as what hasn't changed. The last AfD discussion closed as "no consensus", but the closing admin wrote, "I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere." It hasn't been noticeably improved; it was unsourced then, and it still is unsourced. Nor has it been combined elsewhere. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In context, that sentence was "I encourage a merger discussion, however, per Redrose64, and I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere". Would it not have been best to initiate the merge discussion first? RichardOSmith (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The merge option was a vote for keeping the material - the burden is on those who voted keep/merge to take action to save the material since they have failed to do so, a second AfD is justified Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with RichardOSmith. Respect the previous close, please, and have the merger discussion before coming back here. Consensus can change, but in the few weeks since the last AfD, it probably hasn't.—S Marshall T/C 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic. There is no evidence of notability for any of these routes and what are those school buses doing there for goodness sake? Fails on WP:Notability and WP:Notguide at the very least. It is unsourced and appears to be pure original research. Wikipedia should not be providing this type of information which is likely to become outdated and could put us in the morally reprehensible position of misinforming the public.--Charles (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the article is original research. Everything on there has sources, but it is not easy to use PDFs as sources. Adam mugliston Talk 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsourced, but perfectly sourceable; the source being Suffolk County Council Passenger Transport Unit, here. This also kills off the "original research" argument and explains what the school bus stuff was doing there.
It's unencyclopaedic but Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia. We're also a gazetteer, among other things (see the first pillar), and this is content that belongs in a gazetteer.
Notability, of course, requires multiple independent secondary sources. Because of our gazetteer function, there's a consensus that maps are secondary sources for Wikipedia's purposes, and it will be trivial for a Suffolk-based user to source this list to maps.
Wikipedia risks its content becoming out of date, and thereby misinforming the public, all the time, every day, across a vast range of topic areas, and it strikes me as bizarre to suggest that we should delete content for this reason.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to hold off on commenting but to be honest your repeated claims at AfDs require comment. Obviously you can quote some general purpose (i.e; not sector specific such as the NPTG) gazetteer that lists the Bus Routes of Central Suffolk as part of it's data? General gazetteers tend to stop at Village level rarely going to list the neighbourhoods of a village - and recent discussion of our gazetteer function on the village pump (policy) consensus was that the limit of our gazetteer function was only communities recognised by the government anything smaller than that would have to stand on individual notability. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_79#Notability_of_cities.2C_towns.2C_and_neighborhoods If you believe that the bar on gazetteer status extends as far down as Bus routes (as you continue to claim) then show me a consensus that agrees with that position. Secondly you claim that "there's a consensus that maps are secondary sources for Wikipedia's purposes" again this is misrepresentation - consensus is that *some* maps *might* be secondary sources but it depends on the map and how it is used. In the last AfD the Colchester one you were the only person to claim that the map there could be used to establish notability and even other editors who voted keep disagreed with you, additionally I raised your POV at RFC where the response was that even if the council is independent we cannot be sure the map is secondary it may be a primary source by an independent organisation see also Wikipedia:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent. I think potentially a bigger issue than Charles out of date argument if that these lists may be considered a WP:COPYVIO of the timetables that these lists are being copied from as they are essentially only derivative works of those lists. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most substantive issue you raise is whether a bus timetable's copyrightable. It's a reasonable question to ask. I personally doubt it—insufficient sweat of the brow—but I do suggest that you raise the matter on WT:CP so that we can be sure. As for the discussions you link, on the subject of gazetteers (as with most other subjects) I've always tended to agree more with administrator Postdlf and less with now-banned user Gavin.collins. User Whatamidoing is usually worth listening to and I often agree with her, but in this specific case (about maps) she is wrong. Maps are secondary sources. The primary source is the aerial photography on which the map is based. And finally, if you wish to claim that bus routes should be excluded from Wikipedia's gazetteer function, then I suggest that you should begin an RFC on the subject. At the moment it is custom and practice that lists of bus routes are acceptable on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that we have so many of them.—S Marshall T/C 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Photography has no bearing in whether maps are secondary sources about bus routes as the route itself is not visible on aerial photography (unlike a fixed infrastructure public transport system) - that information is gathered in some other way (either provided by the bus company or physically collected by the mapping company) and in that case whatamIdoing is correct. In the case of Colchester you were arguing for the use of a map that was figurative and not based on aerial photography at all.
We already have the substantial RFC still open on the subject of lists of Bus Routes, I linked to it above - consensus is toward these routes being removed from wikipedia's gazetteer function unless they can clearly meet the GNG without the extremely liberal interpretation of source material that you favour . Despite twice having the RfC reach expire we have no admin close as yet - despite a request for such on ANI.
An other stuff exists argument does not mean that this list should exist - up until the AfDs of articles by Adam, Rcsprinter, and Wilbysuffolk AfD's of lists such as there overwhelmingly closed as delete except for a few high profile examples such as London (nominated twice, kept twice) or a few pushed to no consensus as these have. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your first paragraph first, the map is not being used as a source for each individual bus route. Per WP:AOAL point #8, individual items on a list don't have to be separately notable. Rather, the map is being used as a source for the list as a whole. It indicates that bus routes run through central Suffolk, and thus it is appropriate for Wikipedia to list them. Thus, the map is a secondary source, because the primary source, the aerial photography, will show the bus stops.
In response to your second paragraph, I do not see a clear consensus in the discussion, and I suspect this is why no administrator has closed it as if there were. Rather, what we have are stale discussions showing that there is, fundamentally, little agreement between editors about how these matters should be handled. Where there is no consensus, we don't remove material from the encyclopaedia, so the lack of consensus favours my position.
The "other stuff exists" argument is part of WP:ATA, which is not a policy or guideline. It's an essay that I'm free to disregard. When it suits me, I habitually do disregard it. WP:ATA isn't a coherent or logical argument, it's just a shopping list of things that some editors think other people shouldn't be allowed to say. I see no reason to pay any attention to it.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was rather rambling, 1. I never claimed anywhere that individual routes need to be notable, 2. Maps also show sewer lines in central Suffolk it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to list them because their existence on a map does not make them notable. 3. Can you see a 3inch diameter pole even with a sheet of metal sticking out of it from an aerial photograph - no is the answer - Some Stops may have obvious road markings or an obvious shelter but in general aerial photography is not use to map the actual route - rather the Primary source route data is overlaid on the road data taken from aerial photograph - The Bus data still remains primary in this process.

Only MickMacNee and after restoration from the archive Wnt support the existence of these lists with some neutral commentators, the consensus is clearly against although the debate remains in how we deal with them (wholesale deletion or replacement with prose article covering the actually notable subject related to the list.) I will ask for a close again at ANI.

I see no reason to pay any attention to it. - Well feel not to pay attention, but it is good advice - this article should be judged on it's own merits not on the fact that another article does have merit in remaining. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then merge Per Redrose. This page should stay here untill list of bus routes in suffolk is made. Please tell me how this page is not notable.Wilbysuffolk talk 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without causing offence, could I ask you to consider being mentored by WormThatTurned as Adam and Rcsprinter already have. Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia asking how often have reliable secondary sources "noted" the subject. This is different from real world notability where everyone within that region may "know" the routes and consider them notable. For suffolk I can find no sources that are both reliable and secondary - in fact I'm getting more sources for Suffolk county NY than for the UK county. If instead of sources discussing simply the routes; we find sources generally duscussing Bus Transport in the region rather than specifically discussing routes in the region (and perhaps only making trivial mention if the routes) then articles for that region should only be general overviews of Bus Transport in the region with small mention of routes - we should most certainly not be creating articles simply on the basis that that region has a bus system so it's routes must be notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I realise they are completly not notable as I have given up on them quickly. I also find them horribly boring to make. I do realise this page is not notable and should be merged into the List of bus routes in suffolk when it gets made or deleted. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel directory - that is why Wikitravel exists. Wikipedia is not a place for bus/trane spotters - that is exactly why Wikia was created. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Simple Bob essentially. Personally an article on Suffolk bus routes is pushing it in my book as well if all it does is list stuff. Give me some text with some examples of routes and a link to an external site where I can find the information from and I'm happy to have it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Page is notable as it contains several towns, many of which are well known. I have read through the comments and have been improving the page as much as possible. If anyone could help with using PDFs as references, then please contact me as I am not sure myself.

Adam mugliston Talk 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Don't those towns already have their own articles? That would seem to me to establish only the notability of the settlements, not of the bus route. The settlements have several lists of their own already. Don't they? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do all have their own articles, but I have been told before, that a list of bus routes is notable, if the town is notable or famous itself. Adam mugliston Talk 21:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really helpful to be able to find that precedent then. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is somewhere in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester, but I'm not quite sure. Adam mugliston Talk 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see a reference to a population of the city being >100,000. Now, I sort of know Leiston quite well and it doesn't really come close to that :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per it not being original research, not being inappropriate for Wikipedia (as with all these nominations it would be good if the nominator could actually say how it fails WP:NOTDIR), not being unsourceable, and there having been insufficient time or action since the previous AfD for anything to have changed. It may be better to merge this with other article(s), but AfD is not the place to have that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nom, but I would say that Notdir links to directory for it's definition, which is;
...a repository or database of information which is heavily optimized for reading...

