< 17 November	19 November >

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

The result was Merge with Cindy Sheehan (non-admin closure). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Sheehan[edit]

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

One of thousands Iraq-war casualty, non-notable per WP:1E. The main source actually about the subject is a blog, the other ones, while they do mention Casey Sheehan, are about her mother; notability is not inherited. Other Google results are mostly blogs, memorials or activist sites. Suggest deletion then redirect to Cindy Sheehan. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Cindy Sheehan, no sense losing viable sourced information. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Evaluate if single 'Casey Sheehan Didn't Die for Nothing' is significant cultural impact to satisfy GNG; if not, Merge & Redirect. Dru of Id (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cindy Sheehan. The death of this soldier was the impetus that caused his mother to become a notable activist, but isn't independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cindy Sheehan. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable under WP:GNG as subject lacks "significant coverage" in WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cindy Sheehan as per Whpq above. --DGaw (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sulien or Sulian[edit]

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

While there seems to be much coverage of the church which bears his name, I have found very little that refers to the Saint himself. M Magister Scienta ^talk (18 November 2011) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename (probably to Saint Sulien). I think there's been a general consensus over the years that all bona fide Christian saints are notable enough, and in addition to the EL provided in the article, there are at least a few sources revealed at GBooks.[1][2][3] But "St. Sulien or Sulian" doesn't seem to be a likely title; if Sulien (as it appears from a rough Google test) is the more common spelling, the article should be renamed to Saint Sulien with Saint Sulian as a redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I note the article is referenced. Although it's an offline source, it looks like it is devoting a number of pages to this saint. St Anselm (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognised saints invariably have plenty of material in print sources; apart from the cited book, Arxiloxos has found other sources. -- 203.171.196.153 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If sainthood is not "a well-known and significant award or honor", per WP:ANYBIO, then I don't know what is. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable and can be referenced. Zangar (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Battise[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Her best shot at notability seems to be her appearances on Big Brother 2000 (UK), according to IMDb, but our article does not list her as a housemate. None of her other credits amounts to much. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck in her career but with no coverage in reliable sources, she does not meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON and completely lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011[edit]

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

Article for a law that is not a law but only an unintroduced draft. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is draft legislation that has yet to become law. There is a little bit of coverage: [4], [5], but not enough for me to say is a notable bill. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable as above. The article is purely a copy-and-paste from online descriptions of the bill. The article provides no context; you can't even tell in what country or state the bill is being proposed (my guess is either India or the Indian state of Karnataka). --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Egg Realty[edit]

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

All sources are either routine mentions of business activities, interviews with the founder, or self-published. No sources independently focus on the company, failing two criteria listed at WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, strong indication of WP:COI and promotional page. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom--MLKLewis (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles that are independent such as the New York Times, all business and Long Island Business News. I would like to know what is considered promotional since it talks about where there name comes from, and what they do for philanthropy. No where, does it advertise their listings. I would like to know that so I could fix it.-Jtravlos Jtravlos (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Jtravlos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - There needs to be significant independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage is not significant, or not independent. References at the time I reviewed them either fail to mention the company, are insignificant, local coverage, or in one instance, written by one of the founders. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can some please give me some more precise advice or more specific critiques? I appreciate the linked pages, but they really do not help me. I did take out one article that I didn't realize that I put up that the founder wrote. However, I do not understand what is wrong with the other articles. All other articles that are independent such as the New York Times, Brokers weekly, all business and Long Island Business News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtravlos (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - At the risk of causing further anguish with more reading material, WP:CORPDEPTH is probably the main issue. Coverage of the company is local, and the depth of coverage is not significant. Some of the material is coverage of locations opening. None of this is the type of material that would be usable for establish that the article should be included. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources in article, some are a bit dubious but there are quite a few. Some of the content is a bit promotional and I will trim it appropriately should this survive. JORGENEV 14:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local firm. All the coverage I could find at Google News, and all the links provided in the article, are purely routine: they opened a second office, they closed a sale, etc. Nothing to distinguish them from a million other real estate offices. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 17:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel B. Thomsen[edit]

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

Looks to be an unremarkable career-diplomat who made to ambassador of a tiny country. Not many hits on internet, but outside the main stream that is difficult. Notable enough? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. When I created Sam's article last month, I had just come across his name listed as our first United States Ambassador to the Marshall Islands. He, and several of the other persons listed, had their names redlinked, implying that whoever had created the article was inviting editors to supply articles for the various Ambassadors. I had known Sam briefly a long time ago and accepted that invitation, although I couldn't find much about him on the internet either. Apparently he wasn't as controversial as two of his classmates at Foreign Service Institute, Curtis Kamman and John Negroponte.

Taking a look at the list of ambassadors to this "tiny country", I see that two of the seven others have articles. Is either Greta N. Morris or Clyde Bishop any more "notable" than Sam Thomsen? Maybe. Maybe not.

So I guess a question we need to ask ourselves is whether being a U. S. Ambassador to anywhere is enough to confer notability per se. Or, should we pick and choose among ambassadors and only select those who did something exceptional, got in trouble, or perhaps were assassinated? Or should we only consider ambassadors to countries we consider notable to be noteworthy enough to have an article?

My own belief is that, by being appointed U. S. Ambassador to a country, a person has achieved notability, even if we can't write a lengthy article about him or her. So, I hereby cast my ballot to retain Sam's article. I urge other editors to provide articles about his successors in that position, plus additional information about Sam himself. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difficult part is that the "value" of an embassy in a certain country can change over time. Once the US-embassy in the Netherlands was very important and diplomatic heavy weights were appointed there. According to G.W. Bush the importance had declined enough to appoint one of his financial backers. Some posts for ambassadors are always (= in the present situation) notable, like those in China, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan. Other post have far less importance, like the posts in Andorra, Monaco, San Marino. Others have a "value" far bigger than the country should indicate, like Luxembourg and the Vatican. To my opinion an ambassador should be weight on the importance of his/her post in general during the stay in office, any diplomatic anomalies (s)he get involved in, career prior and after the stay in office (not necessarely as a diplomat) and personal antics. In fact should every ambassador be weight on his own merits and not on the title of the job. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Any verifiable ambassador from Foo to NotFoo at least rates inclusion at the corresponding list and evaluation; if the case cannot be made for a stand alone article, merge or merge & redirect should be the default option, and not a future subject for AfD; all information included for other entries at United States Ambassador to the Marshall Islands is already included there, so merge is not required unless content is evaluated for inclusion there. Dru of Id (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still say Retain as is! I'm not sure what would be involved in the process of Redirecting, but it seems simple enough to just give anybody who has served as an Ambassador for one of our English-speaking countries an article of his or her own in this English-language Wikipedia. I am much more in favor of completeness than of debating about, and picking and choosing which Ambassadors are, or aren't, notable. I will not be offended if somebody creates an article for an Ambassador whom I consider less notable than Sam Thomsen, nor will I suggest the deletion of that page. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I translate it correctly, you say that he should be kept because he is an American Ambassador? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, and what about the Amabassadors from, let us say, China, Germany, Saudi Arabia and France? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. I'm only suggesting that Ambassadors from our English-speaking lands be included automatically, should somebody wish to write their articles. Other wikis are not my concern. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did misunderstand me. Do you think that ambassador from non-English speaking like China, Germany, Saudi Arabia and France do not deserve the same treatment on en-wp as American ambassadors? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This being the English Language Wikipedia means the content in written in English. It does not mean that we favour English language topics over others. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a politician holding an office that is international in scope. The coverage is scarce to be sure, and I'm not adverse to a merge to United States Ambassador to the Marshall Islands. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Whpq! I don't know how well a merge would work in the case of an ambassador who had served in several countries. Which one of those countries' ambassador lists would we merge him into? And in cases of lists of ambassadors to countries where embassies have existed for many years, wouldn't those lists become unwieldy with little biographical sections for 10 or 20 ambassadors? These may not be insurmountable problems, but as a web designer I worry about them.

As for your other comments and those of Night of the Big Wind above, I can only say that the English language Wikipedia tends to have articles which are of interest primarily to people in English-speaking countries. One can find many detailed articles about tiny villages in Yorkshire or Indiana or New South Wales, but fewer articles about obscure places in other lands. Articles about our own obscure places (and people) never make it to the French or Arabic or Japanese Wikipedias, and vice versa.

