< 20 November	22 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 delete. Courcelles 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estha Divine[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography written in French; translation would be useless as the artist appears to fail the notability criteria. An article under that name was also deleted from the French Wikipedia today. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I have now added a source, the singer still fails WP:Music. Delete. De728631 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually restored the BLP prod shortly before this afd was opened, as far as I can tell ReverbNation.com is little more than a social networking site, and a page there does not seem to demonstrate notability. However if I'm wrong then by all means Delete--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had put the original BLPPROD on this article because I couldn't find any good sources for it; I don't think the subject is notable per any of the criteria for musicians. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any mention of in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the source problems, if fr.wikipedia doesn't want it... Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:01, 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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of the Ocean[edit]

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

Is a prop used in Titanic really worthy of its own article? This article barely has any references and most of the page just consists of its usage within the movie. I would say a redirect to the Titanic movie page perhaps. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hard to believe that a movie prop could be notable, but the six references to reliable sources, some of which provide quite significant coverage of this item, indicate that it is. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a prominent movie prop from the highest grossing film of it's decade; it's not at all surprising to me that there's enough backstory and RS commentary to sustain an article (i.e., meet the GNG). This actually goes from the origin, through parodies in popular culture... not at all a non-encyclopedic approach to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Iconic prop from a notable film. Stating "barely has any references" seems more a decent reason to add them through regular editing if needed, than one to delete. We have no problem on WIkipedia with articles on fictional elements, as notability is found through multiple availability of sources addressing a topic directly and in detail, and not on whether the topic so covered is fictional or not. And while a merge and redirect is sometimes suitable for some such, a merge that overburdens a target is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 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 Delete. Any merging of text will need to be discussed at the suggested target pages; if anyone would like a copy of this article in their userspace to use as a draft/starting point, just let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America West Airlines Flight 564[edit]

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

Supposed UFO incident. Clearly written from a particular point of view and sourced to two extremely unreliable source. Unless multiple, published, independent sources can be found to support the contents of this article it has no place in an encyclopedia. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and burn with fire - no WP:RS, utter failure of WP:GNG, only two gBook hits are fringe publications. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just hot air, like many articles of this type. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it can be shown conclusively that this incident received sigificant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Not fringe sources, not crank sources, but reliable sources.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article may need attention, the incident is supported by complete Albuquerque ATC communications, both with the plane and NORAD. The flight details and pilots' names are known (Tollefson and Waller, being described as very experienced). The time is accurately known, the location fairly accurately. The unidentified craft itself, is unusual in terms of its estimated size, and the co-pilot's drawing, showing an unconventional craft, indicates his support for the UFO hypothesis. The background of the researcher, Walter N. Webb, is fairly well-known. On the down-side, the information on the case seems largely based on his report: Walter N. Webb, Final Report on the America West Airline Case, May 25-26, 1995, Fund for UFO Research, Washington, D.C., July 1996. There are indeed widely circulated UFO sightings based on completely fabricated claims, but my impression is that this is not one of them. JMK (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs multiple reliable sources to remain as a stand alone article. Also clearly a case where UFOlogy sources disagree on what was sighted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NICAP (above source) is definitely reliable, but most other sources on Google I found were not WP:RS. The other external link in the article is a YouTube link, and probably should be removed per WP:ELNO. Pretty much a complete lack of reliable sources except NICAP. Google Books show possible self-published or unreliable works. No establishment that this incident meets WP:GNG. HurricaneFan 25 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure fantasy with no reliable sources, and fails notability in any case.Petebutt (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content into UFO sightings in the United States, or an even better target List of alleged aircraft-UFO incidents and near misses. Although this particular article does not have many redeeming qualities, given the numerous articles we do have on individual UFO sightings I suspect many of the delete !voters above were a bit hasty in their judgment here. This incident is worth a mention in one of our list articles on the topic. -- œ ^™ 08:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd prefer with merging into the articles stated by OlEnglish above, that makes sense. Meh, you get on this History Channel you are part of human knowledge I guess. I don't think this deserves a stand alone article though. Of course the UFO sightings in the United States and List of alleged aircraft-UFO incidents and near misses articles need attention too, but it makes sense to put the problems in one place and deal with it there. Realpolitik. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:32, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn by the nom voting to keep based on improvments and what appears to be a killer argument Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Masquelier[edit]