This is simply a database of Bus Routes optimized for reading - no more encyclopaedic than databases of Patent Filings which are given as an example of what not to create. On your latter point - as I've said above; merging was a reason to keep this information and should have been undertaken by those wishing to keep in the last AfD . As they failed to do that, it is reasonable to consider all options and AfD is a place where Mergers, Userfications, Renames as well as Deletes can be discussed. Perhaps the process should be renamed Articles for Discussion to match the process for categories. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles for discussion" has been proposed several times and the history of those proposals is too complicated for me to summarise here. However as it stands, AfD is not currently articles for discussion, and so it should not be treated as such. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different issues here. In order to initiate a request for a merge, one should not go to AfD, but instead follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Merging. On the other hand, WP:AFD makes it clear that a merge is a potential outcome of an AfD, if an article is nominated for deletion but the consensus among the AfD participants is to merge. Recommending a merge as one's recommendation in an AfD is common and not a problem. In this case, I actually did believe the page under consideration should be deleted (not merged), and I still do. However, I recognize that depending on how this AfD goes, it might wind up being merged instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there was insufficient time or action since the preceding AfD for anything to have changed. The time that had passed since closing of the prior AfD was 38 days, and the article had received approximately 27 edits during that time. However, no sources were added. In fact, since this new AfD began, the article has gone from having one unreliable source to zero sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Blue Square Thing, I am now able to reference this article. Within a few days, every route in this article will be referenced. Adam mugliston Talk 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify Adam, are these you have all primary sources such as timetables for verifying facts or do you have independent secondary sources required for establishing the notability of the subject? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These timetables are all from the County Council website and I have seen several lists of bus routes only containing a link to the county council's transport departament. Adam mugliston Talk 16:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which raises an interesting point (imo). If the list is available off-wiki, as this one is, I tend to think that a summary article - i.e. using text in those sentence and paragraph things - is worth considering, perhaps with a brief bullet list of major routes if necessary. People can then look at the SCC site nice and simply. This, of course, has the added advantage that less work creating and then maintaining is required - with a lower probability that the article becomes hideously dated at some point in the future. That's an argument, imo, for an effective deletion in my book, although with the interesting content retained. Given that there's likely to have been local press coverage of bus route closures etc... you've then got your notability that you'll always struggle with in a list form. My 2 euros worth anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the links to timetables are on various pages of the SCC webistes, so there isn't one complete list anywhere. Adam mugliston Talk 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@BST: It's worth reading through the AFD of Adam's article listing routes in Colchester Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester we gave him the same advice that you do here - Write a prose article based on the general subject of bus transport in the town/region (which in that case was justified in notability by sources on that subject); Adam continued to claim the article was moving toward that position but has remained an unencyclopaedic list. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuart.Jamieson: I don't necessarily want to discuss other articles here, but Colchester is definetly moving towards a more prose article, but the list will remain. Adam mugliston Talk 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam - aren't they all on this page though? Sure, the individual timetables can be linked, but you run the risk, amongst other things, of the urls for them changing every six months or so. Honestly, I really think the workload in that case is way past the cost:benefit. As an aside, I'm not sure I recognise Leiston, Sax, Aldeburgh and Southwold (at least) as being in Central Suffolk. I imagine we probably need to move swiftly to a Bus routes in Suffolk article which is prose based. I'd strongly suggest that that would be a better use of time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuart - No, they're not, some are on another Suffolk on Board page, some on Customer Service Direct. Adam mugliston Talk 12:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you show us where exactly? Sorry, but I can't find them based on that information. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. [3], [4] and [5]. Adam mugliston Talk 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, last one's a school bus searchable thingy. I really don't see how this is ever going to be a reference for anything - it might be an external link possibly, but never a reference. The second one is a very useful reference for a text-based article about bus routes because it summarises changes, but it's got no timetable information on it that the first link - which is the same one I included above - has. Which brings me back to my previous point - from a pure timetable point of view, they all seem to be in one place pretty much. Link to there rather than trying to include a shed load of information which will just get out of date and be a pain in the elbow to change ever six months Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a searchable thingy, but it is a reference, because when the route code is typed in, a PDF file can be loaded containing the timetable (see the reference for route 552). Adam mugliston Talk 17:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reference because I can't possibly verify information by looking at the page itself. It's a tool I can use, sure. A useful tool no doubt, but the page itself won't tell me the information I need directly - you might use it to find a reference for the 552, but the 55s is also linked from the first page - the one with all the timetables on it. That's the core page in all of this. Again, as an external link, perhaps, it might have some use, but not as a reference. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are not local and do not know the bus routes around here. I am not critisising this but I realise I need to explain. The 55s on the first page are only 551 and 552, 558 is not a school bus and the rest of the school buses require the CSD page. A link to the PDF timetable will be provided. Adam mugliston Talk 17:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Typo - 55s should be 552. If you're going to argue that dedicated school buses are notable enough to be included in any form on wiki then I'm afraid I would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that school buses could be included into a local bus route list and that they are referencable. Adam mugliston Talk </small> 18:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are they notable? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well why are London's school bus routes notable? Adam mugliston Talk 18:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. They are listcruft and "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument.--Charles (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on accusing me of using 'Other Stuff Exits' all the time and falsely every time. For you bus routes may not be notable and for me, let's say types of cow, aren't notable. Does that mean I can nominate an article about a type of cow for deletion? Adam mugliston Talk 19:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just did use the "other stuff exists" argument re. London bus routes and you have often done so before. It is not about what you or I regard as important but about WP guidelines.--Charles (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they have any notability at all it's because as far as I can tell they're open to public use as well. Some school bus services in Suffolk are, or have been in the past (Eastern Counties used to operate at least two of the Leiston High School buses as standard services which only ran M-F during term time on their standard Sax - Aldeburgh route). Most aren't - a coach which picks up only school kids along it's route isn't a standard public bus service. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles - In that case can you show me a point (not just a link an exact point) in the guidelines where it says Lists of bus routes aren't notable. Adam mugliston Talk 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Square Thing - Yes, some still are public services, but I still don't see the problem in including them into a list where there are other routes more notable. Adam mugliston Talk 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to include buses which no-one other than school kids can get on in a wikipedia article just because they exist? Not because they show any notability whatsoever, but just because they exist? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my mind and several other peoples' minds, they are notable. Of course there are many people in whose they won't. Like I mentioned for me types of cow aren't notable, as for you school bus routes aren't. Adam mugliston Talk 20:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@BST To quote adam I am a bus maniac, but only for routes and timetables. I'm not interested in what kind of bus it is, just where it goes. I can tell you all of the bus routes with timetables around where I live so the answer to your question would be yes he does want to add every bus route in the UK even buses which no-one other than school kids can get on because that interests him irrespective of whether the subject in notable.
@Adam our notability guideline says if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. So are there reliable third party sources on the subject of Bus Routes in Suffolk, can I get a book from the library specifically about Bus Routes in Suffolk, Has a Newspaper written an article discussing the subject of Suffolk Bus Routes as a collective group? The answer is no - This subject does not meet our notability threshold, and should be deleted. Despite being mentored, it appears that you still fail to grasp the concept that personal opinions of what is or is not notable do not affect Wikipedia inclusion criteria where notability is based on whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, can you please stop using quotes from mine and Rcsprinter's private talk page, as you do not know the context of the quote. That relates to my hobby, free-time, not on Wikipedia. What I don't understand about Wikipedia is why do we have to keep on deleting pages. It's not like we're gonna run out of space or something and just because a bunch of people who think children should not edit Wikipedia or that bus routes shouldn't be on Wikipedia think that the article should be delete, they delete it for the load of other people who may want to see it. What is the problem with just leaving pages, which are properly made and on which disagreement with deletion is likely, because there are people who will read it and people who don't like it? That way, I could delete every page I don't like on here (which I obviously won't do). Adam mugliston Talk 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:FIVE. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As my interest in cattle breeds has been raised perhaps an analogy would help. Cattle breeds are equivalent to makes and models of bus and are similarly notable. There may be a small number of farms important to the improvement of a breed that would be notable in a prose article just as there a few tourist bus routes that are considered notable. A list of all farms using a breed of cattle would not be notable or encyclopedic and the vast majority of suburban and small town bus routes are not notable.--Charles (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Adam, please be aware that with every edit you make you "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Which means that as long as I properly attribute the quote, it can be used by anyone for any purpose and it is most certainly not "private" in any sense of the word. At the moment your editing and insistence in creating articles which are purely lists of bus routes exactly mirrors your hobby as stated in this quote - when I have reason to believe your two interests have diverged I will stop using this quote in relation to your editing. Generally I am an inclusionist voting keep on most AfD's I vote on; however I do vote delete on topics I feel are not helpful in the creation of a working encyclopaedia. The reason we should keep Wikipedia:NOT is to reduce dilution of good article quality - consider would the subject be included in a formal paper encyclopaedia (regardless of paper limitations) or even as SMarshall claims formal paper Gazetteer - as I see no evidence that these would, they should not be included in this electronic one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, we're straying into a few comments on contributors rather than content here. While Stuart is technically right about the licensing position, what Adam has said on Wikipedia about his hobbies and interests is not relevant to this AfD. This AfD is about an article and the topic that the article aims to cover, not about Adam's hobbies or interests, nor even about Adam's choices of material to edit or articles to create. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000, whilst I appreciate that arguments to avoid discourages arguments to the person, I think that some comment on the editors is relevant in consideration of question "can the article be saved?" It seems reasonable for anyone who has not yet formed a clear opinion on the value of an article and who don't have access to sources to improve it themselves to ask the question of whether editors who are doing the bulk of the editing in this area have the ability and motivation to improve it in a way that outweighs the arguments for deleting the content. - Not a debate that should be had here but just saying... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles - What I had meant to say, although I may not have worded it properly for which I apologise, is that as for you, bus routes aren't notable, as for me cattle breeds are not. What I am trying to explain is that notable for you will not equal notable for me or notable for any other user on Wikipedia, although all may be within WP guidelines.

@Blue Square Thing - I have looked through the link, thank you and I have to come to a conclusion that the red pillar, or the last one, actually supports my case. The title states that there are no firm rules on Wikipedia, as long as everything is done within reason. Using this, I think it is possible to argue that that means a list of bus routes can be notable, if there are other users who agree.

@Stuart.Jamieson - Although my hobby and what I do on Wikipedia clash, I still do not want to put *every* bus route onto Wikipedia. I won't argue about school bus routes. If you think that that improves the notability of the page, I will be happy to delete thh school bus sections.

Adam mugliston Talk 20:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge to an article covering bus routes for the whole of Suffolk. As has been pointed out already, the nominator has not explained how the topic of the article fails WP:NOTDIR; information of this nature could indeed be considered suitable for a gazetteer. The previous AfD already closed as No Concensus, and no stronger arguments have been made to justify simply repeating the AfD in the hope that this time deletion will be achieved. Yes it's true that the article has not been significantly improved since the last AfD, but the time period in question is very short, and no convincing reasons have been given to suggest that improvement is impossible or definitely won't happen. Another issue is that much of the discussion made favouring deletion of the article concentrates on the interests and editing behaviour of the article's creator. Such discussion is not at all relevant to whether this article should be kept, and should be disregarded. In this context, it's also concerning that of the four people arguing for deletion, one of them has been involved in canvassing inappropriately to votestack on another AfD of an article created by Adam, and one of them was responsible for posting Adam's personal details (subsequently oversighted) in a dispute related to an AfD of another article created by him. This does all seem to be getting a bit too personal at times. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists of Bus routes fail WP:NOTDIR as suggested by the nominator because they fall into the same category as Radio Schedules and Patent filings - as types of Lists that are not to be created on wikipedia. I've also asked SMarshall and repeat the challenge to Demiurge to show a general purpose gazetteer that includes bus routes. Yes one or two specialist gazetteers do cover Bus routes and nothing else but WP:5P is that we contain elements of specialist gazetteers we are not a wholesale copy of them - elements would be the few routes and lists of routes that can be considered notable by our usual tests - none of which apply here. No one has shown that these routes individually or that this subject is notable in any meaningful way - so we should not have an article on it full stop. There are Alternative Outlets for this material notably the UK Transport Wiki on Wikia and WikiTravel so there is no need for us to host this information at this level of detail. In previous AfD's I have made suggestions to remove the lists and to encourage writing of well sourced articles on bus transport in the region (without any list) and if I believed that would happen I would consider voting for userfication but I no longer believe that would happen and is why debate on the editors creating/expanding these articles is relevant to keeping the article. On Demiurge,s statements above, I can't comment on Adam's "Outing" but the editor accused of Canvassing approached me in advance at that time looking for ways to bring a more consensus based interpretation of Policy into the debate (where SMarshall's left field interpretation was being repeated by a number of other inexperienced keep voters) whilst his attempts to achieve that were interpreted as votestacking it was not his intent and he apologised when informed that his messages were in fact being seen as Canvassing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, wish to bring a more concensus based interpretation of Policy into these debates; and I, too, think that everyone that !voted the same way as me in previous AfDs would be able to assist with that, and that everyone that !voted the opposite way to me in previous AfDs has a "left field interpretation" :-). But that doesn't mean I can go around messaging multiple of the people that !voted the same way as me about a new AfD, while messaging none of people who !voted the other way. However, I do accept the explanation that the editor concerned wasn't aware at the time that this was regarded as inappropriate canvassing. My comments on that past AfD incident here were merely intended to highlight some of the too-personal focus that has crept into many of these AfD discussions, something that's also evident in this one, with large parts of the discussion being about the article creator, not about the article or the article topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your wish but it certainly isn't mine and I don't think it's Charles' either - When SMarshall made the claim about bus maps asserting the notability of the route system - he could provide no policy or noticeboard discussion that backed up that interpretation - so it is reasonable to open up the claim to further neutral discussion even if that discussion went against my personal vote on the AfD. The same is also true of the claim that Bus routes fulfil our gazetteer function despite not meeting the GNG this also needs policy or noticeboard discussion to back up the interpretation. Another reason that a personal focus has crept into this (and the other) debates is because of the responses the creator has made it Talkpages/on other noticeboards and in AfDs - Even his last post here, he again gave an argument that equated to subjects being notable because the editors creating/editing them feel them to be notable (though I do note he has since reworded this making reference to Wikipedia guideline but it wasn't in his original post.)Since his arguments are often based upon his beliefs (or in other cases his personal ownership of articles) responding to his points is unfortunately often responding on him personally. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are all here to express our own opinions on the subject. My opinion/belief is what I had said previously and as I stressed a lot recently, I guarantee yours will differ. But, as we are here to commment on the article, not me, I think it is still possible to only comment on the article and its contents. If you wish to discuss my opinions/beliefs with me, feel free to do so on my talk page or by e-mail, but here, as Demiurge said, we should only comment on the contents of the article, by expressing our opinions/beliefs about it and its notability. Adam mugliston Talk 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord. Well, thank you for that refreshing view, Stuart.Jamieson; this is the first time that I've been called an "inexperienced keep voter" by someone with less than two thousand edits! I'll take issue with the idea that using maps as sources for geographical articles is a "left field interpretation", as well. I believe it to be mainstream, normal practice and entirely uncontroversial.—S Marshall T/C 08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were "inexperienced keep voter" I said that inexperienced keep voters were backing your position either repeating it verbatim or voting with a per SMarshall.
experience at taking part in debate/forming consensus does not equal high edit count, some of the editors involved in the previous debates have high mainspace edit counts but low counts in other namespaces - hence my use of inexperienced.
My own editcount is misleading, after my first edit in 2007 I misplaced my password and edited as an IP until late 2009 early 2010 when I rediscovered it. That IP was dynamic starting 149.x.x.x or something and I have no means to identify the edits let alone count them or associate them with this account.
Maps being used a source to verify facts is routine. Claiming that something is notable simply because it appears on a map appears to be original and unique to you hence "Left field". If you can provide evidence that community consensus supports your interpretation I will gladly strike that comment - but everywhere I've looked, consensus is against that interpretation. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The type of map being used is significant. Ordnance Survey maps (and similar) are highly accurate in their depiction of geographical features but never show bus routes; about the only bus-related information shown on them is the position of major bus stations (a symbol looking rather like this

but magenta not red, as here). On the other hand, maps produced by the local authority with the specific intention of showing bus routes will do so in great detail but are otherwise geographically compromised, showing few streets where buses do not run; many buildings and other features may be omitted entirely, as here - a map where the only buildings appear to be schools and railway stations. Going even further are maps like this where there is no attempt at accurate geography - all the roads are shown as straight lines at 45° or 90° to each other, spaced in such a way as to allow all the bus stops to be represented. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of bus routes are customarily accepted on Wikipedia, and this one is so long, it would not easily fit onto the main page. Sebwite (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Customarily accepted" isn't a reason for keeping - in fact only 31% of these lists that have come to AfD have closed keep with 51% being deleted and the remaining 18% not reaching consensus. We currently have somewhere between 160 and 180 of these lists with a disproportionate number focusing on the counties of England (not the rest of the UK) and the East coast of the U.S.A. (Particularly counties/districts of N.Y. and N.J.) - for the rest of the world we "customarily" only list routes in major population centres and even then I would be voting to delete unless the article shows some notability through reliable secondary sources rather simply because the routes exist. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's really relevant anyway, but it isn't necessarily disproportionate for there to be more "bus routes" lists covering counties of England than other parts of the UK... there are, quite simply, a lot more counties, and a lot more bus routes, in England than in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The disproportion is between those counties and the rest of the world - not between those counties and the rest of the UK - even much larger nations and states don't have as many of these lists as England does. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart: Where can the details of the bus route lists that have gone to AfD be found? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan - our search facility is quite good; the statistics above were based on AfDs of articles with "List of Bus Routes" in them, but just using "Bus Routes" covers more bases.