So our English Wikipedia will naturally tend to have many more articles about ambassadors from our counties than about ambassadors from other countries. However, I don't go around looking for articles to delete. If somebody takes the time to write an article about an official from some other country and publishes it in the English Wikipedia, I'm not going to try to discourage him from doing so. I am all for inclusivity, and against exclusivity. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My primary recommendation is to keep this article, with a note that I would not oppose an outcome of merging. As far as I can tell, and as mentioned in the article Thomsen has been an ambassador of only the Marshall Islands so there is no issue of which article to merge to. His work in other countries was as a foreign service officer, and not as ambassador. If he did serve as ambassador to more than one country, then a merge should not even be on the table. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From one Dutchman in disguise to the other DutchmanInDisguise:

- A diplomat who served as ambassador on several different posts is almost always notable.

- In my opinion every ambassador, regardless of country or language, is worth seperate inclusion if (s)he passes WP:GNG or else in an overview.

- I consider this discussion as very useful...

Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if not all ambassadors are notable, he would still be a historical figure as "advisor to the commanding general of the U.S. Marines in Vietnam".... Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Pete (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fortress (Krzyzewskiville)[edit]

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

Fails GNG since it doesn't have any referencing in third party sources, let alone substantial coverage. Basically, a group of Duke students thought it'd be cute to create a "tent club" and then write about themselves on Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am an ACC basketball nut and I have never heard of this. Vanity article. Pitch it. Rikster2 (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Krzyzewskiville seems notable enough, but sub-organizations, especially ones without any real sources? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little or no evidence that the subject has received substantial coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources. Super Mario Man 12:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Crapola not worth a redirect.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite to explain what this group actually does. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter rosales[edit]

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

Hoax and possible speedy deletion candidate depending on one's understanding of blatant. I'm not sure what to say other than this guy does not exist and the accompanying picture is just showcasing poor Photoshop skills. Google has never heard of a football player named Dexter Rosales which of course is beyond unlikely if he's played, as claimed, for major clubs in four different countries. The closest match is the Facebook page of Dexter Andres Rosa Monsalve which also claims a connection with Ajax though not during the same period. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. A search brought up absolutely nothing about this person except for this Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - as hoax. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 17:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings[edit]

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

Article filled with WP:IINFO/WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOT#STATS. Only reference does not appear to provide source information for data listed in article. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not notable with no sourcing--MLKLewis (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears there is a single source, the BARB viewing figures. I think there may be a problem here. Full access to figures gathered by BARB are a subscription service. Does anyone know of the legal implications in reproducing BARB figures in this manner? If we reproduce all of BARB's figures in articles such as this for every single show, do we risk breaching copyright or similar? Pit-yacker (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: A quick scan of BARB's website suggests there may well be problems with using this data. However, I'm don't personally understand the intricacies of different data and its use. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as enencyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a statistics repository. There is little analysis suitable for an encyclopedia. Pit-yacker brings up a good point about copyright issues as well, but I believe that accurate reporting of television viewing statistics for every episode is hardly creative enough to present a copyright interest in the United States in light of Feist. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A7/G11 by DGG (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahaa Sobhey Ata Ibrahem بهاء صبحي عطا إبراهيم[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity article about a non-notable individual. I do not believe this passes muster for WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, as well as having no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE!!! spam/advertising. At least it gave me a good laugh. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant promotion. (of what appears to be a non-notable individual in any case) Pichpich (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as exhaustively illustrated, but nevertheless blatant, promotion. I've tagged the article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, in case speedy somehow fails. Does not pass WP:GNG because there's no substantial third party coverage. I also checked a few spelling/name iterations in English and Arabic to widen the net. JFHJr (㊟) 22:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Coverage in the article's references was found to be sufficient for the subject to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew VanDyke[edit]

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

Vanity page for an inconsequential figure Liquesce (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – VanDyke appears to be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The nominator's observation should have been brought at WP:BLPN. Having addressed some rather egregious problems in the prose – from markup style to WP:COAT, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:BLP – a clearer picture shows this subject passes WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 01:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's assertion that the fellow is "inconsequential" seems more of opinion and less of proper reflection of numerous reliable sources that offer significant coverage toward this person and his activities as a journalist and filmmaker. The work done by User:JFHJr shows that addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Kudos, JFHJr... kudos. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Significant media coverage. Article needs work, but meets notability guidelines and has sufficient meat. Rishi.bedi (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - No valid argument for deletion exists in the nomination. Topic easily passes WP:GNG. See references section of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 04:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben T. Smith, IV[edit]

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

Not a notable person, despite inevitable claims to the contrary. Coverage is skimpy and not directly or significantly about him; almost every one of these hits are PR or otherwise non-RS sources. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable. I searched a few days ago, and I've searched again to no avail. I'm finding mostly coverage as a spokesperson for MerchantCircle; it seems he's adequately covered at that article. As far as a stand-alone article, this subject clearly fails WP:GNG because he is not the subject of non-trivial third-party coverage in his own right. Upon examining coverage involving this subject in relation to his former position, his coverage is still mostly in passing (trivial/unsubstantial) among WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of specific treatment by reliable sources. — Racconish^Tk 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few press releases doesn't show notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does seem to have been CEO of MerchantCirlce, but that does not meet the threshold of notability. Thomas_S_Burns (talk) 22:21 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking WP:RS Stuartyeates (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradden Inman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable football player, that has never played at the professional level and thus fails WP:SPORTS .. Also, his international appearances are at U-19 and U-21 level only, neither confers notability TonyStarks (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has still not played in a fully pro league, and therefore still fails all relevant notabilty guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. I note that one contributor to the last AfD commented "I know technically he doesn't qualify, but even if he hasn't played any league games yet the odds are he soon will do" - that was over TWO YEARS ago and serves to re-inforce why articles on "promising" young footballers definitely shouldn't be kept based solely on the presumption that they'll almost certainly play professionally before too long..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I'd also suggest SALTing. Giant Snowman 10:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 18:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ass above and recreate when and if he makes a debut. Govvy (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage beyond the WP:NTEMP and WP:ROUTINE stuff. Also fails WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 04:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basant Bhattarai[edit]

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

The article on this person is made due to the 1973 Nepal hijacking which actually does not make this person any notable. There are many other more notable people around the world from many fields who do not have article on wikipedia as they are not considered fully notable. This person is just a simple politician just like thousands more in the world. Also hardly any sources can be found on him. The article 1973 Nepal hijacking is good. But this one is really not needed and is just waste of space. Delete Per WP:Notability KS700 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:POLITICIAN. Good work on the nomination KS700, I see you are learning your way around. Lynch 7 15:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Reason Already Mentioned. There were other people also involved in the hijacking and they don't have an article on them, so having this one doesn't make sense and it is better to delete it. KS700 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is poor logic. Those guys don't have an article, so delete this as well? If the other guys are notable, then create an article on them. Lynch 7 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As i have already said above, none of the people involved in this event were notable including this person too, so this article really needs to be deleted as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:Notability (people). KS700 (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 18:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the purposes of Internet searching, I'm wondering if this is the same person apparently more often called "Basanta Bhattarai". For example, compare [6] (Google News Search with "Basanta") and [7] (with "Basant"). The possibility of other variant spellings probably also shouldn't be discounted. (If kept, the article obviously needs a good copyedit.) 81.159.110.18 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the article's history, very few, about only 2-3 editors have added information to this article. Also this article may contain original research. User KS700 is right this article not notable as no sources can be found. This is article is on an ordinary person and is not eligible for wikipedia. 203.196.141.98 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significantly better referencing can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 04:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable online magazine lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. reddogsix (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine is very notable - the most famous lifestyle online magazine in Serbia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade011 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this magazine seems to have a large number of Facebook fans, it seems to be nonexistent everywhere else. Searching for link:wannabemagazine.com turns up almost nothing. YumOooze (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement in the nutshell description for WP:N is applicable, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." This topic fails WP:GNG, there is no reliable independent sourcing documented in the article and I found none in searches. Also fails WP:V, as I was not able to verify it when I checked one of the claims sourced to the website of the magazine: compare this sentence, "The magazine regularly updates 12-15 articles, reviews and blogs about fashion, style, trends, travels, dating, sex, arts, design, movies, celebrities, music, books, editorials, culture, add campaigns, sports", sourced with the home page, where this is the English translation of the source. The references in the article based on facebook would need to be removed if this article were to be kept. Here is an English translation of the webfest.me award, which is all of one sentence. This search here shows a "Media Sponsor" relationship between wannabemagazine and webfest.me, which even if incidental, goes to show that even for this one sentence, it is not the "world at large" that is giving attention to this magazine. The world's librarians, as reported at worldcat.org, don't take note of this magazine. Review of the first three pages of this search showed no additional reliable sources indicating notability. Note that this magazine is only one year old. Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, having insufficient third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 04:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay P. Rosenzweig[edit]