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

Could not find very many articles about him on the Web. IMDB has a stub that lists no credits. The French Wikipedia article about him has been nominated for deletion, and the discussion there heavily favors deletion. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the fr.wikipedia discussion, which pretty much says it all. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep due to excellent work by MichaelQSchmidt, and noting for the future that foreign language Wikipedias use massively different notability criteria. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Nice People (TV France). -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I'm not convinced that all of the sources identified by MQS are usable, but there are enough of them that are to push this over. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really not the least bit concerned that IMDB does not have much on this person,[1] as A) he appears to have moved away from acting and producing, and B) we all know IMDB is incomplete and considered unreliable. And with respects to Alessandra Napolitano, what they decide to do at fr.Wikipedia is what they do... not what we do... the linked discussion appears to be justavote and devoid of what we would consider policy and guideline based discussion. The google-translated version nomination seems incomplete and whiffs of WP:IDONTLIKE in attitude toward a reality show personality and developer of a website itself the recipient of significant coverage showing notability. So discounting what happens at fr.Wikipedia as immaterial to such discussion at en.Wikipeda, and keeping in mind that en.Wikipedia we apply OUR guidelines and policies and not those of the French, we HERE instead try to determine if we have enough sources available to show a meeting of WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE for his works, even if the sources are non-English, just so long as sources deal with him directly and in some detail. Paris match, Issues 3076-3083 from 2008 speaks about a project involving Dennis Hopper. Kuzeo (September 2010] confirms his part in Nice People, tells us of how he was producer of the first poker show in France, was creator of the tournament when first launched in February 2005, and that he served as Director General of Partouche Interactive until June 2009. He was interviewed by iGame Magazine (September 2010) about PokerXtrem.fr and his role in its creation. Kuzeo (October 2010) also interviewed him about the poker site and his role in its creation and development. Ozap (September 2010) also speaks toward his part in Nice People and his role in creation of PokerXtrem. Numerous other sources also give coverage for his part in the creation of the show and website.(more) And just 4 days ago, Le Figaro (November 2011) offered us more coverage of him in relationship to the poker website and the tournament he created. And from the French article, we also have Le Figaro (June 2009), VSD (April 2004), and Le Parisian (April 2003). How much more coverage does he require to eke over the line from obscurity to being just notable enough for en.Wikipeda through years of in-depth coverage, despite the strange French twists on notability determination and lack of actual discussion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per individual meeting OUR criteria for inclusion as a French entepreneur who has received significant coverage for his works in multiple secondary sources. With respects to the nominator, what the French do at their Wikipedia, does not dictate what we do here at en.Wikipedia. Here, we use OUR policies and guidelines to discern if we have enough sources dealing directly with him to satisfy OUR notability guidelines. Through my research, I believe OUR criteria are met, and so I've been working on the article... fixing new editor Aesv97's lamentable trans-wiki of the article from fr.Wikipedia by fixing citation format, adding additional sources, correcting errors created by the mis-translation to English, removing hyperbole, and making the whole thing properly encyclopedic per OUR manual of style. What began as a poor copy of the French version, has now become neutral, encyclopdic, and properly sourced.[2] God bless the French, but they use a skewed set of guidelines and policies... similar to but not quite the same as ours... and per OUR policies and guidelines, I think the GNG is now shown as being met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find Michael Schmidt's arguments compelling, especially in view of the references he was able to find and the improvements that he has made to the article. Peter Chastain (talk) 06:08, 23 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 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider ZO[edit]