a search for intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the total number of AfDs (currently 42)

a search for "result was delete" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs closed as delete (currently 18 - 42%)

a search for "result was keep" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs closed as keep (currently 6 - 14%)

a search for "no consensus" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs that failed to reach consensus (currently 9 - 21%)

I'm on the mobile just now, so can't say what the remaining 9 closed as some may have been merged or userfied. I suspect the closing admins have had to use a more complex closing statement to sum upthe debate. The previous statistics I gave for "List of Bus Routes" tallied exactly unlike this. Of course many other articles have been deleted through PROD and CSD that won't be counted here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware gubernatorial election, 2012[edit]

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

For the time being, and probably for the next few months, there's absolutely nothing to say on this subject. I'd be happy to see it re-created as and when some actual information becomes available. (Contested prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given that there will probably be some candidates declared over the next few months (taking a look at some of the other gubernatorial elections for that year), it seems pointless to delete this simply because there are no declared candidates. We have pages for elections really quite far in the future ( see Scottish parliament election, 2016), so I don't see why we can't have a stub for one next year for which there will soon be plenty of reliable information. --Anthem of joy (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't support deletion for this race. "For the time being, and probably for the next few months": Granted, nothing has happened yet, but to make the assumption that nothing will in the next few months is not true. This is not a 2014 or 2016 election article, this is a 2012 article where races across the country are changing in some way almost everyday. So to delete this article would be pointless, as things are bound to pick up soon. That said, thank you Hysteria18 for starting this discussion, as I do believe that this proposed deletion does deserve a look-at. America69 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crystal ball policy doesn't apply here -- there are current events that go on that affect the election. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Addhoc (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venkanna H. Naik[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strange and unsourced, possibly a hoax possibly true ya just don't knowCholga^talK! 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unreferenced and badly written. Dreamspy (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It would be more constructive to clean-up articles which are unreferenced and badly written than deleting them. --Oldak Quill 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dreamspy CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a reference to the article that confirms the the subject was District collector (the senior colonial government official) of Bijapur District, which has a present-day population of about 2 million. This would make him roughly equivalent to a mayor of Houston or Brisbane. I think that gets him past WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be plenty of independent book sources out there (see refs and http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22V.+H.+Naik%22). --Oldak Quill 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources seem to show notability. matt91486 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger above. I'm not sure about the sources, as from what I can tell they seem to be little more than passing mentions, but the position certainly confers notability. --jonny-m t 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Muller[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of an aviator of questionable notability. A search turns up only two things: he did run a business, and he is dead. All the sources seem to be limited to passing mentions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of Chris Mullers to filter through, but can't find much on this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unavailable for preview, but searching in Google Books indicates that he held some form of Guiness Record. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If that is the same Chris Muller (reasonably likely) then would the fact that holding one "world's record, as recorded by Guiness" be enough for notability? If backed with other converage, sure, but I'm not sure that a passing mention in The Guiness World Book of Records is enough by itself. I haven't run across that issue before, but my gut says no. Would be happy to hear from someone with more experience with single mentions in Guiness. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I'd say it is very likely the same Chris Muller. But absent other coverage, I'm not sure that is sufficient for notability, but I'm also not sure that it is insufficient either. Setting such a record would seem to likely generate some coverage, perhaps in paragliding specialty magazines. However, I have been unable to find any indication yet that it has received any such coverage. So for now, I remain neutral. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply What makes me doubt that simple inclusion won't past muster without significant coverage is wp:stats, plus it is only a passing mention, not significant. Keep in mind, they have "world's records" for all kinds of crazy stuff that is not inherently notable. I would imagine that much of those don't get coverage, although I agree that in this case, you would *think* it would in related mags and at least the fluff section of a couple of newspapers. The name is common enough (although Google wants to suggest alternate spellings) so it does take some weeding out. Unfortunately, I'm finding only weeds. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After some more digging, it seems that holding the record has not generated coverage, so rather than neutral, I recommend deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Baxter[edit]

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

Non-notable model. She has nice jobs, but that's all. Damiens.rf 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 4 May 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, The Helpful One 14:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [6]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monty, plus article makes decent claim at notability not addressed in real detail due to mass nom.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Gonzalez[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [7]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Hullaballoo --StarGeek (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daze of Haze[edit]

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

Article is about a band that apparently put out a single album. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would appear to fail WP:MUSIC from a lack of coverage by reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Džafić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything to suggest he meets the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdraw as recently created content fork of existing article.

Gjâma[edit]

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

Irrelevant subject, 8 hits on Google books, sourced with you tube videos, partly on foreign language, without international references. Untranslatable with Google translate WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Vajtim. The topic has been on DYK and some parts from the Gjovalin Shkurtaj sources can be used on Vajtim.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, bravo, i didnt find that! Closing AfD, and merging. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as G3: Blatant hoax: G7: Author blanked). Mtking (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean moukarzel[edit]

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

No Indication that this person is notable (fails WP:GNG), no GNEWS hits. no content other than the info box and his picture. Mtking (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no references, even changing the search terms to Maronite Lebanese Catholic Youth, Maronite Youth in Lebanon, all sorts of combinations of this. I had considered if the article was a possible contender for WP:USERFY, but it will really need to start from scratch again. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Jean Moukarzel is one of the rising stars in Lebanon. He's a member of one of the most prestigious management consulting firm and has graduated from Europe's best business school HEC Paris. Jean will soon become a Parliament member of the Lebanese Parliament representing the Metn region. Long live Jean Moukarzel, thanks for giving so much to your native country, Lebanon

personal attack removed - Note to closing admin - I have removed a personal attack from the same ip editor who posted the above "do not delete" post. Mtking (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When this article was assessed all it had was a blank page and an infobox. If a tag such as ((Under construction)) had been placed on the article, then it would not have ended up here. Article and history now shows 20 edits and a BLP page with content and no references. Article may now likely survive AfD with ((uncategorized)) and ((references)) tags. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no indication passes either WP:GNG or WP:V. As a aside when I fist found the article the picture was of Michel Suleiman Mtking (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no references and no seeming way to get any verifiable information, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. If, as the IP user asserts, the person is about to be notable, the article can be created from scratch from sources when they do appear. He iro 08:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No notability shown and nothing found by searching -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Struck - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment In this edit, the original author replaced the content with "Time for the joke to end". Is that enough to make it a Speedy G3/G7? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda read it as such when I reverted it earlier, but figured more seasoned heads would opine on it. I was in the process of trying to find the last good version of the article when you reverted to it right after my edit. It seems to meet the requirements of a hoax article to me. Delete away. He iro 08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted - including a comment at WP:ANI, that's three who agree on G3/G7, so it's boldly gone -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the hoax creator and his IP? Should anything be done about them, warning? block? Ignore and deny? Dont often deal with the likes of this myselfHe iro 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like you are on it. Over and out, He iro 09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've issued a warning - I think that should suffice for now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe[edit]

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

This list simply seems to be a more specialised and crufty version of List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam. While "Mobile Weapons in Gundam" may be notable enough to have a list devoted to it, the same can hardly be said for "Early Earth Federation Mobile Suits in Gundam". Anthem of joy (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think we would have this level of detail about real products, much less imaginary weapon systems. Belongs on a fan site, although I appreciate the work that went into the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is WP:FANCRUFT - simply a list of imaginary weapons systems, and belongs on a fandom wiki somewhere else. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the kind of thing that fits WP:GAMEGUIDE but I understand that there are only a few game adaptations of gundam. Still, it has all the other features of game guide material that make it inappropriate for Wikipedia: it's WP:JUSTPLOT, with little information about significance or reception to WP:verify notability. And even if there was, it wouldn't justify a complete exposition of details of every single weapon in the series. As a general rule, Wikipedia is not really a place to have exhaustive lists of weapons in fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had copied over some of the content from this list into other lists about specific series. But it has been a couple of years ago and I don't remember which of the UC series lists I copied some of the information to. While this may be a poorly constructed list with too much unnecessary information, it cannot be deleted per CC and GFDL requirements to maintain credit. As to what exactly to do with this list, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps turning it into a navigational list. —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Though if things like the Pepsi marketing release aren't mentioned elsewhere, those could be moved to other articles. Maybe bung the reference links over to Gundam's talk page before deletion, in case editors there want to incorporate them. Polenth (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—though I agree with the rationales provided above, the list may not be deleted per CC and GFDL. I presume to List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam might be a suitable target, if expanded somewhat? G.A.S ^talk 04:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so it's not currently possible to delete this content because it serves as authorship attribution for other articles ? Shouldn't there be talk page tags signfying this ? --Anthem of joy (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page tags denoting this kind of content movement only came into use relatively recently. --Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GAS. --43?9enter _☭^★ 06:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GAS, as this list cannot be deleted. --Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Anthem of joy (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Queen's English Society. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Contemporary English[edit]

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

Delete or redirect

Article contains no links to notable sources - the Academy was formerly part of the Queen's English Society, but has not been covered in the media since it separated from the QES. (Notability tag was placed Dec 2010.) A redirect could be a solution.

Also possible advertising/COI; the Academy head (M Estinel) made some edits, though the OP (H Alexander) is not listed as a member.
Responsible? (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, since it's apparently had no impact since it was established. The article itself says as much. Its existence is mentioned in the Queen's English Society article and that should suffice.Asnac (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's English Society. There are insufficient reliable sources to establish notability for an article. Most are blogs or grammar schools in India and Sri Lanka making references to protection of the apostrophe in English; stuff like that. Redirect is the better solution rather than delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 2008[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and same for all the Tamworth election pages). I typed 5 random towns of similar size into the search box, and 4 of them (Winchester, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Wolverhampton) had similar Wiki pages for elections, one page per year. I am not experienced enough to be certain whether UK local authority results are notable events (though the political governance of significant towns impacts on thousands over a period of years), but if Tamworth's data were deleted (or merged into a single election page), there would be a lot more pages that would also have to dealt with.Asnac (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may exist, but that doesn't mean they are notable. The list of common outcomes does not have any information regarding elections, just the candidates. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we apply WP:EVENT it seems that local elections are not considered notable. PS: Is it possible to merge the discussion? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can these AFD's be merged - I am now going to copy the above comment through to the other years AFD's but it would make more sense to have one merged AFD for all the elections. Davewild (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - election results should always be kept as long as they are verifiable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep for now, as per Asnac but, longer term, Crisco 1492 has a valid policy point - there doesn't appear to be a notability criterion for elections at the moment but, if and when one is drawn up, most English local authority elections might well be deemed too local for general notability, at least at this level of detail. However, Wikipedia has hundreds, possibly thousands, of these articles and, for elections even three or four years back, they are often the only publicly-available source of the information that I know of - the trouble is that detailed results are usually easy to source reliably at the time from the website of the relevant local authority or from local newspapers, but both suffer from link-rot and/or lack of reliable searchable long-term archives. And I seem to be far from the only person who finds the information occasionally useful, for as far back (and further than) Wikipedia has it and for local authorities all over Britain (and sometimes the world). So the points that need to be sorted are, firstly, what the notability guidelines should be and, secondly, what can be done, preferably in an orderly and reasonably uniform manner, towards preserving any information determined to be too local for them and free access to it, presumably off Wikipedia, and preferably with semi-standardised links from here (something like happens with IMDB?). But this is the kind of thing that is not going to be sortable in the single week of an AfD discussion. PWilkinson (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring this up at the Village Pump. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article since the AFD was started adding some text and a map - see this diff showing the change here. I think the article now shows notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