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

While the article does reference a few media interviews where the subject was interviewed, primarily about work place issues, Google News reveals exactly zero articles about him, and overall there is a lack of WP:RS where he is the primary focus. User:Bnorrena is clearly associated with the Rosenzweig family, as is revealed in the photo licences for images of Jay and the now speedy deleted Renee Rosenzweig (image here), and all these articles have WP:SOAP and WP:COI issues. (The Rosenzweigs are tireless self-promoters: the interviews are all posted on their dedicated YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/mediahousebill, fwiw.) However, this nom is based principally on my contention that his interviews do not represent enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came very close to doing a speedy delete for this. as G11 , entirely promotional without capability of being improved by normal editing, but it will be more definitively dealt with here. Note also, Rosenzweig & Company -- but I think they might be notable, and I was able to remove the promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence at all of notability, and apparently promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I would have deleted it as G11 myself if it hadn't been nominated for AfD first. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:COI creator (which Facebook reveals to be an employee of the company) is editing it in an effort to save it, removing the external links, and generally tightening things up. Still no independent WP:RS, though the tone is better. I must admit, I feel a lot of sympathy for the guy: he's probably going to catch hell from his employer if this article gets deleted, and on that point I take no pleasure at all. I've worked for bosses like that, dammit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who originally created wiki pages for Rosenzweig & Company nor Jay Rosenzweig (Canada) which I renamed to Jay P. Rosenzweig as location was irrelevant to the article. While I do know Mr Rosenzweig I am not an employee of his company. He asked me to help him fix these pages and I have been doing my best to make sure that they are accurate (fact only), up to date and meet wiki requirements. Mediahousebill is not dedicated to Mr Rosenzweig, though it does have copies of many of his aired interviews from radio and TV. This external location was chosen so that material would remain available longer and help show that while the material was done on or with Mr Rosenzweig or his staff that it was not done by them. I appreciate Shawn in Montreal's comments as they were constructive and have enabled me to become a better wiki writer and help Mr Rosenzweig improve the wiki pages for all. I have removed mention of the books he is quoted in until I have those quotes myself. Further comments and suggestions for improvement are appreciated. Bnorrena (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the exact nature of your professional association with Jay P. Rosenzweig and his company, you remain in clear and ongoing conflict of interest. You want to become a "better wiki writer?" Write about something else, as all you've done since you opened your account is promote him, his wife and his company -- period. Now, that aside, I think you've successfully established the company's notability; as for this bio article, I don't forsee Jay P. Rosenzweig and his company both being independently notable anytime soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article lends notability; I looked for additional sources myself but only briefly as I assume a PR man would make sure his own article would include such material if it exists. EEng (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever it salvageable to Rosenzweig & Company.--Pink Bull 02:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borri[edit]

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

Non-notable business making backup power supplies; also advertising. Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Google News for Borri + "power supply" yields no coverage establishing encyclopedic significance.[8] References here are to advertising material from small-audience trade publications that do not equate to significant coverage - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. Brianhe (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significantly better sourcing can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 04:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeewa Fernando[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable economist. His assertion of notability in the article consists of him having been quoted briefly in a few news articles, and I've hunted around for evidence of notability but can find no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources to show notability per WP:BIO. Proposed deletion removed by creator without comment. Filing Flunky (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please do search his work on a Reuters terminal or a Bloomberg terminal as his work is not freely available

Or else If you can give me an e mail address I will take steps to mail the screen shots of the same to you

You will be able to find his work on economy and the banking sector of Sri Lanka

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfernando50 (talk • contribs)

Delete, as per nom. Standard2211 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this for PROD, with much the same rationale as the nominator here, and it was contested. Though I could find sources by Fernando, I couldn't find any sources about him using Google News and Google Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Harry Potter cast members#Epilogue characters. Mkativerata (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Gilbert[edit]

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

Child actor who had a very minor part in the last Harry Potter films. I cannot find any reference providing significant coverage or even any information beyond "Bertie Gilbert has a small part in the last Harry Potter film". The two footnotes don't point to sources rich enough to build an article and as far as I'm concerned this is an unreferenced BLP of a teenager. Pichpich (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although it may get recreated later on in his life. What I am finding in articles, which are sparse, is only the mention of his name as being part of last Potter film. Nothing actually about HIM. While there are several sources that mention this, none of the coverage is remotely significant, putting him short of the bar for WP:GNG at this stage. ie: Too soon to tell if this child will become "notable". Dennis Brown (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whichever Harry Poter article or list which includes this fellow, as THAT is where he has contextual sourcability. No prejudice against recreation if this fellow's career grows and we get decent coverage.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To List of Harry Potter cast members#Epilogue characters, which is what I think Michael Q. Schmidt was referring to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 18:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE '12 characters[edit]

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

Rosters are never published, as per WP: GameCruft. This is a completely unnecessary page. BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section in WP:GAMECRUFT#Inappropriate content for this article would appear to be 10. Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate. Exceptions to the rule would be games where the voice cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a movie, as in the case of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast, with minor adaptations for the game's article. However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately. If actors/actresses must be added to the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section. (emphasis mine). I'm not sure about common outcomes on articles like this, but this doesn't appear to be a slam dunk cruft violation. The characters are voicing themselves, and are independently notable, and while not reprising their roles from a movie, they are reprising their roles from a notable entertainment medium, which movies are a subset of. In this instance, the article seems to be consistent with the spirit of the guideline, even if not with the exact wording. The article is providing more information than just a list of characters, it includes whether or not the characters are in the main game, DLC, the 'brand' they are under, and other information. It might need some cleanup and addition (and more sources), but there isn't a redlink or anything 'fluffy' in there. I'm inclined to keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTAMANUAL (It looks like something that could/would be ripped out of a game manual or gamefaqs document. Not appropriate for a wikipedia page. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --SAVIOR_SELF.777 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I wouldn't even include this in the WWE '12 article. –MuZemike 23:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If this were to be deleted, then all video game character articles should be deleted (like the list of Street Fighter characters, etc.) Feedback ^☎ 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is a very big difference between this article in question, and something like List of Street Fighter characters. At the street fighter one, there are sourced paragraphs after the characters. This WWE article is just a huge list, and most info that is given is unsourced numerical ratings from the game, and whether they need to be unlocked. Info like that looks like it's ripped right out of a manual or gameguide. I don't think that is a valid comparison... Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I appreciate your points, but you are actually giving more of a reason to keep. The differences that you point out are a matter of editing, not a matter of criteria. If there is a way to add more material to an article and have it pass criteria, then it passes criteria and is simply incomplete (WP:V demonstrates this, as well as others, articles don't have to be verifieD, just verifiABLE.) A stub, if you will. This is never considered by closing admins to be a valid argument against keeping an article. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what's considered in AFD's, and I know that sourced paragraphs vs. unsourced, unexplained bare lists do indeed make a difference. But I think what you're missing is that, regardless of how much of this verified information would be hypothetically added to the article, it's still just going to be "verified WP:GAMECRUFT". Any of this hypothetical information that would be gathered would either just be more cruft-like stuff out of the game manual, or general information on wrestlers that would probably be more suited for general pro-wresting articles, not articles about the video games of pro-wrestling. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is in poor condition, but that means it should be expanded, not deleted. Too many deletionists on here who don't want to give an article the time of day. If the article is capable of becoming a good well-sourced article then we should allow it the time and not delete it when its in its poorest state. Feedback ^☎ 17:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons already stated. See WP:GAMECRUFT. Benny Leo (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!, If other games can have a page for characters, why can't WWE 12? Huh, or are we being hypocritical? Ice Hockey Hero 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and assume good faith, please. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am just a rollbacker on the English Wikipedia, but I believe that this should be deleted. The previous games never had an article for the characters. Also, the only appropriate place for such an article, is a website of some sort other than Wikipedia. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Comment, As shown in WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 and previous articles, it mentions only the champions. A possible merge could be considered for only the champions listed in the article, List of WWE '12 characters. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Just a friendly note: Your status on Wikipedia is irrelevant and probably shouldn't be mentioned. Admins, Bureaucrats, and anonymous IP's all have the same voice in a discussion, with the only weight being given to the quality of their points, not how long they have been here or what title they have been given. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge somewhere. If kept needs an opener explaining what it is that these people / characters are participating in. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talent holding deal[edit]