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

Of the only three secondary sources currently cited in this article, two make no reference to the film in question but only to a character in the film, and the third is simply a list of film titles. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Neelix (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a film released nationally in Japan and made its way stateside by means of a Sega CD video game, and it should frankly not matter that the film's protagonist is the subject of the sources in question. The fact of the matter is that some aspect of the film has appeared in reliable sources in the past 3 years, because finding sources regarding the film itself from 1993 is nigh impossible. Due to the age of the film, we must rely on the other criteria set forth by WP:MOVIE to determine the notability, and the fact that its main character is still prevalent in the Japanese media should be enough to show that the film in its original form is notable. I found reliable sources that relate to the film. Why the hell are they not suitable just because they don't happen to directly be about the film, but the film's main character?—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have found more references, including one that describes the creation of the story of the film as well as the design of its protagonist.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Ryulong here.Fractyl (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryulong. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's concerns have been easily adressed through regular editing to show a meeting of WP:GNG and WP:NF. Kudos to User:Ryulong. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryulong's rationale. As said above, "the fact that its main character is still prevalent in the Japanese media should be enough to show that the film in its original form is notable".--Cavarrone (talk) 10:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aliaa Magda Elmahdy[edit]

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

This is WP:BLP1E to the letter.

This woman posted a nude picture of herself and “publicly challenged Egypt’s existing social conventions.” That’s hardly a significant event. There has been significant coverage of her in reliable sources but these reliable sources cover the person only in the context of this single event. She is likely to remain a low-profile individual after this media flurry, so per BLP1E, we not have an article on her. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. From WP:BLP1E "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5]" This event is having a significant impact on the Egyptian election campaign under way. Her role within the event is substantial and well documented. RMCampbell (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Posting a nude photo of one's self normally wouldn't be a significant occurrence in much of the USA, and nearly all of Europe. But, in the context of Egyptian culture, the international media coverage shows this is, and expressly describe it as a noteworthy event. "She is likely to remain a low-profile individual after this media flurry" is WP:CRYSTALism. Also, per RMCampbell, the persistence of coverage and political effects show that this person is notable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She and her blog have become subject to global news reporting. Moreover from her local/regional perspective her actions carry a different meaning and have legal and cultural ramifications.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event had a notable political impact, Elmahdy also received a number of death threats while several Islamic law graduates filed a case against her. Brandmeister t 15:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course this woman is notable, just as Mohamed Bouazizi is notable for just one act, just as Asmaa Mahfouz is notable for her blog, just as Ethar El-Katatney is notable for her tweeting, just as Wael Ghonim is notable for one interview on Dream TV. Elmahdy's act has inspired solidarity demonstrations in Israel, articles in the Arab media (e.g. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/15/177270.html ) some 200 news articles in English[3] and thousands of followers on Twitter. I can't beleive it's even being debated.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E falls under the category of "Presumption in favor of privacy." I would agree with NOM if the subject were requesting removal, but quite the opposite is the case: she seeks to publicize the issue, not to keep it private. Also, this story, as others have noted above, is garnering international news attention (which is how I found this AfD) and factors into a much larger story and movement of note, which is likely to continue growing and becoming progressively more notable. There may come a time for deletion, but that time is not now. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 09:07, 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 Bill Beutel#Personal life. Redirects, in fact, are cheap. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Deerfield[edit]

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

Delete ~~and/or merge with Bill Beutel~~: Non-notable in her own right, as per IMDb, which is only remotely objective source provided. Quis separabit? 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or merge with no prejudice towards recreation if a full article with reliable sources (not IMDb) can be created. gren グレン 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Grenavitar was the first registered user to edit the article; notified of this AfD accordingly. Quis separabit? 14:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Quis separabit? gren グレン 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actress; this was probably written as a memorial piece. She apparently appeared in only four episodes of The Guiding Light, and was seen once on The Match Game; that appears to the the extent of her career. She was married to Bill Beutel for less than three years, not worth a redirect. Google News finds just passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that article is memorial piece and that delete is preferable but since her name is mentioned in the Beutel article, I figured a redirect wouldn't matter. Quis separabit? 18:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really object to a redirect. As the saying goes, redirects are cheap. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 30 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 speedily deleted per G3 (blatant hoax) by Drmies (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armlania[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax to me. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does indeed look like a hoax. I couldn't find a reference to this supposed micronation on Google.