Comment (More specific concerns) The problem is that elections have a couple problems (in my opinion). First, WP:EVENT (specifically WP:DIVERSE, WP:EFFECT, and WP:GEOSCOPE) seems to indicate that the only elections that pass notability are those with national coverage and significant, lasting, wide-area effects. Secondly, per my interpretation of WP:DIRECTORY articles that are just a list of who ran, who won, which seats, and so on are a violation of WP:NOT. Finally, [{WP:GNG]] states that ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article;" it is possible that such elections may pass WP:LISTN but not be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Applied here, WP:EVENT seems to be unfulfilled, and (even after the rewrite) it seems to be more of a directory than an analysis. I am open to a merger of pertinent data, but still concerned. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this article does have national level coverage - see references 1,2,5 and 7, references 3 and 6 are also regional and none of the sources are just local to Tamworth. There are no local election articles in England which do not at least have some coverage of the results on a national level. Secondly these elections almost always elect people to 4 year terms giving a lasting impact on the area. Thirdly the elections are discussed with the impact that local election results have nationally (so and so party did well here so could pick up the parliamentary seat etc). When WP:EVENT was being written supporters of the guideline assured an opponent that Pittsburgh mayoral election, 2009 would be ok if the guideline was accepted see Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)/Archive 2#Request for Comments. Fourthly I fail to see how any of the items at WP#NOTDIR apply to elections and wikipedia specifically includes "elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" with elections being a topic for almanac. Fifthly if your interpretation of WP:DIRECTORY is accepted then we cannot have any election results such as Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2011, I do not accept such articles are directories. Finally yes WP:N says articles with significant coverage are presumed to be notable and I am glad you agree the article does have significant coverage. Previous AFDs have accepted this such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003 showing there is definitely no consensus that the presumption that they are notable should be ignored. As seen by comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom editors in relevant wikiprojects discuss these articles without any argument they should be deleted (indeed there was a proposal back a while at a wikiproject that parish elections were ok to cover which I think goes too far). Apologies for the length of comment but I do not see why these articles should be deleted. (Others seem to agree, just while this AFD has been going another 2 articles have been started on English local elections - not by me). Davewild (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in the long run think about how local election results should be presented. The precedent that doesn't quite fit is that local authorities tend to cover roughly the same area as a Parliamentary constituency, but we don't have one article per constituency per election. The alternative would be to have one page per local authority call Elections to xxxx and put the individual ward results into something like Wikisource, but that's a decision that would have to be made across the board for all English (or even UK) local elections. To do this randomly depending on which pages happened to be nominated for AfD would be a mess. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say Wikisource itself would not accept election results, it is one of the specific items they exclude at the What is Wikisource page. Davewild (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another project that accepts stuff like this, or would that require a new project? (If it is eventually decided that moving them from Wikipedia is desirable). Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wikimedia project other than the wikipedias that accepts election results and I do not know of any collaborative project outside of wikipedia that does either. Personally as you know I think they should stay on wikipeda:) and almost certainly would not support any project ouside of the wikimedia group. Davewild (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I know where you stand on this :-). If we had some sort of directory service... perhaps just for elections and other things... But that's outside of my power. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the US we have a lot of elections. Here in California usually twice per year with perhaps 20 or thirty offices being voted for and maybe a dozen or so Propositions. These are all split at the county and city level so I might expect almost a thousand articles per year for California. So far as I know no-one has yet started to write these articles. But if they do these will outnumber council elections in the UK. It would be hard to argue that they are less notable than UK council elections. I think many people will argue that the US elections at this level of detail should not be included in Wikipedia and the UK council elections would be thrown out with the bathwater. I think people interested in preserving the UK information should seriously consider alternative places to use as a host. Dingo1729 (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 2007[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 2006[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 2004[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 2003[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All elections are notable to some degree. If a larger article is created later covering a larger timeframe, then it could be merged.--Dmol (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To some degree"... Indeed, but is the degree up to par with Wikipedia's standards? Right now there that they could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - election results should always be kept as long as they are verifiable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 2002[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 1999[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 2000[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Council election, 1998[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections#Council_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcomes. The rest could safely be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Category:English local elections by year has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If they are inherently notable, perhaps this could be listed at WP:EVENT or a similar notability guideline. I looked at WP:EVENT and WP:AFDP but did not see anything specifically about elections, just candidates. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these election articles can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been expanded from where it was when it was nominated - see this dif, adding coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Locus Technologies. And delete also. Sandstein 11:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neno Duplan[edit]

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

No proof of notability independent of his company Locus Technologies. (Which is a well ref'd article and should stay.) Self promotion by the subject of the article. The few refs are all about the company or brief mentions in business sites. Delete or redirect to company. Dmol (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG. All references found in search are his CV or press releases which mention his name. Agree, article history suggests self promotion and COI. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Locus Technologies per nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Barack Obama[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We have had two previous discussions about this and the results were delete and no consensus so it seems fair to take another look. The article has grown into an extensive genealogy despite our policy that genealogy is not appropriate content. Obama's family is now stated to include people as diverse as Queen Elizabeth II and Elvis Presley and so it's time to call a halt before we all end up in there. Obama's immediate family can be covered in their own articles if they are notable or in a brief mention in Obama's article, if they are not. A relevant section already exists so we don't need this fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was notified as though I were the article creator, even though I'm not, but as long I'm here: It's hardly in doubt that the topic of Obama's family has received plenty of coverage, what with birtherism and so forth. The two previous AfDs are no longer applicable, as they date from before before Obama's election as president. More importantly, an article with on the order of 5,000 readers a day probably meets a real need of our readers. If the article is excessively long, it can be trimmed via editing and does not need deletion. Sandstein 08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandstein appears as the first entry in the article history. I also notified the editor who first expanded the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess this nomination is motivated at least in part by the observation that articles such as this one are important tools for reigning in the growth of pseudo-biographies of the relatives of very notable people. In any case, that function alone is already sufficient reason to keep the article. The problem that Colonel Warden is describing can be solved by editing and by merging per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I am slightly irritated that Colonel Warden did not think of this himself, given the explicit guidance in the first item of WP:BEFORE to acquaint oneself with the deletion policy before nominating an article for deletion.
That said, there are problems with this article. The apparent fact that Obama's mother is a sixteenth cousin of Queen Elizabeth II is of course very intriguing and is highly relevant to the noteworthy point that Obama's family tree is very international. But it seems to be built entirely on original research, and as far as I can tell not even the sources for the data used in this original research are indicated in the article. So this may have to go. Or maybe not. Maybe we should have a wider discussion about articles such as Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States or Line of succession to the British throne‎ (currently mentioning about 3,000 living people!), which all seem to have sourcing and notability/noteworthiness problems. Hans Adler 09:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article demonstrates that omnibus compilations such as this do not rein in growth; they instead encourage the proliferation of minor details which would not otherwise be able to get established. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The great thing is that a person who is not interested can skip the whole thing if it's all in one place. Others can read it, and maybe even learn something -- if only about the interrelatedness of all humans.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Sandstein. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The genealogical articles entry at WP:NOTDIR allows genalogical lists for those with established fame, achivement or notoriety. The article gets up simply on policy. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Notable" since the topic has been covered in depth by many reliable sources, although perhaps in not as much detail as here. It is also a topic of interest to many people. I agree that some of it is not all that important, but there is no rule that everything has to be. Lots of people are interested in President Obama as a person, not just as a president. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irony - I think the Obama family overall has received enough RS coverage to merit an article, but I wonder how many AfDs Warden has opposed on "cleanup is not grounds for deletion" grounds. If about half of the idiot cruft can be lopped out of this article...the "distant relations" section is a gallery of trivia sourced to insipid "OMG look who the black man's distantly related to!" newspapers...it may be redeemable. Many of the trivial relations, such as the 20 yr old motorcycle accident victim or the cousin with no last name, need to be pruned. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are three questions here, I think. First off, is the topic "Family of Barack Obama" worthy of encyclopedic coverage? I think it is. Second, is the topic of the piece the subject of multiple instances of independent and trustworthy reportage? Clearly it is, I don't think anyone could possibly argue otherwise. Third, is this piece a content fork of Barack Obama? No, I don't believe it is — it is a readily-linked sub-page of that article established to keep the main piece from becoming too cumbersome to read. Pretty much a clear KEEP, in my book. That said, there is way too much genealogical trivia in this piece, it runs too long, and the layout is pretty ugly. Work to be done with the hedge-clippers, in other words. This is no reason to delete, of course, but suggestions for future editing. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And expand, expand, expand. This is after all what wikipedia is best at. John lilburne (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – What! And create individual articles for family members? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic of Obama's extended family is encyclopedic. WP:NOTEVERYTHING specifies that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries, but it specifies that this concerns biographical articles and that less well known people should be included in other articles - such as this one. Obama's family has also received plenty of coverage in sources. I admit that the inclusion of the more distant "family members" is more tenuous, but if this is a problem then it can be solved by editing rather than deletion. Hut 8.5 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until such time as the President leaves office, this provides a reality check for birthers and others curious of his lineage. Overly inclusive genealogy can be edited for brevity. Cmholm (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep' - a lot of it is unreliably sourced and needs to be cleaned up. Avaya1 (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gives some information that can be found useful for various subjects, such as school reports on Obama or people who want to know more about him. Sunshineisles2 --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable, but I think it could do with some editing out of more trivial relationships.IrishStephen (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be, perhaps, a bit bloated, but this article would be considered useful by a wide spectrum of people, especially concerning student reports and journalistic articles.Oberlinjoe (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College Church[edit]

See[8]I.Casaubon (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Local church with no indication of importance. Makes for amusing reading but not sourced and seems unlikely to be able to source. BelloWello (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The church looks pretty notable to me. A quick google establishes that it was founded as and long continued to be the church attended by the faculty of Wheaton College, arguably America's premier Christian college. I'll add some sources, but the 675 results in a search of google books look pretty substantive.[9]I.Casaubon (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm all for deleting articles of non-notable churches, but this has been listed in the top 50 influential churches - clearly not an ordinary church. The article still needs some work, of course. St Anselm (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who listed it as a top 50 influential church? I didn't realize that a passing, one-time mention in a list on the website of a non-notable magazine established notability. BelloWello (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several new inline citations have been added, including some that are entirely independent of the church web site. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator. I know that this article needs further work, but I am troubled by the nature of the nomination. The nom asserts that this is a "Local church with no indication of importance." When he wrote the=is AFD, the second sentence of the article read: "In 2006, College Church was listed as being the 37th most influential non-catholic church in America by "The Church Report".[2]" And a quick google instantly establishes that this is a large, influential church. I believe that there ought to be some constraint on editors starting AFD's without doing a brief good-faith search on google. Or perhaps a means of red-flagging editors who do so repeatedly.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bad faith are incivil. Please strike. BelloWello (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad faith, Error. You happened on an article that was poorly sourced to the churches own web page only. You erroneously assumed that it was not a notable church although notability that is easily verified with a simple search. You stated that there was no assertion of notability in the article although there was a sourced assertion that it is one of the top fifty non-Catholic churches in America. That is not evidence of bad faith, merely of carelessness. I understand mistakes. I make them myself ;-). What I do not understand is your battfleid mentality after the notability of the church has been established using reliable sources. This is a big deal church at Wheaton College (Illinois), for heavens sake. Why not just admit that you made a mistake - maybe you were working too fst on too many AFD's or something - and withdraw your nomination and move on?I.Casaubon (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to show examples of those notable, secondary sources covering the church. So far all I've seen is an unnotable church magazine's website. Otherwise, you can claim anything you want and it won't make any fucking difference for me. BelloWello (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foul language is inappropriate.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little in the way of third-party coverage. "the church attended by the faculty of Wheaton College" = a WP:INHERITED argument, and thus invalid. The "top 50" rating is not from a prominent source (in fact essentially a WP:SPS, as far as I can tell), and I have concerns about their sampling methodology (seems highly biased towards megachurches -- which would tend to have a similar ideology, conservative 'non-denominational', as this one). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an aggressive, unpleasant undertone tone in the efforts to delete this article, and, in particular, in the assertions that this well-known church lacks reliable third-parts citations being made by editors who cannot have done good faith searches on variants of the church's name or they could not make such assertions.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then you would be better off proving it by introducing such material into the article, rather than violating WP:AGF by attacking those who disagree with you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions are about whether the subject of the article is notable. They are not about whether or not the sources in the article as written are sufficient. You are wrong and inappropriately contentious in voting to take an article down on the basis of currently inadequate sourcing. Editors entering an AFD discussion are responsible for determining whether the topic is WP:notable. They are not responsible for adequately sourcing poorly-sourced articles on notable topics. Like the College Church.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"AFD discussions are about" WP:Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "They are not about" violating WP:AGF by making ad hominem attacks on editors who disagree with you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions such as "amusing reading but not sourced and seems unlikely to be able to source", Local church with no indication of importance" and "little in the way of third-party coverage" are simply untrue. They have a mocking antagonistic tone. And they are misleading to editors coming to this page who expect us to be able to back up the statements we make here. We all make mistakes. What I object to is editors who make untrue statements and allow them to stand even after sources are added and the notability of a source is pointed out. I do not understand wht these editors are about, but it appears to me to be something other than the objectively asessed notability of this church.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Your claim that they "are simply untrue" is an argument by assertion. (ii) There is nothing "mocking antagonistic" about stating "little in the way of third-party coverage" (whether you agree with it or not) -- it is DIRECTLY addressing WP:GNG criteria. -- so kindly Comment on content, not on the contributors. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speak respectfully, please. The Nom opened this AFD on a large, well-established congregation with the remark "(delete this shit!)". Elsewhere [10] he votes to delete an article on a church with the remark "nothing about this church makes it any more notable than the 5000 member baptist church down the road from my house that I am forced to see every sunday." He appears to be unable to leave his emotions outside when he enters AFD discussions.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the same discussion on the Carey Baptist Church you refer to, you left this comment, Casaubon:

What makes a congregation WP:notable? Having a recent pastor who is WP:notable. Being a large enough church to support two pastors. Being housed in an architecturally notable building. Supporting missionaries in India. The fact that a missionary they sponsor was among the many Christian missionaries in recent years arrested on trmped-up charges in a country where many people resent Christian missionaries? The hiring or departure of a pastor meriting an article in the local paper. I believe that any or all of these add up to WP:notability for a congregation.