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

Not suitable. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 14:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure what the rationale for deletion is in the nomination, but looking at the article, it looks kind of like a WP:DICDEF in its current form. It appears to be a very common term within that industry, thus not a WP:NEO, and the current info (although unsourced) is correct. I'm guessing it *might* be capable of turning into a valid article that is notable and useful. Withholding judgement at this time, tagging for rescue to allow someone to attempt a fix. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep This seems to be a definite type of contract. With sourcing and more information it would be worthy of an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs more information. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding information now. The problem I'm having is context. I can find tons of examples, and understand the concept as it is a type of retainer, but direct references are a bit hard to find because of all the example uses and simple mentions. About to dive into Google Books, I'm sure I can find something there that is specific to the subject matter. My confidence is high that we can source it properly. Won't be a huge article, but the concept is noteworthy. Still withholding my !vote, but trying to make it worthy of a keep before declaring it so. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 18:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think at this point, it is close to what I can do. I find it is similar to what is called a "development deal" (although that is more often used in music and software contracts) and we have an article on Artist development deal, which is in much worse shape, and maybe could be merged (not much in cites) and redirected here. The problem is finding a cite for the specific definition of "talent holding deal" itself, although I think the weight of the references and uses both in the article and that can be found virtually everywhere on the web, make it almost self-explanatory. I don't expect a withdrawal (but welcome it), but I think at this point, there is enough citation to warrant keeping, and will !vote as such below. I understand why you nom'ed it, and was tempted to agree with you at first glance, but after a few hours of research, I have concluded the term needs to be included. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons I mentioned above. It still needs work and could use a better reference for the primary definition, but I think that the examples within the article clearly demonstrate the notability of the term, and that it is in common usage, and it is a distinct type of contract that warrant inclusion because it is very common, talked about in so many reliable sources (granted, as it is applied, not as a concept) and the likelihood that more citations exist, particularly in printed media. The nom was in good faith, but the article needs some good old fashioned work, not deletion. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "artist" in this article clearly does not mean a visual arts artist, so I removed the link to that article. However, the term does need some definition, or perhaps the word "entertainer" should be followed by other television and film terms, such as actor, singer, musician, even perhaps director or scriptwriter. This article is about what is clearly a term of art in the TV, film and music industries, and should be expanded, with better writing. I am not the editor to do that, so I am hoping that others will step up. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Over 500 results where this term was used in the news. The first one is about HBO signing someone to a talent holding deal. So it is a real thing, and something that gets coverage, plus common sense that an encyclopedia should include every type of contract there is. Dream Focus 00:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the article because it was a red (dead) link from another page. I did not know what the term meant. As someone else pointed out there are numerous articles on Google (which is where I got the information) about this. I don't have time in the day to do excessive editing and felt the page was needed and could have been expounded upon by someone else. I think the page is needed for people like me that had never heard the term before. After all, isn't that what wiki is all about? N8hawk (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Official state car#India. The minimal content has already been merged. Sandstein 11:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State Car for President of India[edit]

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

Would also include State Car for President redirect in this AFD. An unnecessary fork of Official state car, and doesn't have independent notability, just a single link that mentions the Indian President "got a new car" with some details, which isn't enough for the CAR to be notable, as the only reason the ref exists is because the car is for the PRESIDENT. There is nothing new to merge (maybe the one link, which can be copied over), so a delete seems the best option. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much too trivial to be taken seriously. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, pure trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete: This is not encyclopedic. What happens when the President changes the car? Can be merged with President of India or Mercedes-Benz_W221#S_600_Guard_Pullman_.282008-.29 Veryhuman (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The info is already in the Official state car page. No need to have another trivial article. Jethwarp (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : In view of comments made by Phil Bridge ( below ) - I change my vote to keep. May be a change of Name on similar line, for ex.- Presidential State Car (India) Jethwarp (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why an article on the state car of the the president of the world's second most populous country should be repeatedly characterised as "trivial". There is no reason why this article should be incapable of being expanded on the lines of similar articles for smaller countries, such as Prime Ministerial Car (United Kingdom) and Presidential state car (United States). The answer to the question of what happens when the president gets a new car is obvious: the information should be added to this article, as the scope of the article should include the history of the topic as well as the current car. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India is notable. The President is notable. I fail to see how this individual car is notable without sources that demonstrate it is, independent of it just being the car for the President of India, which appears to be the standard for inclusion. How populous India is doesn't mean anything, as India isn't the subject of the article, the car is. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Official_state_car#India unless many more references can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging any relevant content to Official state car#India - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim Brotherhood and the CPSU: Architecture and Functions[edit]

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

Article is Wikipedia:Original research. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable idea, original research which reads like an essay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, NPOV issues. Essay that is not likely notable as a singular subject matter and is being used as a soapbox to discredit the organization. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Original research (by an ideological crank with an ax to grind). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an academic product based on specific research cited from the sources listed with no personal opinions presented or intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagnytaggartmoxie (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Dagnytaggartmoxie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "academic product based on research" = original research and synthesis" - you've just made our case for us. This would, in my opinion, never pass muster in any serious peer-reviewed journal. If it did so, then it could be used for an actual serious article without an obvious ideological agenda. --Ora

nge Mike | Talk 21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original essay. Square peg mashed into round hole and declared a perfect fit. My biggest beef: "Front groups" is a polemic, pejorative term popularized in the USA during the McCarthy era about the Communist Party USA's auxiliary "mass organizations," some but not all of which had a disguised connection with the party organization. This anachronistic terminology and the concept back of it is applied to CPSU axiomatically. Well, at a bare minimum, that's debatable. In fact, I've got maybe 2,500 or 3,000 books on various aspects of Russian and Soviet history and it would be a real challenge to find any serious scholar using the term "front groups" in connection with CPSU; and certainly nothing whatsoever that written by mainstream historians after the 1950s, if any did, in fact, ever use the term even then. And this is one half of the facile comparison being made in this essay! There may or may not be material here that can be merged into Muslim Brotherhood, but this piece is a verrrrrrrrrrrry big stretch and an original essay without necessary parallels in the published literature.. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

DO NOT DELETE- This article provides an interesting and well-supported viewpoint that illustrates the Muslim Brotherhood as a political organization as well as a religious/ideological one. This parallel between the CPSU and the Muslim Brotherhood sheds light on the doctrine and tactics the group employs. The points made here are not terribly different than the ones put forth in the “criticisms” section. Political correctness should not be the main requirement for inclusion in this wiki. It appears that the detractors of this article are suppressing an opposing viewpoint from behind the wall of academic objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapper1302 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — sapper1302 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I don't think anyone on the planet would debate that "the Muslim Brotherhood as a political organization as well as a religious/ideological one." The first line in the lead of the Wikipedia article Muslim Brotherhood calls it "the world's oldest and one of the largest Islamist parties, and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states." That's not exactly mincing words is it? The question is whether this extremely debatable personal essay — equating the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood with the structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (!!!) should be allowed to stand. That's like an essay on bananas being just like bean bag chairs because they're both yellow. There is absolutely no serious trend in the scholarly literature making this comparison, no significant minority view being repressed in the name of political correctness. This is an original idea pulled from the sky and made into an essay. Wikipedia is not the place to publish this sort of original research. Is there material here which might be brought to the Muslim Brotherhood article to improve it? Maybe, maybe not — I have no opinion. I do have an opinion on whether this article should stand, however, which I have made amply clear, I presume. Carrite (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as [[WP:OR]. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Galatasaray S.K. (football team)#Football Academy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray S.K. Football Schools[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. (At present there are links to each individual school's web site, in the table, as well ...) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I see that Galatasaray S.K. (football team) is obviously notable, and if this were titled List of Galatasaray S.K. Football schools it might make more sense, although that doesn't automatically make it notable. The article is less than a month old, and I do find a lot of ghits announcing the various schools and talking about them. Rather than have a bunch of individual articles on the schools (which some may arguably be independently notable, thus justifying a list of article), renaming as a List kinda makes sense to me. Withholding my !vote, in case someone wants to educate me or shoot holes in my logic. I have to admit, I'm kinda leaning toward a keep because I think there are likely a lot of sources for the individual schools. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Galatasaray S.K. (football team)#Football Academy that already contains all the information that might be considered encyclopaedic. That section itself is a bit of a link farm and the number of schools don't correlate but these are separate editorial matters. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bridgeplayer. Giant Snowman 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kavuism[edit]

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

As per talk:Kavuism, the statements made in this article (including "Kavuism exists") do not seem to be supported by the sources cited. However, whether this means that there's no such thing or that this is horribly misnamed, I have no idea. DS (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Good catch! I checked myself and its true - refs dont have mention of Kavuism. I dont think its spelled incorrectly since Kavu is the correct name and Kavuism is derived from it. The information in the article is valid - there are deities as mentioned, but they have their own wiki pages. Although its taking a risk, based on strict interpretation of Wikipedia policies, I think the article should be deleted based on WP:RS and possibly, WP:HOAX Veryhuman (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : A very fine creation but actually a WP:HOAX Jethwarp (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject. Also, per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hive mind. Sandstein 11:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hive culture[edit]