I am sorry if this seems to be a hoax, but this Micronation is only a day old and as such has not had the chance to establish itself over Google. It is indeed a Micronation and the website link provided does link to this Micronation's website. If you have any other questions to it, there is contact information for the creators on the link in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armlania (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether we call this a hoax or pure vandalism doesn't really matter. Speedy deletion is the answer. Thank you Yankeesrule3. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable hoax, or might-as-well-be-a-hoax. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:01, 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 Deleted as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prophetic Art[edit]

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

Either hallucination or rambling, you decide. The user has also added spam links on the subject: icing on the cake. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Garbage. --Axel™ (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are being too kind. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now tell us what you really think of the article :-) Delete by all means - it's a copyvio at the moment, but even if it were entirely rewritten there is no indication that this is a notable concept. --bonadea contributions talk 20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes aside, this is the tip of a large iceberg. In time, these types of additions will overrun the established users, taking time that would have gone to better use. And the presence of junk hinders donations in the long run. So it is serious. These things need to be nipped in the bud. Else it will cost time and money. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 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. Courcelles 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative bubblegum pop[edit]

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

unsourced neologism, see WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP, google search doesn't turn up much. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. For the few instances where it is used, it's probably just invented on the spot, rather than a reference to an identified music genre. Excluding WP and its mirrors and pages where "alternative" just happens to precede "bubblegum pop" (usually in a list), I found a whopping six ghits, all incidental mentions: here, here, here, here, here, and here. The content itself seems to be an amalgam of WP:OR and pure fiction, such as the phantom BBC references. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. I put out about 100 pop-punk releases over the course of my labeldom, I know of what I speak. Making this a redirect to Pop-punk would be reasonable, but I doubt this is a valid search term. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now having actually read the piece, this uses "alternative" anachronistically. Original essay. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced and unsourceable personal opinion of someone messing around. As I !vote, it also has crap about rap artists being a prime example, as well as a reference to Rebecca Black, which is just as unsourced as the original content. However, even if you look at the original version [4], it makes baloney claims such that "Prime examples of Alternative Bubblegum Pop bands are Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and the The Beatles." Led Zep? lol. Yes, Pink Floyd recorded Bike (song) in 1967, but its ridiculous to claim its one of the "first" alternative bubblegum songs. If there really was a legitimate alternative bubblegum pop genre, it would be populated by bands post-Nirvana-breakthrough bands like Dressy Bessy or Best Coast, not a Syd Barrett bad trip.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past outcomes of other new genres; see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian post-hardcore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian fantasy metal, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance metal. See also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, WP:HAMMER, and WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 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. Courcelles 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthian ProStars[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage about this line of collectable football figures. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011
Delete I tried to find something to redirect it to, but nothing seemed appropriate. I note that this article is a contested prod, and that the related articles Corinthian Microstars and Corinthian Headliners actually were prodded recently. The argument for contesting the prod of this one was "I personally think that Wikipedia should have a page on the CorinthianProStars because there is not much coverage on the internet relating to this subject and as an avid follower of the ProStars it would be a shame to see it go." Not a valid reason to keep, and in fact "there is not much coverage" seems like an admission of non-notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole stuffed camel[edit]

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

Is this article sourced? Yes, but the sources don't demonstrate that it's actually a recipe, nor do they demonstrate notability. This may be a hoax, but it's not a notable one. Doesn't appear that this half-baked article has ever been discussed here, so it's overdone, er, due. ~T P W 19:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