I will be happy to answer that for you. None of that makes a church notable. A church attains notability by meeting the notability requirements, which require multiple substantial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Neither this church, or the other, has attained that level. Oh, and I can use whatever language I would like, thank you. BelloWello (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book has some decent coverage of the church. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is published by Moody Publishing, related to Dwight L. Moody whose records are now housed by Wheaton College (Illinois), among other connections. There is too close a connection between the two for me to consider that substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I would also question the reliability of a book published by a non-scholatic publisher, written by a pastor and sports journalist on churches... I don't see anything in their qualifications to do that. Finally, the book provides mini-profiles of MANY, many churches, some of which are very small and certainly not notable. In short, I can see using the book to add background information about a notable subject, I cannot see using the book to establish notability, but maybe other editors will see differently. BelloWello (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While they certainly hold to very similar ideologies, I think that Moody and Wheaton are organizationally independent. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. And College Church is independent from both of them and, despite its name, is not affiliated with the college. Three Christian institutions can be in the same town and agree on matters of faith while retaining independence.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the book and mentioned above and a few news articles that I found on Google News Archive, I think this is enough to satisfy WP:ORG. [11][12][13] [14] Qrsdogg (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sources I have added a great deal of material form reliable secondary sources. There is a great deal more that I or other can add, given time. I hope any editors coming to this page will consider the article as it now stands. Even though WP:N shold not depend on the current quality of th page, but only on the inherent notability of the subject. p.s. that Jean Driscoll raced in this Church's local, annual fundraiser/race to support its disability ministry is cool.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that have been added. Given the condition of the article when its AFD was started, I can see the nomination as reasonable, but there's no reason to continue to advocate deletion now. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google book search proves notability. Historical encyclopedia of Illinois, Volume 2 By Newton Bateman, Paul Selby[15] covers it on page 687. Dream Focus 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not meet the Five tenants of WP:Notability. Following I list the key citations and state their violation in order of the use by above editors to justify keep votes: FIRST 50 most influential church list was put out by The Church Report. This site is a push advertiser. Their own 'about' page identifies their advertisement mission. They purposefully do not identify as a news source or polling source because they are not. The Church Relevance site which is cited on this article as the source of the list (which it is not) is a blog by Kent Shaffer for his company. To conclude, no editorial integrity means it violates Reliable; SECOND The Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois provides a list and description of 12 churches in Wheaten with no special notice given to College Church over the others mentioned. The Encyclopedia provides similar lists for other towns in DuPage. This citation violates Significant coverage; THIRD No other reference provides a Reliable source with Significant coverage. The Reliable sources cited (i.e., Chicago Trib, Daily Harold, Aurora Daily Star, Christianity Today & Chauncey Park Press) all are articles predominantly about other subjects where the College Church is only mentioned in passing. None of them constitute Significant coverage. I suggest editors address the above problems before suggesting this article meets WP:Notability. Dkriegls (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois wouldn't include anything that wasn't notable. The coverage seems significant enough to me. There is no actual rule stating how many words are needed to be considered significant. This isn't just some token mention, but them listing the history of it as well. Dream Focus 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia lists and describes the "Banking Interests" and "Public Utilities" of each DuPage town in equal coverage as it gives the church. While I agree that a specific word count is not criterion for significance (nor should it be), mention in the Historical Encyclopedia is not grounds for notability alone. Unless you argue that the public utilities meet WP:Notability? The coverage of this church is no more than any other in the encyclopedia thus highlighting the "non-uniqueness" of its origins. Lots of churches have written founding histories and notable preachers and popular charity events, that doesn't make the church itself notable. This church at best requires greater mention in the Wheaten College's page, but I have not yet seen an citation that justifies it's own page.

Keep I added more refs. Google also has a place page for the church, which I added. Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what world does a Google Place Page prove notability? bW 17:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People can't note a topic if they can't identify it, the ten other sources added should help "prove notability". Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator BelloWello has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Is this AfD still valid? OCNative (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment link provided by nominator is dead. And I see no reason for deletion Bulwersator (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well known and long established Evangelical church, associated with a very well known Christian college, and now the article has several new sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PARVE Charging System[edit]

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

Unremarkable product, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Reads like a how to guide. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See revision for scope of project - which is rather more than a soldering iron job original may have suggested Timpo (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [16]. possible WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you try any Spanish search engines, since this article is essentially a translation? Timpo (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restructured and added to article a modified extract from its System Spec - English version of which is still in draft. see also article talk page Timpo (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 27 April 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) 00:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stil not seeing how this might meet notability guidelines. Still only a single primary source reference. Non-English sources are fine but none have been specified yet. RadioFan (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OScar, & EV recharging This is a contribution to Open Source Electric Vehicle technology which I am researching (q.v. OScar (open source car) for more on this). There appears to be no company or clear PARVE sponsoring entity, although two small Madrid companies (Alargador and BeELEC) and some private individuals are involved, and I have seen a couple of units that they call "X-models" (experimental or design proving products). As the references are scant, maybe this should be integrated to the article Charging station which is a redirect from Electric vehicle#Charging stations), but those are also rather a long and muddled entries which are sometimes hard to follow. Maybe this (seemingly complex) emerging topic 'alternative personal transportation' is a candidate for some systematic restructuring; e.g. Personal transport> innovative vehicle technology > proposed personal transport infrastructure (such as supplies of hydrogen, electricity, pressurized air etc)??? Timpo (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Because this technology is not yet mature, there are several standards, mostly issued by manufacturers. There is an an ongoing discussion within USA Europe and the various industry entities[reply]
Electric vehicle#Charging stations
Electric vehicle network
Charging station
IEC 62196 (International standards, now incorporates edirect from VDE-AR-E 2623-2-2)
SAE J1772 (US Standards)
Park & Charge European system
Better Place USA & other countries)
Plug In America
Solar City Domestic Recharge system
ChargeAmerica
Plugless Power
Alternative fuel vehicle
- Electric vehicle
- Battery electric vehicle
- Electric car
- Compressed-air vehicle
- Compressed air car
- Riversimple Urban Car Hydrogen/Fuel cell vehicle
- Morgan LIFEcar Hydrogen/Fuel cell vehicle

Related issues include Talk:Electric vehicle network, c,mm,n (pronounced common) redirects to Open-source hardware although it is in fact an open source community for sustainable personal mobility , Talk:Solar-charged vehicle Merge proposal Talk:Solar vehicle Timpo (talk) 09:13, 4 May 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, Sandstein 07:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - insufficient notability for a standalone article. All references in GSearch and Gnews are to charging stations, methods, locations, etc, and expired articles on electric car news sites and blogs. Merge to Charging station --Whiteguru (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources in the article are primary sources so cannot be used to establish notability. I disagree with a merge to charging station because given the lack of reliable sources discussing this topic, and given that PARVE Charging System is not directly related to Charging station, a merge would not improve the encyclopedia. Delete per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus for deletion, keeping or merging (the latter not being helped by a suitable target which has reached consensus view). Incidentally, although a merge with von Neumann architecture was indeed proposed on the article's talk page, there is no clear agreement with it there, but that is a matter for further discussion at the talk page - a note on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing mentioning the merge proposal, and asking for more input would not be a bad idea. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

System bus model[edit]

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

I PROD'ed this article last October, but it was contested. The reason given was: rm PROD - this is a variant on the Von Neumann architecture, and I found alot of books with it, not just two - it describes the standard configuration of an x86/68k/etc machine. A discussion subsequently took place at the article's talk page; Talk:System bus model. A merge to von Neumann architecture was proposed, but has not been carried out.

My rationale for deleting this article is basically the same as it was last year. There is no indication that its topic, the system bus model, is notable. My original rationale, is still as relevant today as it was then. I am of the opinion that the rebuttal of the editor who contested the PROD inadequatly addressed the concerns I outlined in the PROD rationale in two ways. Firstly, it was asserted that there was coverage; not shown that there was; either by stating how sources were found so it could be independently verified (in the PROD, I detailed how I looked for coverage), or by listing the sources themselves. Secondly, I get the impression that because the topic is associated with the von Neumann architecture, those opposing deletion are doing so on the basis that its notability is presumed and/or inherited. For the latter case, WP:NOTINHERITED sums up why it is not a good idea.

As previously mentioned, the article was proposed for merging. In practice, problems with articles that could be fixed by normal editing (which includes merging) should not be nominated for deletion. In my opinion, this article cannot be fixed by merging because its the coverage its topic has is trivial compared to that of the von Neumann architecture, which would result in undue weight if merged.

Lastly, the article is referenced to sources that are reliable, but does coverage of the article's topic in these sources meet WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage? I can only assess the first source, a book, since it is the only one that can be previewed at Google Books. In that book, coverage begins at the bottom of page 31, and resumes half-way down page 32 and ends shortly after. The amount of text on the topic is around one typically-sized paragraph. It is clear that the first source is not significant coverage of the topic. For something which claims to be an evolution of the von Neumann architecture, I expect there to be substaintial coverage. This was raised at the article's talk page, but no direct response was given. Rilak (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've put a lot of work and careful thought into this AfD. I wish that energy and intelligence could somehow be funneled into the articles in question. I apologize for dropping the ball on the merge. I still beleive this can be done sucessfully and at least one other editor has concurred. I will try to find time to do it. I'm confident that the WP:UNDUE and WP:N issues can be dealt with by the editors of Von Neumann architecture. As far as the AfD is concerned, I favor whatever approach most expeditiously gets rid of this article while salvaging anything of value. --Kvng (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete Without further researching the subject on other sources, let us first read the relevant sections of the references. The second reference of the article ([17]) starts its 1.4 The System Bus Model section, just after the 1.3 The Von Neumann Model section with the (page 5):"Although the von Neumann model prevails in modern computers, it has been streamlined.", which suggests that the so-called System bus model is the modern version of the Von Neumann model. The image on the article page is also a re-drawn copy of the "Figure 1-3 The system bus model of a computer system. [Contributed by Donald Chiarulli, Univ. Pittsburgh.]", page 5 from the same source. The term System bus model is only mentioned once in the first reference ([18]), inside the 1.7 Von Neumann Model section and before 1.8 Non-Von Neumann Model section, with "This architecture (ed. Von Neumann) has also been streamlined into what is currently called the system bus model" (page 32). This reference is published six years later than the other. We can conclude that these two references, both of which are published books about computer architecture, describes system bus model as a modern version of the Von Neumann model. Thus, merging the article into Von Neumann Model is plausible if it doesnt fail WP:WEIGHT.

When we check the web for other sources, we can see that the majority of the sources are direct copies from either of these two books (mostly the first) or from the course pages of the universities that use these books as the course textbooks. Some articles mention it (like [19]) but they either don't discuss it deeply or they're not directly related to the subject. This is (if I understand correctly) the main concern of the nominator per WP:GNG.

This lack of sources except these books (that are mainly used as textbooks) suggests that the term is in fact coined to address a general modern version of the Von Neumann model. The main reference describes the model further by (page 5-6): ""Most important to the system bus model, the communications among the components are by means of a shared pathway called the system bus, which is made up of the(..) the system bus is actually a group of individual busses classified by their function." The system bus page redirects to front-side bus, probably because of the sources like ([20]). There is an old discussion on the talk page which address the difference between two terms (Talk:Front-side_bus#System_Bus).

I think the article strongly needs ((expert-subject)). Nimuaq (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I never challenged the existence of the system bus model. I challenge its notability and whether it would be due weight to merge it into von Neumann architecture. After all, the claim that the von Neumann architecture has been streamlined, and that the resulting streamlined version of it is called the system bus model, has only been shown to be supported (so far) by the two textbooks mentioned as references in the article, and their accompanying materials such as lecture presentations. Now, consider the amount of coverage the von Neumann architecture has received: two textbooks (including one whose coverage of the topic is a single paragraph) versus the 6,210 results Google Books found containing the term "von Neumann architecture" but without "system bus model".

Finally, regarding the IEEE Design and Test of Computers article, the term "system bus model" is referring to a behavioral model of the system bus. It is not claiming that it is an evolution of the von Neumann architecture. As I mentioned in my original PROD notice, there are far more instances where the term has been used to refer to a behavioral or electrical model of a system bus than what the article claims. Rilak (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you haven't challenged the existence, but rather challenged the notability, as I already stated above. I can also easily verify your finding of "more instances where the term has been used to refer to a behavioral or electrical model of a system bus" compared to the two sources (published books) above. I searched for the system bus (not the model) this time together with the Von Neumann architecture and found out that the majority of the book sources discuss the system bus, usually under Von Neumann architecture, with the same definition and the same structure of which the source of the article discusses the system bus model (one of the recent ones of the several examples here) Thus, I think the authors of the book ([21]) used the system bus model term to explain the system bus and the modern interpretation of the Von Neumann model in one section.