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

Does not seem real, has no references, not suitable for inclusion. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 11:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but make it a disambiguation page rather than a stand-alone article. It seems like a valid term that people might search for, but I don't think there's much we can add that isn't already found at other articles like, say, groupthink. I say disambiguation page rather than redirect, because there are also senses like eusociality (social insects) and group mind (science fiction), and I can't see any of the articles as a clear candidate for the main topic. Also, a lot of this work has already been done at the disambiguation page hive mind, which should save us some research. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hive mind, which seems to cover the concept fairly well. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as fork of collective consciousness, to which hive mind disambiguates. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hive mind, as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Poppleton[edit]

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

Unknown martial artist, hardly meets WP:ATHLETE. Only source in this WP:BLP is a message board entry. bender235 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one link miserably fails WP:RS and what I find is myspace, facebook and similar ghits. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Subject clearly fails WP:MANOTE. There's a lack of both notability and reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria and lacks good sources. Astudent0 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 04:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of PlayStation games[edit]

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

This list is redundant as it doesn't seem to do anything that isn't already covered under the Sony section of Lists of video games. It doesn't seem to be linked anywhere either. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page is just a list of other pages that like Kraftlos said, is already on an existing page. There is nothing gained by having a separate page for this list. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete As above. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 18:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Lumley[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete that has never played at the professional level and thus fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage. As such, he clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Management Information System Association[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article is unreferenced, and I couldn't find any sources in Google News or Google Books. It doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable student organisation. Google search in English for ""Management Information System Association" + "Hong Kong" brings up very little apart from Wikipedia and organisation itself. Google search for this organisation's name in Chinese ("香港管理資訊系統學會") brings up nothing apart from Wikipedia entries and organisation itself. Wikipedia:Search engine tests are of course non-determinative of notability, but it may possibly be expected that an organisation of this type would have some significant online presence. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shirt58's rationale. If this was a FOR-profit organization, it would have been speedy deleted as promotional. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just tagged it as an advert but can't see how it's recoverable as an article. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 05:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punnaram Cholli Cholli[edit]

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

Declined PROD, where editor added websites where the DVD of the current film can be purchased. The article lists no reliable sources. On my own search, I was unable to find reviews, awards, or other independent sources asserting the notability of this film. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It’d be hard to find online reviews for this pre-internet 1985 Malayalam film. Salih (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article satisfies WP:V and is not WP:HOAX. There are songs on Raaga and a few Youtube videos. These dont technically qualify as WP:RS, but atleast they show that article is not WP:HOAX. One can technically find additional Reliable Sources by looking into hard literature Veryhuman (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't keep articles about films simply because because they are not hoaxes. WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. We also don't keep articles about films (or other topics) because we assume that sources exist. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sometimes verifiability can be enough to allow a brand new article on a topic that has found its way into both the Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema and the Lexikon Film Schauspieler international to remain and have issues addressed over time and through regular editing. The more difficult a verifiable topic is to research, should not make us more willing to toss it because it will be hard work. The inclusion in those tomes might be seen as indicators that at one time the film was written of and was deemed worth including therein, perhaps for its own sake or because of the also verifiable involvement of India's preemminent stars of that era... Shankar, Rahman, Zarina Wahab, Sreenivasan, Innocent, Bharath Gopi, Nedumudi Venu, and Lizy... or because it was an early directorial effort of Priyadarshan, or because it was written by actor Sreenivasan. Sometimes such verifiable is enough to encourage that such brand new stubs remain for a while and be addressed by editors better able to search for the hardcopy sources that may have spoken about the film when it was first released. It's a problem we encounter with the unfortunate systemic bias that exists for pre-internet, non-English films, and the expectation by some that a Malayalam film from 1985 must remain in the news or be found immediately in archives of news articles from that pre-internet time. Do we delete because its time is 26 years past, or allow those better able to do so to address issues over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, the first source is a 524-page book, listing of all films coming out of Indian cinema since 1912-1994, and does not appear to be source reflecting an indication of notability as much as it is a compendium. The other source is a 924-book detailing bios of actors and actresses. Though this is likely to mention the film, it is not likely to provide significant coverage of the film itself. As for the fact that the film's director and actors may be notable, and that this might be an indicator of the fact that sources supporting the film's notability exist, I am in agreement. However, I see no problem with someone userifying the page until such sources are found. To say that a topic is merited a page on Wikipedia prior to concrete evidence that such sources exist doesn't sit well with me. The sources demonstrating notability need to come first, even if they are offline. Besides, as it stands, the page is essentially a content fork of the information currently at Priyadarshan#Filmography with unsourced claims like "This film was also a good earner at box office." Is this page really adding anything valuable as it is? I do not think so. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were offered as sources for verifiability, but not as significant coverage. SIGCOV is delightful tool by which to measure if something might be worthy of note, but not a policy or guideline mandate nor is it the only tool we might use to determine if something, even a 26-year-old non-English film from a non-English country, might be somehow valuable to those interested in Cinema of India in general and Malayalam films in particular. The essay WP:OEN deals with this concept. Not being Malayalam nor having access to whatever hardcopy Malayalam sources may be available offline that might address this film, I agree that removing it from mainspace through a userfication back to its author might bear fruit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently failing the notability guidelines. Michael Q. Schmidt makes a good argument, but the onus is on the creator of the article to assert significance, whether it takes research into obscure hard-copy sources which might―or might not―exist, or 5 seconds on Google. We should not assume something is notable unless it has been demonstrated to be. If that means systemic bias, so be it. Quite frankly I don't understand the need to tackle something which is a natural consequence of significant cultural differences. Best regards, :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recognizing the existing and ongoing problem, the WP:CSB project is set specifically set to "tackle something which is a natural consequence of significant cultural differences." As a comprehensive encyclopdia, Wikipedia strives to include even those topics that may be of no interest to Amercan or English-only readers and editors. The involvement of many Indian notables is a reasonable indicator that somewhere in India some media source has likely written about this film. We should not pat ourselves proudly on the back because we rely so heavily on "5 seconds on Google" internet searches, and remember that long before there was Wikipedia, folks actually did research in libraries with books or through the perusal of actual hardcopy magazines and newspapers... and even Wikipedia accepts that not all suitable sources exist online, specially for older films. Ahh... I remember those days back in high school and college when computers were big clunky machines run by IBM to compute business profits or by NASA to compute orbital trajectories. I do agree that the onus is on the author to source what he created. And since I personally do not have access to hardcopy Malayalam sources, I would be fine with userfying this new article back to the author at User:Rajeshbieee/Punnaram Cholli Cholli to see what he can do if given a little more than the 7 days AFD generally allows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Return the article back to its creator and away from the ticking clock of AFD so that he might address the nominator's concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To closer: As the article topic is verifiable, I am not adverse to a keep if those more knowledgable about film in that part of the world feel it can be more readily improved if kept in mainspace. My thought toward userficaction was based upon the difficulty we have in the west for sourcing notable topics from other parts of the world, and my desire that those more able to do so, actually have the opportunity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sometimes, the tunnel vision of people constrains them to their own little geographical or cultural islands and does not let them see what can be included in Wikipedia and what cannot be. When someone seeks information about something, (+anything, +everything), there you lay, my Wikipedia!, the ocean of all human knowledge. A movie of which the existence is completely perceivable and provable by a population of more than 40 million people DOES deserve its place on Wikipedia! Keep, Keep, Keep ViswaPrabha വിശ്വപ്രഭ (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:A commercially successful 1985 movie in Malayalam language. The movie is older than internet and so there might not be enough weblinks for reference, but that should not a a reason for deletion. If yes, then thousands of movie pages could be easily deleted. This article has plenty of scope to be expanded. Give it some time. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is foolish to demand many references for a 1985 Malayalam film. The editors provided whatever references available. the image provide itself is good enough for its validity. The film had enough notability, which is evident from the star cast of the film. If one browses through the pages of the star cast, he will get a better picture on the notability. IMDB also covers this film. It was a super hit film of the 1980s. Of course, people who don't know much about India, Kerala, Malayalam or Malayalam cinema are likely to put AfD on such articles, but it just a matter of lack of information or knowledge, which is the very thing we are trying to improve, by providing these articles to the world.
Anish Viswa 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's enough notability for the film to exist as a Wikipedia article. I've seen a good number of film stubs with just one line as content, and is quite surprised to see this one nominated for deletion in the first place. --Jairodz (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, mainstream film -- Tinu Cherian - 08:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable film from a well known Malaylam director. --Anoopan (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote above keep !vote These dont technically qualify as WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understanding the difficulty we have in the west to find coverage for pre-internet, non-English films, was the reason I proposed a good faith return to its author for continued work, If he is unsuccessful, it will not return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film by notable director with notable actors. The references in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema and this mention in The Hindu [9] are both reliable sources that mention the film. This is extremely likely to have many more non-English print sources in addition to those two. First Light (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Restaurant rating. And delete first. Sandstein 11:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality restaurant[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, I think. I'm prepared to be shown to be wrong on this, but this seems non-encyclopedic. I see that it was prodded shortly after creation "Definition not an encyclopaedia entry" and the creator removed the prod notice, saying "removed unclear proposal for deletion that was added before the article was finished. 10 minutes is rather quick...". Hopefully, 5 months has been sufficient to work out if this is suitable for inclusion or not. Colon el Tom 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to know, where does it fail notability or WP:NOT. I do not understand your nomination as you give no clear reason. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless someone can show that there is an actual widely used category of restaurants called "quality restaurants", then this is nothing but WP:OR. When a reviewer calls something a "quality restaurant", they're not classifying it into a certain category, but simply using "quality" as an adjective. We can't have articles called Good restaurant, Poor restaurant, or Restaurants so bad I wouldn't send my enemies there, even if such phrases are used in articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A dictionary definition at best. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, is wat the Michelin Guide who was referring to quality restaurants. See here and here. So no original research, but the opinion of the renowned Michelin Guide. Backed up bij Egon Ronay here and here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which indicates that we should have a restaurant rating article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You suggest a merge between Quality restaurant and Restaurant rating? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. There is nothing worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A redirect to Restaurant rating looks worthwhile though, as it's a reasonable search term. 109.155.186.44 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am a bit cautious with that due to the quality of the RR-article. But it might be the best solution. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am in the progress of merging and rewriting of the two named articles. When finished I will show the draft here. If accepted, the article "quality restaurant" will be surplus to requirements. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Shoot to kill, ladies and gentlemen, in the best interest of Wikipedia: User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage17. Originals articles: Quality restaurant and Restaurant rating. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect - This is a term used in restaurant guides, and should be redirected there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving behind a redirect is fine; as for the new draft version, I recommend leaving a comment on the Restaurant rating and discuss it there. Finally, I left you a note on your draft's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Restaurant rating", nothing worth merging. We could argue about whether rating diverges from actual quality, but that's a content argument for another day. bobrayner (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A rating is normally based on quality. Like the quality of food, the quality of service etcetera. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant rating is now completely rewritten and merged with Quality restaurant. Effect is that "Quality restaurant" is now surplus to requirements and can be deleted. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Did you actually merge any content? I didn't really see any merged material, but if you did, then deleting this article would be problematic from an attribution history standpoint. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for an essay explaining this. -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe merging is a big word. Most of the info out of the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the article Quality restaurant are added to the article Restaurant rating, albeit in an altered form. Is that merging or not? Sounding your concerns, I hope not... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect somewhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close: has already been speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Bonik Barta[edit]