keep -> Keep -> KEEP. If it is amply sourced (I've added another), that certainly demonstrates notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in the Snopes article are enough to show notability and more can be found by searching. It's well-known, and whether hoax or not, there's no reason not to keep this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It gets about as substantial coverage as individual dishes would in reliable sources, presented as both fact (Food Cultures of the World Encyclopedia; Let's Visit Iran p. 17; The Bermudian, Volume 42 [Libya, 1971]; Gourmet, Volume 52, Issues 7–12, p. 44 [Saudi Arabia, 1992]; State, US Dept of State, Issues 219-229, p. 13 [Somalia, 1980]) and an urban(?) legend or joke (Never Try to Teach a Pig to Sing: still more urban folklore from the paperwork empire; and my personal favorite I'm OK, you're a pain in the neck p. 83). It also gets plenty of other mention in less reputable sources indicating stuffed camel somewhat well-known. I found it helpful to search gbooks for "stuffed camel" chicken. The term "whole stuffed camel" might be descriptive, but the more notable term seems to be just "stuffed camel." JFHJr (㊟) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a culinary joke. Edison (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recipe might be a hoax and might not be, and the article acknowledges both sides along with several reliable sources. Neutral and verifiable. Good enough for me. Steven Walling • talk 07:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Documented in detail in this encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Documented, with enough coverage to meet the General Notability Guideline. Ronk01 talk 16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is clear, skeptical, as well documented as it is reasonable to expect. To me, the strongest argument is that I came to Wikipedia fully expecting to find such an article, which, when read, disabused me of the notion that it was a serious recipe, but included enough information to account for my having heard of the thing. Ortolan88 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here looking for this precise information. Whether it's a hoax was irrelevant to my research. I had heard of the concept somewhere and was looking for the name of the dish and the ingredients used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.101.232 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article deals with a discrete and significant culinary dish, and has citations that both indicate the existence of the recipe and reflect skepticism in the dish as conceived.Neumannk (talk) 21:27, 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Department of APECE, University of Dhaka[edit]