More than ten years after the books first edition, this model is still not widely discussed under that particular name, so I think you're right when you say it fails WP:GNG. For the merging articles, I -now- think that since all of the content the article offers is discussed under the system bus in numerous sources, rather than a merger, the relevant parts should either be moved to the article System bus or the page should be created with other particular sources, where a link can be created for the front-side bus article, for it might also refer to it. Nimuaq (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although not totally clear what into what. Having system bus redirect into front-side bus is worse IMO. It ignores the first 35 years or so of computer architecture. I would say make a section in Von Neumann architecture, which now now stops in the 1950s. The developments between the 1950s and the PC-compatible era are missing. I would also support moving the System bus model info into system bus and adding the "glue". For example, should mention notable examples like the Omnibus of the PDP-8, the Unibus and Q-Bus of the PDP-11, Multibus, VMEbus etc. actually, Bus (computing) might the better place for this to go. The diagram is especially very nice and would like to resue it. I probably have some time to help if we reach a consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that would be fair. I've seen the image on a number of other books too, some of which are published before the main source of the System bus model. But I'm not sure about if its a common diagram (which can be attributed to common knowledge) or specially drawn since the source its taken says "Contributed by Donald Chiarulli, Univ. Pittsburgh.", as I explained above. The diagram is either first drawn by Donald Chiarulli or the authors did not have such a diagram and they couldn't draw it themselves. If its the latter, it is a bit odd since the authors of the book first used the term System bus model yet they cant draw that basic diagram and still need someone to contribute it for them. Nimuaq (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is not up for deletion; it's not part of the article but an entry in the file namespace: [22]. The diagram is also incorrect. The CPU should be shown to contain an ALU, control unit, and registers. I agree that system bus should be turned into an article, but I don't think merging content from this article into there is a good idea since the content is very specific to the system bus model. Rilak (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only the introduction is specific to system bus model, the content in Communications section discusses the system bus like other sources: [23], [24]. I think those relevant sections can be easily merged into a separate article for the system bus. Nimuaq (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, the entire section in question is specific to the system bus model since the source it cites has that coverage for the purpose of discussing the system bus model. Quite frankly, I don't see any of redeeming qualities that you and Nowicki see in that section. The act of merging the content might be easy, but fixing up the content is not. The section contradicts itself. It says that the I/O bus is part of the system bus, and then it claims more sophisticated architectures have separate I/O buses. It also makes some claims which are quite questionable; such as the power bus being part of the system bus; and that the address bus can be used by the receiver to determine the transmitter (the command bus would be used instead for this purpose). I think starting anew; without the structural baggage of the section in question (the section was intended to talk about the system bus model; not system buses in general; and is structured according) would be preferable in regard to editing effort and the resulting quality. Rilak (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a second look to the article, the main source ([25]) does not state the I/O bus and the power bus being a part of the system bus. It just discusses those separately inside the "System bus model" section. Thanks for pointing out, I agree that starting a new article without a merge is a better solution. Nimuaq (talk) 13:07, 9 May 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, Sandstein 07:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge This article describes the computer/CPU/system bus in the traditional sense as the aggregation of the data, address and control buses. It could (should?) be merged with Bus (computing), but that article mainly treats expansion buses. —Ruud 09:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article partly describes the system bus in a general sense; and it only does so to permit its primary topic, which is the system bus model, to be discussed. I think the amount and depth of discussion regarding this article's worthiness for inclusion deserves a better keep or merge argument; specifically responses to the concerns regarding the notability of the topic; and the quality and utility of the article's content. Rilak (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either— reading it again, I would agree just deleting this one would also be reasonable. My main problem is that it seems to confuse an "architecture" like the von Neumann, with an implementation style, which I would say a system bus is. Not a "model"? That is, a system bus was one popular way of organizing a von Neumann architecture, as computers went from multiple racks to a single box with modular printed circuit booards. The article probably should be in past tense, since it generally popular from, say the 1970s through the 1990s. And then the more modern front-side bus and HyperTransport etc. with separate memory and I/O busses as the follow-ons need to be clearly stated. W Nowicki (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and take over redirect of System bus, as IMHO System bus is something significantly more specific than generic Bus (computing), specific enough to warrant a separate article. Ipsign (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, it was keep, because the article is about the von Neumann architecture (which it is not). This year, it's keep, because the article is about the system bus (which it is not). Sigh. Rilak (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Ipsign (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if a page can be improved through regular editing then it should not be nominated for deletion. Thank you for stating something that I knew before you even made your first "argument" in this discussion. Now, instead of using policy as a thought-terminating cliche and insinuating that I haven't got the slightest clue as to what I am doing; how about you make an argument as to why you think this page can be solved through regular editing, with responses to the existing arguments that say it is not possible and not desirable? Rilak (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks (saying that I am "insinuating" IMHO easily qualifies on this account, in particular violating WP:AVOIDYOU) will lead us nowhere. Why the article can be improved - this article contains information (in particular, a diagram) which doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I think this information clearly belongs to Wikipedia. In addition, "System bus" is an obviously notable concept (have been in widespread use for about 20 years - references can be easily found), and is not really covered anywhere else. Argument saying something like "it is not an article about the system bus", is not a valid one per quote from WP:ATD which I've provided (if it is not an article on system bus, let's improve it and make it an article on system bus). While providing further arguments is possible, it looks pretty much pointless, as I don't see how discussion in this AfD can come even close to "rough consensus" required for deletion. Ipsign (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been well established that the diagram is not up for deletion; that the "valuable" diagram is wrong (last year at Talk:System bus model!); and that the "unique" content is of poor quality (and is deemed to be not salvageable). My opposition of your argument that the article should be kept because it is about the system bus is perfectly valid because the article is not about the system bus (or the von Neumann architecture); it is about the system bus model. If you want coverage about the system bus, then correct place to add it is system bus. WP:ATD says nothing about rewriting an article about one topic to another under an incorrect title.

Furthermore, I must add that the mergers and keepers seem to be opposing deletion of this page because they want an article on the system bus. Why they are commenting here, in this AfD, escapes my comprehension, since the amount of effort they have expended on discussion here could have been spent turning system bus into an article. It seems that they view me as deleting coverage of the system bus from Wikipedia. That cannot be further from the truth. I want coverage of the system bus model deleted, which only happens to contains tangential coverage of the system bus. Also, the system bus model and system bus pages are independent of each other; content can be added to the latter page at any time and be safe from whatever the outcome of this AfD. The logic of some of the opposing arguments can be compared to fighting tooth and nail for keeping an article on about an non-notable expansion bus because the article, in addition to specific coverage on the bus, also happens to include a basic definition of expansion buses in general for the purposes of accessibility and context. Rilak (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there would have been an article about the system bus which this could have been redirected to, I would have voted "redirect". I you really want this gone, perhaps try remedying this first? —Ruud 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no obligation to create articles that you desire. AfD is not a game where editors compel each other to perform favors in return for support and votes. Although I know of no policy or guideline that states this (since I have no interest in such games), I believe that my position on what AfD is not is the community norm. Rilak (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing. —Ruud 22:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bus (computing). Except for a couple of obscure textbooks, nobody treats this as a topic of major importance, or sufficiently distinct from that of bus interconnect. There's no great theoretical concept here, just some pedantic wankery from a couple of obscure academic authors. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked some more through the textbook that was used to write most of this article, and the problem is not that it's fringe, but that it's simply too introductory. There's only a brief treatment of buses in real systems for instance on pp. 319-320. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The system bus model is claimed to be an evolution of the von Neumann architecture (the 1st and 5th sentences in the article) whose sub-units (CPU, memory, and I/O) are connected by a one central bus, the system bus (the 2nd sentence). The system bus model is not about the system bus or any other bus (although the article does discuss buses, but only in the context of the system bus model), so why should the article be merged into Bus (computing)? Rilak (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the system bus model is a fringe topic because the claim that there is an evolved form of the von Neumann architecture called the system bus model (which uses a system bus to connect the CPU, memory and I/O) is completely different to the claim that some von Neumann architecture machines use a system bus to connect the CPU, memory and I/O. Rilak (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "von Neumann architecture" is a fuzzily defined topic. So, depending how you choose to define that, "System bus model" is or isn't an extension. In fact, nothing in this interconnect model implies that the program is stored in the memory. There are some textbooks that don't present it as an extension of VN, but only as a simple (or simplistic) overview of bus-based computers (this one also has a DMA controller in the pic), (this has a ROM too). It's not really an encyclopedia topic by itself. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the system bus model is or is not an extension of the VNA, depending on how one wishes to define it, or interpret its definition based on the context of how VNA is used in any context, is irrelevant. What is relevant is how reliable sources discuss the system bus model in the context of the VNA; and the sources in the article define it as an extension of the VNA in terms of how the subunits are connected. Therefore, we must discuss whether to include coverage of the system bus model in Wikipedia or not as defined by the sources in the article, and not what we deem are reasonable viewpoints because that would be improper synthesis and original research. Additionally, the textbooks that describe a VNA computer using a system bus cannot be portrayed as coverage of the system bus model because no source has called such an implementation a system bus model; nor has any source stated that system bus and system bus model are synonymous terms. Rilak (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been out of town for a week but am back now. An introductory book would be fine for a basic article if it were up to date. But from the author's web site the 1999 book has been replaced with a 2007 book already. I still have a basic problem calling it a "model". It is not an "architectural model" in the narrow sense usually used in computer science. For example, the PDP-8 had some implementations that used a system bus (the PDP-8/E) while others (like the PDP-8/I) did not, even though they were binary compatible and therefore the same "architectural model". Early PCs also used a single system bus, while later ones evolved into dual independent busses, and then modern architectures with even more busses. Here is a proposal that I might have time to start today:

redo the diagram in svg without the "ALU, control, register" confusion
expand system bus to an article about the use of a single bus that was popular in the 1970s and 80s.
narrow front-side bus a bit to apply only to the Intel-compatible design of the 1990s-2000s.
add links from other related articles to the system bus article, putting it into both historical and architectural context
delete this one, after replacing the one link to it

W Nowicki (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I ran into a problem in step 1. I drew a diagram in Inkscape, but uploading it to commons as File:Computer system bus.svg results in big black blotches. Some incompatibility between Inkscape and WIkimedia renderer? I also found File:Computer buses.svg which might work in the interim. It is a bit misleading since it shows data going into ROM, while it generally only comes out (that is what makes it read-only!). But perhaps a decent start. W Nowicki (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Neumann syndrome a few weeks ago. This is similar stuff. It helps nobody. Szzuk (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Crest[edit]

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

~~This individual does not meet the general notability guideline, there is are reliable sources establishing this subjects notability. This article seems to simply promote an unknown individual.~~ Thisbites (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rescind my nomination, upon further review he is of note for his role in NFL halftime shows, TV program, and due to press he has received.Thisbites (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as nomination is rescinded. Article needs wikifying, although. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dick Crest was a significant contributor to the musical life of the San Francisco Bay Area, through his work as a music educator at the College of San Mateo and as a band leader at the popular Russian River resort of Rio Nido. Sallyrob (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ybsolo[edit]

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

Organization does not appear to be notable. Of the sources listed, one is a PR release, three are from ybsolo itself, and the fifth dosen't really have any information in it. I can't find replacement sources. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete novel company may be notable in the future but at the moment it is not. no press. no news hits. violates the no ads rule.Thisbites (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I learned that Ybsolo is a word in the Bobangi language, and bad optical character recognition indicates (falsely) that the word was printed in the Detroit Free Press in 1916. Other than that, Ybsolo is entirely non-notable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Remove until site is more noteable -- Dylan8902 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (GMT)

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Middle School, Arizona[edit]

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

This Fowler Elementary School District middle school article is not only a trainwreck, but it probably doesn't pass muster at the GNG. Most of AZ's middle school articles are gone, but this one probably needs to join them. Raymie (t • c) 04:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the school district or high school it feeds into. Middle schools are generally not notable, and this one does not appear to be an exception. Monty ₈₄₅ 06:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Monty. Edison (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd consider that if it weren't for the fact that the page has a parenthetical (here in commas, oddly enough). While people may search "Santa Maria Middle School", they won't be looking for "Santa Maria Middle School, Arizona". Also consider that there are no wikilinks into the article except for notices generated by the AfD, maintenance items, and notices on user talk pages. Raymie (t • c) 04:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) and 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects for the many non-notable elementary and middle schools stubs are not necessary and should be deleted. They are textbook cases of non-notable organizations. They generally have little to no proper sources, are very common and localized. redirects add clutter and condone more future non-notable middle and elementary school stubs. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. poorly written, non-sourced stub about a non-notable middle school. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fowler Elementary School District - already tagged for merging fr three years. Time to do it now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is new, having been created (by me) when I AfD'd this. Most of my school district articles are very dry stubs. Raymie (t • c) 01:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the point of wanting to delete the very content you could use to populate your stubs? If you would like help with this kind of thing, don't hesitate to drop by at WP:WPSCH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Floor (album)[edit]