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

Too little content, little notability. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 07:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon for any evidence of Notability to have arrived on the web, or indeed in the article. Try again later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence that an edition has even been published. http://www.bonikbarta.com/ has an 'under construction' message. Perhaps the article could be created AFTER the newspaper is. Colon el Tom 08:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like the author blanked the page, I have tagged it for speedy deletion. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 10:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (as speedy/snow). Neutrality^talk 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerfundel[edit]

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

I originally proposed deletion under the criteria: "The article is about a word invented by the page's creator which appears to only be used among the author's friends, failing WP:NOTE." (In retrospect, I probably should have nominated it for speedy deletion.) The page's creator removed the template without giving a reason, and the original criteria still stand. —Insanity Incarnate^Talk 07:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem like a clear-cut speedy candidate but is an obviously little-known neologism, and should be deleted per WP:NEO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete - speedy does seem appropriate to me, but this fails both WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP, so a standard delete will suffice. Colon el Tom 08:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- obviously. Why on earth don't we have a speedy deletion criterion for such useless nonsense as this? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a speedy candidate and obviously isn't a snow candidate yet, but it is a term someone just made up last week and is looking to popularize by using Wikipedia, which is the defacto reason we have WP:NEO. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This isn't Urban Dictionary. Joefridayquaker (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A category similar to what was suggested by Stuartyeates is already present. (See Category:Places of worship in Riverside County, California and its subcategory). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Riverside, California religious institutions[edit]

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

Delete. WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - List of churches makes me wonder, where do we draw the line? It seems ok for huge cities, but what is the cut off? Cities of 1 million or more only? I have no idea, I just know there are some articles similar to this one (yes, not a reason to keep, I know, I'm not !voting) so the guideline isn't obvious. The list isn't indiscriminate, and actually, the idea of a list like this makes sense for larger cities, but why not for where I live, Lexington, NC: population 20k? Obviously absurd, but I'm wondering if there is a threshold for articles like this, and how Riverside fit into the threshold. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP is rife with all sorts of lists - some good and some bad. It seems that some WPdians have an unhealthy fixation with lists at the expense of creating articles with prose. I guess the more broad the list is the more likely it is to worthwhile, but there is always the attendant problem of keeping them within some sort of manageable size. As for your question about which lists to include, the answer is that the community decides by consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I personally have no objections to such lists, even for smaller cities such as Riverside, there seem to be only three churches listed which currently have their own individual articles. If there were more churches with articles, the list might make more sense, but, without evidence that there are sufficient churches with established notability, such a list seems to me to cross the line regarding listcruft, and possibly, promotion of non-notable organizations. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notable churches can be mentioned at Riverside, California. (I don't understand why they aren't there already.) The non-notable ones do not belong in Wikipedia. Not only is this list unnecessary, but it could be a magnet for complaints - "Hey, you didn't list THIS minor sect! Religious discrimination!" --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a directory. each item, even if not an article link, should have some indication of notability: building is old/architecturally significant, the group is old, notable, member was famous, etc. if the list of such notable churches that have articles ever goes beyond a half dozen, then a list or article would be ok, but not for 3.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a category for notable members. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was page redirected to flute repertory, which seems an Obvious Right Thing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flute music[edit]

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

Very little context and content, not suitable for inclusion. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 06:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to flute. I think this was probably nominated a bit too soon after its creation, as the original author might well want to expand it. I tend to agree that it doesn't need its own article just yet, though. I think the best thing to do here would be to redirect to flute and to encourage the original author to add a new section either to that article, or western concert flute, depending on what they had in mind. If those sections get too big then someone can split them to flute music or similar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. User can also work on ideas in their own sandbox or indeed their own web page until they have something with enough Context and Notability for Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ... and this one time, at band camp, ummm yeah, redirect to flute as stated above. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to flute repertory which is a comprehensive list of flute music. Warden (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Kavian Rad[edit]

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

I can't find sufficient RS coverage of this person to satisfy our notability requirements. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : reliable sources could not be found to etablish notability, advert. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes. 86.44.42.202 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon Auger[edit]

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

I'm having trouble finding sufficient RS coverage to warrant keeping this bio under our notability standards, though others are welcome to try. Note: this article is about a rapper and producer, not the band by the same name. While the (dead ref) text does indicate he came in third in a competition, I'm not sure it is of the requisite level. Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Online sources are not extensive, but include this, this, and this chart. But the better sources are not online: I'm finding there are multiple articles about him in the Times Colonist and in The Province. I'll add some of those sources, which I believe are enough for WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the non-online sources, but I'm open hearing more on them and potentially changing my mind if they do in fact meet criterion 1. I had not thought the indicated online sources as sufficient to satisfy GNG, due to issues of quantity, depth of coverage, and dubious RS status. Thanks, Paul, for your good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Epeefleche. The two articles I added from the Times Colonist are entirely about the subject. The one from The Province is about him and his manager. All have significant biographical details about the musician in question. I added a few others that had some coverage but were not entirely about him. There are also another ten or so articles from The Province and the Times Colonist that I did not include because the coverage in them was relatively brief. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BAND #1 and Paul Erik. I've fixed the one dead link for the Times Colonist (thanks Paul!) The linkrot for the other? I've added Paul's on-line citation for Chartattack (sorry with no context). The article needs TLC not deletion. Argolin (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Based on Paul's excellent finds of off-line RS material of robust nature, in two RSs (one over 100 years old; I'm fine with both), I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. Anyone should feel to close it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Even after discounting commentary from single-purpose accounts, there is a rough consensus for retention, definitely not to delete. –MuZemike 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kingsley[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable film director lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. The existing references are not independent and consist of PR statements and items taken from film website. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kingsley is clearly notable, as you will see if you read some of the references - which, contrary to your assertion, are almost all independently sourced, many from major national or industry publications. Easily passes WP:BIO. Peruginionio (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Peruginionio (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is my take on the references. #1-IMDB is not an independent reference. #2-Press releases are not independent references. #3-Not really a significant reference.#4-Blogs are generally not accepted as accepted as independent references. #5-This is not an independent reference and I am not sure the awards is significant enough. #6-8, Blogs are generally not accepted as accepted as independent references. #9-Does not support the text. #10-Not sure where this is from.#11-Not a secondary source.#12-15,About the film not the individual.#16-Not a significant reference.#17-Not really a significant reference. reddogsix (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - #1 - Please explain why this is not independent. #2 It's not a press release; it's a well-respected industry website. #3 Significance isn't the issue in this case; this link is just to corroborate the point being made in that sentence. #4 See 3. #5 Please explain why this is not independent. #6-8 See 2. #9 It's a reference to the phrase "well-received". #10 It's from Shots Magazine, a film magazine. #12-15 Firstly, that's not entirely true. Second, according to point 3 of WP:FILMMAKER, that shouldn't matter: ""The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject… of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."" #16 See 3. #17 See 3. Peruginionio (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Peruginionio[reply]

Comment I've just had a re-read of WP:BIO, and I'm really gobsmacked you're saying he doesn't fulfil its criteria! Take point 3 of WP:FILMMAKER: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject… of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Hard to really see how he *doesn't* fulfil that criteria. See the following appraisals of Kingsley's work from independent sources:

1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/10/black-pond-film-review 2) http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatrical-reviews/black-pond-16971 3) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/reviews/article3222821.ece (PAYWALL) 4) http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/91251/black_pond.html 5) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/first-night-black-pond-raindance-festival-london-2364680.html 6) http://electronicfarmyard.com/games-and-movies/filmreviews/raindance-film-review-black-pond/ 7) http://www.list.co.uk/article/38696-black-pond/ 8) http://blackpondfilm.com/evening%20standard.jpg 9) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/8881957/Tabloid-Trespass-Black-Pond-film-reviews.html 10) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/12/this-weeks-new-films 11) http://bugvideos.tv/Attachments/002090/BUG%2020%20programme%20notes.pdf 12) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/will-sharpe-amp-tom-kingsley-chris-langham-was-our-first-choice-2364269.html 13) http://www.promonews.tv/2011/11/15/black-pond-by-tom-kingsley-will-sharpe-%E2%80%93-at-cinemas/ 14) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/02/17/mujeres%E2%80%99-reyerta-by-tom-kingsley/ 15) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/05/26/don-fardon%E2%80%99s-im-alive-by-tom-kingsley/ 16) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/06/23/darwin-deez%E2%80%99s-up-in-the-clouds-by-tom-kingsley/ 17) http://youngdirectoraward.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/searchlight-tom-kingsley/ 18) http://www.tomkingsley.com/shots%20print%20preview.pdf 19) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/09/20/uk-music-video-awards-2010-here-are-the-nominations/ 20) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/25/chris-langham-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peruginionio (talk • contribs) 04:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One full-length film is not a "significant or well-known work" nor "has the individual created a [significant] body of work". Sorry reddogsix (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The actors in his one film might be notable, but he is not. Making one film which has "novelty value" because of Chris Langham is bound to get newspaper coverage. The man himself does not satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines at all. doktorb _words^deeds 08:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The presence of Chris Langham might helped generate the initial publicity but since then the film has built up very strong critical support and the focus has changed to the directors - their age and their accomplishment. In any case Tom Kingsley has a reputation in the music video world as an accomplished young director and one to watch. His innovative use of animation and graphics mixed with live action (which is used in Black Pond) has been a notable feature of his early work. I remember reading about his theatrical direction when still at Cambridge so this guy is no one-trick pony. To my mind he clearly satisfies WP:BIO. J.thurloe (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)— J.thurloe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep WP:BIO 3. "The person has created... a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." including:

The Guardian. Black Pond - review by Peter Bradshaw. "A first time British feature that is a deeply eccentric, haunting marvel".

The Times. Black Pond. "a wicked, deadpan dissection of middle-class insincerity"

The Independent. The Arts Diary. "a funny and very well-observed low budget British movie," http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/first-night-black-pond-raindance-festival-london-2364680.html?origin=internalSearch

Eye For Film. Black Pond - review by Paul Griffiths. Only ***, but "an intriguingly idiosyncratic debut".

"Multiple independent periodical reviews": check. Notable: yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry but I can't see how this person doesn't satisfy the notability criteria of WP:BIO. He was shortlisted for Best New Director at the 2010 Music Video Awards for his work creating and directing music video for which he has been called "a very promising talent" and a "rising star" and his feature-length "Black Pond" has become a "well known work" in the UK nominated for the 2011 British Independent Film Awards, and at the Raindance Film Festival. The 'significant critical attention' received from 'multiple independent reviews' and cited above are all from major national newspapers which would seem to satisfy both criteria's 3 and 4.Wellingtonview (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)— Wellingtonview (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ANYBIO.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Google Books search result is insufficient; specific sources must be given. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church (Decatur, Illinois)[edit]

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

Non-notable church lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the collegiate church of Millikin University, which at the Church's founding, was Presbyterian (and is still affiliated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondsdorgue (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Fondsdorgue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I would tend to agree with Fondsdorgue on this one, status alone passes the bar, plus listed a couple of books, etc. It helps to NOT use the search links in this AFD and instead use "Westminster Presbyterian Church" Decatur, Illinois. This isn't a little church started last year out of an old warehouse. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep since the nominator obviously wasn't able to find the Google hits. But there are 1000 hits on Google books. I'm adding a reference now. St Anselm (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most individual churches fail to be kept in AFDs. There is no automatic notability just because a congregation dates back to 1825. I do not find in WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline for congregations, or in WP:N, the genera; notability guideline, any provision for a church having automatic or inherent notability just for being the "official church" of some college or university. If there are multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage (not just the claimed "thousands of Google book hits") than identify them here. The article was only created yesterday, and an article does not have to spring into existence in perfect form. The AFD will run 7 days, plenty of time to find suitable references, if they exist. Passing mention, or listing of upcoming events from press releases, do not count for much, nor do publications by the church. Edison (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you look up Google Books yourself? I've added one reference to the article, I'm sure you'll be able to find some more. St Anselm (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, the link is here. St Anselm (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to those advocating keeping an article to demonstrate its notability. Linking to a Google Book search is insufficient. If there is any substantial coverage it is buried in the mass of passing references and cookbook listing. Edison (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this mentioned in Afd discussion before. Is that a policy? I would have thought that, if anything, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM suggests the opposite. St Anselm (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only the issue of linking to a google book search (I still say keep on different grounds, above), this isn't valid as a means of citation as it isn't specific and it literally can change from day to day. Linking that way implies that Google is doing the "significant coverage", which isn't the case. Even linking in a discussion is a weak argument: The list is a tool, not proof. Pointing to the specific books that can be found within that search is 1) permanant (the book still has the text even if Google quits indexing it) and 2) relevant, assuming the book actually covers the subject matter. In short, you link to the content, not an index of possible content. It takes more work, but WP:V requires at least something more concrete than the list. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that search brings up lots of books that mention Westminster in one place and Decatur in a completely different location. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Consensus has established that the subject meets the notability guidelines for music. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ours (song)[edit]