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

Not convinced this is notable per WP:GNG, also and more specifically, its not notable per WP:NALBUMS as it has little information beyond a track listing and thus without charting or critical reception etc. the article serves little purpose as it lacks considerable context. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This is a tough one for me to decide on, personally. My rationale is that the artist has made it onto the charts with her second album (granted it wasn't a major chart like the Billboard 200), and therefore the artist is notable, but not as notable, say, as Alicia Keys or many others. My only argument towards keeping is not to punch a hole in the discography. The reason my Keep is so weak is because the eponymous album also is not shown to have charted and might be AfDable as well. The question is regarding whether the charting for the second album is unnotable enough to warrant punching holes in the discography. We had a discussion about Short Stories that resulted in a keep due to Billboard coverage despite never charting; did this album and artist attain any coverage within Billboard? That might be the determining factor here. CycloneGU (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating and requesting deletion based on the other principles of WP:NALBUMS, if there is no information beyond a track listing, then an independent page is NOT required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 April 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) 00:01, 1 May 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 04:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on Adassa. This seems standard practice for the non-notable albums of marginally notable artists. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Sell[edit]

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

Is a deputy secretary of energy notable enough? Most refs are quoting things he's said, not really about him. I think he's not notable enough for an article. The-Pope (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean keep. Was interviewed by a San Diego newspaper,[26] and Interfax.[27] His move to Hunt Oil[28] also got coverage in Harper's.[29] And his frat and alma mater think he's famous :) [30][31][32] Fences&Windows 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Have number of references in newspapers as seen in Google news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhi. mehta333 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deputy Secretary is the #2 at a major government department. More often than not, it's the deputy who actually does the work. I'd argue the prominence of the position alone is sufficient, but in this case Fences and Windows also has coverage meeting WP:GNG as well. Ray^Talk 00:59, 6 May 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he is important enough that the media regularly quotes things he has said then he is notable enough to have an article about him. While substantive coverage is the preffered way to establish notability, I think this should also count. Monty ₈₄₅ 06:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: That view is probably the reverse of most people's view - I'd think that you need to have something published about the person, not just what they have to say about/on behalf of the company/department/organisation/etc that they represent. Having said that, if people think that this position is senior/important/respected enough to "automatically" convey notability, then I'm fine by that - I know little of the US government sector and understand that not everything is on google yet. The-Pope (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references found satisfy basic criteria for WP:People --Whiteguru (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. While consensus is marginal, the keep opinions (including one non-!vote "comment"...) present a strong case. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Crosby[edit]

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

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:MUSICBIO. Acting background limited to minor roles. Released one album on nonnotable label. Did not chart. Cind.amuse 15:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to imdb (as quoted in the article), she had at least recurring roles in two TV series. With her additional activities in music (and some not too bad co-writing credits!) notability seems to be established based on WP:MUSICBIO (although the article should probably be improved to reference further of the many sources Gnews will come up with). 132.195.109.67 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can you please be specific and detail how the subject meets the criteria presented at WP:MUSICBIO? Please note that IMDb cannot be used to establish notability. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. At this point, the article is lacking in this area. Cind.amuse 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I also do not see anything that supports WP:MUSICBIO or any other form of WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all IMDB shows is a few recurring bit part roles in Living with Fran and Strong Medicine. I don't see how that helps her meet WP:ENTERTAINER. The music career claims are dealt with well above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:07, 23 April 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, joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have relisted this discussion on procedural grounds, the history of the article up for deletion appears to show that a notice was never placed on the article. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty finding independent coverage of her. The issue is that the article is not very good.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll refrain from !voting, as I've taken an administrative action on this nomination (relisting), but I will note some [33], [34], [35], articles which, in addition to others available, could be used along with those already present in the article as arguments towards notability under WP:GNG. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're funny. You state that you'll refrain from !voting, yet provide a rationale for keeping the article, along with additional sourcing. I would say that you did a good job of providing an appropriate "not a !vote". ;) Cind.amuse 23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's a fine line, when closing AfDs I'm perfectly happy to ignore "weight", if you will, of opinions of editors who ask me to do so, this is not an uncommon situation in nominations. But the comments do have an effect to the extent that they influence other editor's assessments. Perhaps too fine a line. :) Glad you are (I think) amused. :) --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Truly and sincerely amused. Got a chuckle and a smile. It's all good. ;) Cind.amuse 07:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - :) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Toddy1 and Joe Decker, I quickly found assorted articles about her (in addition to those previously noted, here's one from Billboard[36]); these lead me to conclude that she passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that recommendations after April 22 have been made based on a vandalized version of the article, since restored. That said, while the mtv.com content is not independent of the subject and is a duplicate of the allmusic.com reference, it it my opinion that sufficient sourcing has been found to support notability according to the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From the first source joe decker noted (mtv - [37]): "Although she continued to appear in films (including the Danny DeVito movie No Place Like Home, for which she played the lead role)...". I'm unable to find a movie of Danny DeVito called No Place Like Home which she is the lead, I guess it was the working title of House Broken but she is not the lead on that movie either ([38] - Starring: Danny DeVito, Katey Sagal, Supporting actors: Tom Wilson, Ryan Hansen, Skyler Stone). You have already noted that this mtv page is copied from the allmusic reference (the first and one of the three references on the page) ([39]), making both of them unreliable sources. Nimuaq (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors seem determined to remove well cited information about her being Zachary Levi's girlfriend at one time. The reason given is that in the opinion of those editors this is just "fancruft". That she was Mr Levi's girlfriend was why proper news sources bothered to produce stories about her. The career route of being known as someone's wife/daughter/girlfriend and trying to use this to become known in one's own right is actually quite common in the entertainment industry.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It may be a career route in the entertainment industry, but because notability is not inherited in Wikipedia, it is no more than fancruft in the article. ttonyb (talk) 20:32, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 22:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 21:52, 3 May 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 04:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:MUSICBIO. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interviews with her in billboard, baeblemusic (a video interview), and articles about her split with an actor that made it clear they were considered one of the "big celebrity splits" (this is not terminology gossip magazines use about couples where only one is a celebrity - it only is used for couples where both are celebrities). Whether she became a celebrity by using her celebrity connections is even a subject of the billboard article. Successfully doing so makes one notable, this is not a case of "inherited" notability but of notability that is boosted by connections to other notable people. (For actual cases of apparently inheriting notability, take a look at Chelsea Clinton's article, or Bristol Palin's?) Felisse (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the Burial[edit]

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

This band does not appear not have garnered any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor does it seem to have met any of the other criteria of WP:BAND. ^Bongo_matic 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep great band still rising and have 2 albums out through Sumerian. Sumerian Records have Bizzy Bone and Asking Alexandria on their roster, both these artists have achieved worldwide recognition and fame in the media and as to say for After the Burial's part, they have taken tour with several groups even bigger than those two. They are in Revolver, have a music video currently in development and are by the sorts have garnered a good fan base for fans of prog metal and/or metalcore alike. Deleting this article is out of the question. -- GunMetal Angel 10:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Seymour Duncan" the world famous guitar-pickup brand, is proud to have the guitarists Trent Hafdahl and Justin Lowe of After The Burial under their wings, along with many other artists like: Johnny Christ, Synyster Gates and Zacky Vengeance from Avenged Sevenfold, Bruce Kulick and Paul Stanley from Kiss, Mark Morton and Will Adler from Lamb of God, David Gilmour of Pink Floyd and last but not least Slash Hudson from Guns N' Roses and Velvet Revolver, just to mention a few.

References:

- [1]

- [2]

I see no reason in deleting this article, the band is well known worldwide for their technical metal music, very much equal to Born of Osiris, Veil of Maya and Periphery (Sumerian Records), and is still growing. - ChristianTJ 17:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC +1 hour) Edit: 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC + 1 hour)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Guitar pickup endorsements don't constitute coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, an article lacking sources does not mean the article is not notable, it just means no one has yet taken time to look through and establish information with the sources included to the article, Wikipedia is a work in progress after all. -- GunMetal Angel 05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree. But I don't see any sources and all indications are that this is a band that is still in the up and coming rather than arrived stage of their career. Noi prejudice to recreation when they do get the coverage but I just don;t see it now. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With two albums on Sumerian they should meet the inclusion criteria, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage in reliable sources. There is an Allmusic bio and a review, so while there would ideally be more sources than that, there is at least something on which to base the article.--Michig (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Note also the Billboard chart placings.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 6 May 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A great band, known worldwide, has 3 released albums, and here's more sources to keep the page up: Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives - After the Burial and last.fm-After the Burial.--(Snkmad (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately neither Encyclopaedia Metallum nor last.fm are reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family Forest[edit]

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

Fails Notability (WP:GNG, perh. WP:CORPDEPTH), self-publicity (WP:SPIP), neutrality (WP:NPOV) and perhaps conflict of interest (WP:COI). [AfD following removal of PROD, reason - "take to AFD please"] While Google Books turns up 8000 hits, when you remove the ones for which the owner is author, it drops to 1800, mostly irrelevant. Adding genealogy as keyword drops it to 88, and I didn't see any there that actually gave it coverage, as opposed to just using the trademark name. No hits in Google News. An orphan for over 2 years. Of the 11 references cited, all web URLs: 2 are redirecting to an irrelevant page, the original no longer being available; 4 are self-published or press releases; 3 (redundant) point to a page about George Bush being related to Hugh Hefner, and don't name the product/project/whatever it is; one is a review of a product on a non-notable blog; and one is in a reliable independent source, but it is an article about Sarah Palin being related to Alec Baldwin, only mentions Family Forest in passing, and consists almost entirely of quotes from the owner, so it debatably fails WP:SPIP. None of them give the Family Forest significant reliable independent coverage. The page was created and most of the material added by a single user, User:Ancestralmktg, whose activity has been limited almost exclusively to this one article. The whole thing just looks like an attempt at marketing publicity via Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 April 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) 00:19, 22 April 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, Acather96 (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with editing to remove unverified material and promotional tone. Contrary to nominator's summary, at least some of the references cited do appear to be substantial coverage from reliable sources [40] [41]. It's true that they mention the name of the company/project only once in the article, but the whole reference is about information derived from the project and quoting its founder/director. I believe this is notable; perhaps it could be renamed/redirected to the founder Bruce Harrison, who may be more notable than his company. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sum total that has found in reliable sources: "Bruce and Kristine Harrison founded the Family Forest Project in 1995, and since have mapped the ancestral histories of thousands of political leaders, celebrities and historical figures, as well as everyday people." The other supposed reference doesn't mention Family Forest, but instead "a group called Millisecond Publishing which puts out a line of ancestral history CDs from Waimea, Hawaii. . . . Harrison said his ancestry research program now has enough data to map generation-by-generation ancestral pathways to the ancestors of up to 2 billion people." OK, let's commit a WP:SYN and conclude that this is really referring to Family Forest even though it doesn't say so. Even if I were to grant you that the whole articles are about 'the project', two whole articles over a 15 year period is not substantial coverage. (My sister's curio shop has gotten reported in the newspaper more frequently than that.) But I won't grant that. I don't accept that the articles are about the project, they are not. They are also not about Harrison - what I listed above is all they say about Harrison, which does no better at satisfying WP:BIO notability. (And the quotes are just "Harrison says . . . " and "Harrison claimed . . . " which is no better than a press release in terms of fact-checking: they are admitting that they are taking his word for it.) Those two articles are about the findings, two entirely distinct findings. He sent out a press releases on a slow news day that said Politico P being related to Actor B, and later that Porn Publisher H was a distant relative of Politicos B and K, and someone said, "that's cute" and wrote a story about the relationships. The articles mention the project only to give context and called him up for some quotes, but there is no way you can call these two articles substantial coverage and have that term retain any meaning. (It is no different than when CNN reports on a scientific finding, and mention that the work was done by Joe Scientist in the Lab for Interesting Experimentation, where they have been studying the topic for several years. That story is about the finding, not about the scientist and not about the lab group, and neither of the latter two gain substantial notability from two such mentions in 15 years.) From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." In those cites, that is all we get. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is the company or the person (and it looks to me like the person is more notable), they have generated a significant amount of press, and that is supposed to be the criterion here. Whether the stories were inspired by a press release or not is irrelevant; the stories were written by independent reliable sources. Whether their calculations are correct or not is irrelevant. "WP:Verifiability, not truth". When your sister's curio shop gets written up at MSNBC, CBS News, USA Today, and similar national sources, feel free to write an article about her. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, significant coverage, in depth is supposed to be the criterion. Significant. In Depth. The company has been named in passing in one article. The product in another. The man gets quoted in both, but the same can be said of the guy who has a tornado hit his house. Surely getting your name mentioned by a national news source twice in 15 years can't be how low the significance bar has dropped, can it? Again, the stories were no more about the project or about the man than a report about a scientific discovery (of the type found on CNN or BBC every week) is about the researcher or the lab - they always interview the graduate student who is the primary author of the study and that doesn't make the graduate student notable. Such coverage is insufficient to pass the WP:BIO bar, and that is all this guy got. As to the project, everything about the project in those two articles cannot possibly produce more than a stub, and as we have already seen, that lacks the depth required by WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not questioning the accuracy of this particular bit of esoterica. I just don't see how 'mentioned once or twice, briefly, to provide context for a story about something else' can be considered significant coverage in depth of the type required for notability for the company, the product or the man. The only thing that got notable coverage here was Genealogical relationship between Alec Baldwin and Sarah Palin, and Genealogical relationship between Hugh Heffner and Whoever, and we really don't need a Wikipedia article on a genealogical kinship. Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just more genealogy hobbyists wasting our time. Srnec (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not many "genealogy hobbyists" make the national news! --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to, with the same type of story, every election cycle. That and the "the candidate with the 'best' royal descent always wins" nonsense that gets reported every election. Just like the latest guy who claims to have Bigfoot's head in his freezer, or claims to have a perpetual motion machine, and we have a page on perpetual motion machines, but not on each guy making the claim even though his name showed up in the newspaper. Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 7 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient notability to meet WP:ORG. References are principally who is related to who; some references return a 404. Blog entries cited as references. As noted above, WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied by any references or search results. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. In the sense of "not delete". There is consensus that the articles Communalism (Political Philosophy), Communalism and Communalism (South Asia) need to be sorted out, but that can be done editorially via mergers. Sandstein 11:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communalism[edit]

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

There is very little to this article Communalism which is not simply a restatement of material at a different page Communalism (Political Philosophy). It may also be muddled with regard to its distinction from Communitarianism, if any.