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

Aside from charting in several countries, this isn't particularly noteworthy. Tried redirecting to Speak Now and got reverted twice, solely because of its promotional single status. Taking to AfD because on top of it not being very notable, it's not a very likely search term. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dispute~~ There are several songs that are promotional singles example Speak Now (song), Change (Taylor Swift song). Also this user obviously didn't read the discussion page and see that a consensus was reached that it is notable as it is a single release. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC) struck vague !vote because this user has made a more conventional "keep" !vote below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those songs have articles because their notability has been demonstrated. I'm reading the talk page discussion right now and all I see that sources are supposedly confirming it as a single, there's going to be a music video - that's nice, but you still have to prove why it's notable before it gets an article. We don't have articles for all songs that are singles because not all singles are notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable as there is sources stating it's a possible 6th single from the album. So the article fits as notable as a beginning/start article. Whether Billboards.com has confirmed it as being a single I have yet to see as I've read through the source but saw none. I tunes indeed has released it as a digital download. And not all pages need to be deleted because one person sees them as not notable. I believe before any page gets deleted there should be a consensus on the talk page about it before redirecting/deleted. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good example of it being notable is Speak Now World Tour: Live which is a Future live album by Swift set to be released in 4 days. The difference with say "Ours" and "If This Was a Movie" there has been a review of the song already and that means there will probably be more in the future when the song hits radio. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, the song is actually going to be sent to radio this month. Lemme find the source... — Status {^talk_contribs 03:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. "Ours" ships to radio Nov. 28 I vote keep. But I'm fine with a redirect until then if necessary. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to this page http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/rihanna-still-reigns-hot-100-but-taylor-1005537412.story. The last sentence of the fourth paragraph says, " Swift also arrives at Nos. 13 and 26 on the Hot 100 with "Ours" (148,000; her next country radio single) and "Superman" (91,000), respectively.". It also says the same thing on this billboard page, http://www.billboard.com/news/rihanna-still-atop-hot-100-taylor-swift-1005531152.story#/news/rihanna-still-atop-hot-100-taylor-swift-1005531152.story right above the first BIG link in the middle of the page. I think the page should stay. And as far as not being a likly search item 2196 people have looked at it already http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Ours_(song) you can find this page on any article by clicking view history and then clicking Page view statistics, located right above the list of revisions and slightly off to the right.Theodorerichert (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think enough sources have been provided to support that it is the next official single from the album. NYSMtalk page 04:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a single does not automatically make a song notable for an article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the single is one of Taylor Swift, then I believe it does. NYSMtalk page 05:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that says we keep articles on future singles that may or may not become notable because they are performed by certain artists. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to put keep here instead of dispute lol! Oops my bad. But as I've said I think we should keep it. User talk:RickyBryant45324 05:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whenever i create articles for songs that have not charted, i cannot even count the number of people who come up with the argument WP:NSONGS. Since this one has charted, what on earth is wrong now? Sometimes it is A, then it becomes Z. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind Chasewc91 all article's for Taylor Swift singles have been rather small to begin with and then grown quickly. Give it a little time. I think it will be at least 2/3 as big as the article for Sparks Fly in 2 months tops. Theodorerichert (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't !vote to keep or delete articles based on what they may be like in the coming months, we do so based on what they are now. Who's to say that this single will ever achieve greater notability than charting on the Hot 100? Assuming that it will is WP:CRYSTAL. I'm sure it will, but for now it does not. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this WP:NSONGS we delete if there is no chance of it expanding beyond a stub and it is already past that.Theodorerichert (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as a complete waste of time, charting on the Billboard Hot 100 alone affirms notability, not to mention passing the appropriate SNG and GNG with independent published sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy close as a complete waste of time, charting on the Billboard Hot 100 alone affirms notability, not to mention passing the appropriate SNG and GNG with independent published sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Till I Go Home and 7&6=thirteen - WP:NSONGS says that charting on the Hot 100 may affirm notability, that is not always the case. More than half of the references in this article do nothing more than confirm single release or chart positions. Note that all of the sections of prose here are only a few sentences long. Swift has charted all songs from her album on the Hot 100 and most of them do not have articles because, like this (as of present), they have not achieved notability for anything other than charting. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So am I missing something or is there concensus the article should stay?Theodorerichert (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy close - I don't even know why this is being debated.. it clearly meets WP:SONGS. Candy o32 03:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Theo. It seems to me that there has been a consensus to keep this article. To Chase. You have yet to listen to other peoples opinions on here and as such it shows you are not taking them into consideration. Instead you are sticking to your argument and trying to press your opinions on others. Not what I call good standards as a Wikipedia editor. I am going to find an admin and see if they will close this as there is no point in continuing this argument it is obvious that the article meets enough of the standards to be notable and as it was pointed out above as the article will grow as many other articles do when they first start out. User talk:RickyBryant45324 05:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pressing my opinions" in a discussion is certainly not a P&G violation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:NSONGS. Like Status, I'm also happy with a redirect to Speak Now until the radio release. Novice7 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living Dead Man Window To Worlds[edit]

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

no references given, aside from amazon ebook status, which gives no indication of notability. a cursory search gives no further sources. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search didn't show any notability for the book or its author. It's a self-pubbed (not that there's anything wrong with that) and non-notable read. A quick look at the adder's contributions show that this was their only contribution. I think this might qualify for a speedy delete since it seems to be pretty blatant advertising for the book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- I agree that its probably a speedy delete, but i like to give benefit of the doubt when possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources, no apparent notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliable sources have been found establish the subject's notability. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Solovianenko[edit]

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

Lack of notability. M Magister Scienta ^talk (18 November 2011) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quick Google search reveals Solovianenko%22&dq=%22Anatoliy Solovianenko%22&hl=en&ei=q67FTpuwAoTjiAKg15WvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA this book. →Σ τ c. 01:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From his obituary "Anatoliy Solovianenko, 66, one of Ukraine's best known opera singers and a former Metropolitan Opera soloist, has died" (emphasis added.) That should be enough to establish notability under any reasonable standard. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of Ghits to evidence notability out there. I've added some to the article and built it out a bit more.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google [sic!] yìelds A LOT.--Galassi (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 05:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greensboro roller derby[edit]

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

Non-notable sports organization lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. reddogsix (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What can I do to make the article more notable? The league is pretty well established and competes regionally with leagues who have uncontested articles. Englshivy (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, WP:ORG also applies. There has to be substantial verifiable, independent coverage that supports the article. Are there any more newspaper articles or TV coverage about the organization that can be added? Rather than continue this discussion here, please leave your comment on my talk page. reddogsix (talk) 18:49, 10 November 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, Black Kite (t) 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - League is subject of significant coverage in multiple, independent, published sources (see footnotes). Clears the General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Mescoi[edit]

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

Scant evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add more relevant information. Enough information on Internet. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The above comment misses the point: the burden of presenting sources attesting the guy's notability falls on the authors. Nothing in the article complies with our content or format rules, and no outside sources, at least online (I can tell you as a native Romanian speaker, who had done that search), verify that this is anyhting other than a vanity page. Dahn (talk) 19:28, 5 November 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, causa sui (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 15 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the moment the sources aren't enough to establish notability. I would be happy to change this if something better is found as he seems like an interesting chap. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 05:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Frenzy Basketball[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable charitable organization that fails GNG. Not sure but WP:NOBLECAUSE might apply here too. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, WP:NOBLECAUSE is very clear on this topic. M Magister Scienta ^talk (18 November 2011)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A kids' sports league which seems to have less than 100 players would not usually be considered notable. Plus the sources only mention the team without really giving us any information about it which could make it notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all - seems pretty clear. Rikster2 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero Google news, books and scholar links. Failing WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 05:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Pollard[edit]

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

This guy has been in several indie-rock bands of very marginal notability. (one of which is also currently at AFD) I see no evidence that he has any notability as an individual separate from his participation in several obscure bands. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of The Folk Implosion, Sebadoh, Earlimart, and Everest, all of which are notable, and not marginally so.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC) ...and Alaska!, a band which has also received plenty of coverage - see that article's AFD. See also Huffington Post interview, Spinner interview, OC Weekly, etc.--Michig (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Former member of Sebadoh. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously an WP:INHERIT argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He satisfies WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG guidelines, both of which carry more weight than an essay.--Michig (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three notable bands, etc. Probably of interest to users. No positive gain to the encyclopedia to offset the loss inherent in deletion. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, let's setting this once and for all. HERE is a short interview with Russell Pollard from the San Francisco Examiner, an ultra-mainstream, large circulation paper newspaper. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is a page off the New Music Express website that collects various Russell Pollard thingies, including video interviews. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And AN INTERVIEW with Russell Pollard and Jason Soda of Everest in Chicago Now. Carrite (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator probably won't be wowwed by ANOTHER INTERVIEW with Russell Pollard conducted by Web In Front, but if I were improving this piece, I'd give it a look. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IN THE SAME VEIN is this interview with Russell Pollard from the website In Music We Trust. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AND ANOTHER from that same source, which is indicative of this artist's stature in the indie rock world. By the way, this is also worthy of mention in conjunction with the ongoing second challenge of Alaska!, a Pollard project. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fuck, you have to be kidding me. This is the Guided by Voices guy. Snow this. Here's something that anyone following WP:BEFORE might be advised to make part of their repertoire when challenging indie rock artists, a SEARCH OF THE ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE SITE for the phrase "Russell Pollard." It generates 474 hits. Take your pick. Carrite (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Over and out.~~ Carrite (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Check that, I am a moron. Wrong Pollard. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 25 November 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.