The exception: secondary definition of ethnic extremism

There is a section based upon a one sentence, unsourced statement on communalism of another definition. The latter is communalism defined as extreme ethnic loyalty of the sort newspapers often report with regard to Muslim-Hindu conflict. This can be abbreviated as 2:EE.

OR?

There is not enough content to determine whether or not 2:EE is Original Research, or if there is a body of writing on that topic sufficient to form the basis for an article.

Third definition vaguely alluded to

There is also, in the "lede" or lead paragraph, an unsourced reference to the term apparently used as a synonym for utopian socialism. But that page already exists and this article Communalism does not even acknowledge that fact or link.

Disclaimer

Please do not jump to any conclusions because I, the nominator a member of the Conservatism project. I was also on Liberalism, but did not like its userbox. I am strictly NPOV.

Attempted to contact article creator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Altenmann ... banned from editing Wikipedia.

Please review the banning policy before commenting or unblocking.

This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts.

No prejudice

The above information does not necessarily prejudice this discussion, but it probably is pertinent to suggest possible POV issues.

Should "Communalism" be converted to a disambiguation page?

It seems that this page is an awkward substitute for what should be a disambiguation page, unless there is substance sufficient to establish an article on the ethnic loyalty meaning. If so, I would suggest weincubate that article.

Incubation would be acceptable

If these other definitions seem of interest please let's move on and do the work but as it stands this page is duplicative and confusing.

End of Nomination

Bard गीता (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable encyclopedic concept, that's the main thing. The article isn't the best, but it sort of steers things generally in the direction they need to be going. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any unique content to Communalism (Political Philosophy), then Delete. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what is most appropriate would be to merge Communalism (Political Philosophy) into Communalism and then delete the former. It seems to me that the other option would be to create a disambiguation page and then bring Communalism into shape. That would IMO involve removing much of its content which is really just another version of Communalism (Political Philosophy). One of the concerns I wish to bring forth is whether multiple entries on a single topic tend to act as a sort of, dare I say it, a form a quasi-spamming. It inflates a topic beyond the level of legitimacy it has obtained in the world of scholarship. Which brings me to the third concern, which is that the primary distinct topic of Communalism is this sense which I have heard used to regard the regrettable "communal riots" of the Indian subcontinent. But if there is no systematic theoretical, journalistic or other exposition of that term, "communalism", then the article is really just Original Research. In which case, those so interested should publish, by all means, but not on wikipedia. They could create a wiki book on the topic, or they could even create a novel course such as "Sociology and History of Communalism". As much could be said for the secondary distinct topic of Communalism, which is basically synonymous with utopian socialism and should be handled with a link or a redirect. Bard गीता 01:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one into the other. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As these citations and innumerable others at Google Books (found with a search narrowed to before 1980) show, Communalism is not something Murray Bookchin made up.

Communalism:from its origins to the twentieth century; by Kenneth Rexroth

Communalism has a long tradition that Bookchin usurped, by using it as a name for his theories, as part of his history of breaking first with communism and then with anarchism. It has a separate verifiable existence which outside of Murray and India.

The nomination is not potentially biased just because the nominator is on the Conservatism project, but the article is potentially biased because the creator was banned....Nope. Pick one. Can't have it both ways. Anarchangel (talk) 21:01, 6 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is also Communalism (South Asia). It seems to me that these articles need to be sorted out. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do we want to consense to create a disambiguation page? And also to trim out duplicative overlapping content? Bard गीता 22:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, criterion A7. No assertion of the signficance or importance of the musician made in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DreDay[edit]

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

Contested Speedy Delete - this guy has only released anything on you tube - zero claim to notability. Mtking (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion Per above. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ashton (presenter)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources covering the subject of this unsourced WP:BLP. The commonness of his name and the vagueness of the claims in the article makes search difficuly but looking through the article's history makes it clear that this is simply a vanity article. J04n(talk page) 02:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources about that person on the web. --Fire Green Horse (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Pburka (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Closed by nominator as Withdrawn.. Mtking (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Imbaba Church Attacks[edit]

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

~~WP is not a news service (see wikinews), no indication of lasting noteworthiness, the coverage is all of a WP:ROUTINE type. Mtking (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)~~ - I still firmly believe that this is not what WP is about, there is no indication that this is going to be of lasting significance, however this is going to be WP:SNOW so I will withdraw Mtking (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Strongly) This is not a news coverage, and I have no personal gain in creating the article. This is a very relevant event when it comes to Egyptian history, and will be long remembered. Also, the incident has been already covered by all major news agencies in the world. Please let me know how i can help improve the article to meet the standards of Wikipedia encyclopedia. --Fire Green Horse (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Violent conflct between Muslims and Christians in Egypt that results in many deaths and destruction of churches is of a notability far beyond routine news coverage, especially given the broader context of widespread turmoil in the Arab world. These incidents have already received coverage in reliable sources and this article can be expected to develop and improve over time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of article has notability beyond news coverage with regard to inter-religious relations. Agree, article will acquire further notability when developed from this broader perspective. Article needs attention with regard to WP:NPOV --Whiteguru (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep This is an important, notable incident. Patently worthy of an article.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep notable well-sourced topic. There is no reason to nominate an article for deletion only because you are unfortable with the fact that Islamic extremists are accused of vandalism. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen[edit]

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

Pages exist at Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Fuller Olsen. There was some general consensus on the talk page that there be separate pages. What's keeping us from deleting this or creating some sort of a disambiguation page? It seems redundant. Mrmewe (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for much the same reason as we have an article on Morecambe and Wise as well as separate articles on Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise - the partnership was notable (and, notability being permanent, is notable) independently of its two independently notable members. Interested editors (and I'm not one - it's the potential precedent here that concerns me) should obviously be taking care that information in this article (and links to the article) relate only to the partnership and not to the sisters' subsequent separate careers, but that is a matter of routine editing, not deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for much the same reason as we have an article on Abbott and Costello as well as separate articles on Bud Abbott and Lou Costello — the partnership was notable (and, notability being permanent, is notable) independently of its two independently notable members. PWilkinson FTW. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons cited above. The article(its intro, at least) does need to be rewritten such that it is clearly an article on the partnership rather than a joint bio on the two Olsens, though. The Abbott and Costello article is a pretty good example of how this should be done.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable partnerships and groups (look at music groups) are standard procedure. Even successful twins working as a group (Bob and Mike Bryan) also have individual articles.Trackinfo (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment Should the page continue even if the partnership has, for all intents and purposes, split? They seem to be going their separate ways these days. Mrmewe (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if the partnership terminates, then the article just has an end-point. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Abbott and Costello, even though both of them are dead. So that partnership has ended. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability of the team of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen has long been established and, per WP:NTEMP, such notability does not go away if a team splits up... or if team members die... or if there are seperate articles on team members. Add Martin and Lewis and Laurel and Hardy to the list of precedents of where we have a team article as well as articles on team members. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgi Coghlan[edit]

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

TV presenter of little notability and prominence. Subject has no international recognition, if any. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:02am • 01:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is coverage in reliable sources under current name and also her maiden name "Gorgi Quill", and she has been a significant part of several notable TV and radio shows. "International recognition" is not required for a Wikipedia article, and its lack is not a convincing argument for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She's one of the hosts of a little know/barely notable TV program and has appeared on radio and other TV programs of notability, big deal so have other people, why don't we just create an article for every single one of them? Also, how is she of significance/importance, just having major Australian newspaper articles written on a person does not equal instant notability. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:27pm • 02:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I suggest that the nominator review our notability guidelines. "Barely notable" as the nominator concedes is still notable, and this encyclopedia would be better, not worse, if it had referenced articles about every notable Australian TV personality, as well as every notable person on the planet. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "International recognition" is not a rationale for deletion at all. If it were there would be so many national news personalities who would be deleted just because somebody in Tajikistan never heard of Contessa Brewer or Moira Stuart. A host for a national Australian morning program with broadcast distribution easily meets notability. Nate • (chatter) 04:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to mention which criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (people) the subject fails. "no international recognition, if any" is clearly not a valid reason to delete. Neither can I parse "hosts of a little know/barely notable TV program and has appeared on radio and other TV programs of notability" for a valid reason. "having major Australian newspaper articles written on a person" seems to contradict the nomination. I suggest User:Ancient Apparition withdraw the nomination lest it snows. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion has been given. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree entirely with the four keep !votes above. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to this news article, she recently won a Logie Award. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sources provided below. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Safe Side[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources verifying the notability of this product, and I was not able to find sources with my own search. Prod removed by anon after the addition of two sources, neither of which meet WP:RS FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author may not have found the sourcing, but here is an in-depth interview about the product aired on Fox News, and there has been other coverage ranging from the St. Cloud Times to The Austin Chronicle. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 7 May 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) 00:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know there's some disagreement over whether or not interviews count as significant coverage for biographies, but the one linked above definitely shows significant coverage of the video project. Add in the two local news sources (yes, we can't see all of the first one, but apparently it's 771 words which would seem significant) and we have a topic that appears to meet both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yunus Centre[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources Artem Karimov (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. As the personal office of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (Muhammad Yunus) and one of two think-tanks related to Social business, this should clearly be included in Wikipedia. Yunus Centre helped to set up all Social Business with major multinationals such as Danone, Veolia, Intel, Adidas or BASF. Just have a look at their homepage or at one of the 44.000 Google hits. Or see their 14,000 fans on Facebook --Talebian (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits or Facebook fans do not matter. Reliable sources do. Artem Karimov (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So which sources would then be reliable for a think tank in a developing country? Honestly speaking, you seem to lack understanding of these things. Did you ever think about the possibility of having to review each case individually instead of referring to some guidelines like an apparatchik? --Talebian (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a speculation. Можешь называть меня аппаратчиком, but WP:V and WP:RS apply the same for everyone and everything. Your rhethoric will not help the subject gain notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That Mr. Yunus is notable no one would deny. That his personal think tank is notable is wholly unproven; of course the organization's website and Facebook page do not qualify as reliable sources. Rather than mere Google hits, if one is to do a search for links, I'd try Google News ... which only returns three hits about Muhammad Yunus himself, and which mention the center only as casual references. Ravenswing 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Once more, keep in mind that this is a think tank in a developing country - that's also why Google News is totally irrelevant. The Yunus Centre acts as the implementation think-do tank for all social businesses related to Grameen (as mentioned above: Danone, Intel etc.), but these companies will always mention the name of Prof. Yunus instead of the Yunus Centre. See the new social business with Uniqlo here. Moreover, the Yunus Centre is responsible for the implementation of Social business classes. See the reference at the Asian Institute of Technology here or, to mention an American example, California State University Channel Islands here. --Talebian (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mere reference to the subject is not enough. There must be at least some coverage in reliable sources. There is none hence Yunus centre is not notable. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is nothing in WP:V or WP:ORG which waives the policies' requirements of sourcing for organizations based in "developing" countries. WP:V's language is clear: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Talebian's energies would be better utilized uncovering reliable, independent, third-party sources (from a city which is the home, as to that, of four English-language newspapers of national circulation) which would validate this article rather than in exhortations to ignore Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or in violations of WP:CIVIL as happened above. Ravenswing 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 3 May 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) 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article about this notable organization and expand with information about the growing Yunus Centre operations in Bangkok, Glasgow and Abu Dhabi, described in reliable sources, such as here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Now that is something. As soon as these RS are integrated into the article, this nomination can be delisted. Artem Karimov (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per reliable sources given above by unsigned contribution of Cullen328 . Yunnus himself is a well known microfinancer, the references listed above are independent of the subject and give coverage of the work of the Yunnus Centre. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]