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

Contested redirect. Academic department of questionable notability. Google search on "Department of APECE" "University of Dhaka‎" shows only 7 unique results out of 20 total. No significant coverage from independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper search is requested to you. Google Search on [Department of APECE University of Dhaka] shows About 1560 Results. Quotation marks you used, gave you fault result. Hope this helps. --Rashtab (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, quotation marks in search terms narrow the focus to the specific phrases one is looking for. In discussions like this, the specific searches are more relevant. However, in fairness, since several of your search results use an abbreviation of "Department", I did a search on "Dept. of APECE" "University of Dhaka" and only got 63 unique results - again, outside of primary sources, there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, "http://apece.univdhaka.edu/". This is a reliable source.And Google searches aren't actually big factor. Contact Aditya Sir. Contact informations are there at the website --Rashtab (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the main website for the department, that is a primary source. Please read the reliable sources guidelines. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Point, For example, Wikipedia search on Department of Computer Science shows there are wikipages on such articles from Oxford University, Toronto University, Durham University etc. So if this article on APECE Department is being considered to be deleted, all other such articles here at Wikipedia must be considered to be deleted. --Rashtab (talk) --Rashtab (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why that is an invalid argument. However, most of the articles you mention have been flagged for various problems, but their notability is not as questionable - a search on "Department of Computer Science" "University of Oxford" shows nearly 249,000 results, while a similar search for Toronto shows 204,000. That's a remarkable difference to this article, which is why it was redirected, and then nominated when you wouldn't accept the redirect. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving much attention to the Google searches. and the main thing is, the page Department of APECE, University of Dhaka is from a University in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is not so Developed country and the Native language here is Bangla(বাংলা). So, our internet database in English is not that strong. So, Google Search can't give you proper result. And it's not a false article. Come, visit Bangladesh; if you have any doubt. I'm a student of University of Dhaka. --Rashtab (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attribute things to me which I did not say. No one is claiming the article is false, or that the department doesn't exist. The question is whether it's notable enough for its own article. You have yet to offer anything that shows notability - just existence. 21:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete The article contains no claim that this department is doing anything beyond any department in any university. Wikipedia is not the place for placeholders for each year's syllabus on a B.Eng degree. Nor do Google searches on full name or the abbreviation appear to turn up anything beyond confirmation of existence. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For more information plz visit "http://apece.univdhaka.edu/" .. And the Chairman of APECE, Dr. Subrata Kumar Aditya requested to create the page. --Rashtab (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Officials of any organisation or business are entitled to commission the creation of pages on their own corporate Intranet; they are not entitled to request a Wikipedia page: please read WP:COI. AllyD (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I stated my reviews above, I request to keep the page Department of APECE, University of Dhaka --Rashtab (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Department is NOT independently notable. An alternative to delete can be to redirect to the University of Dhaka page, with a summary of this page being included there if it isn't there already. --Ragib (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this particular department stands out as something that reaches standalone notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest a redirect to University of Dhaka, as I guess was originally done, but in fact this is an unlikely search term. Anyone looking for this department is going to look under "University of Dhaka", not under "department of...". To User:Rashtab, thank you for your strong feelings. Please don't be discouraged if this article is deleted; Wikipedia has rules for what kind of articles we can have here, see WP:NOTABILITY. If this article is deleted, I suggest you work on expanding the article University of Dhaka. That article just lists the departments; you could add more information and make it a better article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 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. Courcelles 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Saad[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally, as the article was previously deleted via PROD. Delete rationale remains vaild. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a look for sources and was unable to find any coverage, so I agree that he fails WP:GNG and because he has only played in leagues that aren't fully professional, he fails WP:NFOOTY. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 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 keep. causa sui (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth 2 (TV series)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage of this WP:NFILM film in third party sources. Searches for "Inconvenient Truth 2" are all about a possible sequel to Al Gore's film. "Inconvenient Truth" Guest does not bring up significant relevant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletebriefly per WP:TOOSOON. Did some searches on this article sourced only to its "official website"... a Facebook page. Seems that distributor The Community Channel has not yet been connected with this project,[5] and adding the creator or country with the title (to hopefully weed out the Al Gore false positives) give results only in non-RS.[6][7] While the project may well have been created as an answer to the Gore film, reliable sources have not yet decided to take note.[8] Let it come back after actually screening and receiving some coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above- much better stated that I could say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braniff747SP (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you can see the Community Channel's press release at www.jackguest.com - using a facebook page as official website isn't less valid than a stand-alone website. I'm sure you all realise this isn't a fake, and is broadcasting on the community channel, and will be available internationally online from December 10th BTW - The film was called 'a Convenient Truth' up until around 3 weeks ago. You can see third-party info about the film by searching google for 'A Convenient Truth Jack Guest':[9] Plus an article about the film from a Swedish newspaper here: [10] :) apologies for my newbie editing skills! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGuest (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 November 2011‎
You might care to check WP:USERNAME#Real names. If you are THE Jack Guest, you might wish to not edit the article, as it could be seen as self promotion and be an conflict of interest. If you are not THE Jack Guest, a username change could prevent misunderstandings. See WP:UNC, WP:AVOIDCOI, WP:NAU Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...ahhhh. A new search parameter. I'll do some digging and report back. And am alwys willing to change my mind. But just to let you know, per WP:RS and WP:SPS, official or not, user edited networking sites such as Facebook are not considered reliable sources toward notability... nor are press releases or special interest websites. We depend on verifiability through reliable sources. News reports and commentary work pretty well for us. Back in a bit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks all - commentary and reviews starting to appear on blogs now: http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/11/inconvenient-truth-2-world-premiere.html
  - To enlighten... as they usually lack editorial oversite, blogs are generally considered non-RS... though there are exceptions. Rising blog activity might act as an indicator that we might expect upcoming coverage in properly reliable sites as they take notice of the rising blog activity, but the blogs themselves.... rarely. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment As the article is simply WP:TOOSOON, incubation for a few weeks may be a reasonable solution. To reiterate: let it come back after actually screening and receiving some coverage IN RELIABLE SOURCES. If it is not improved while out of mainspace, it will be deleted anyway... and with no fanfare. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And with no fanfare? What do you mean? It will be deleted anyway.. because its not well written enough? If so perhaps you could lend your experience to the piece? I'll post RSs here as they appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.115.194 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not because it wasn't well written, but because the hoped for reliable sources did not come forward. A "no fanfare" deletion from incubation is based upon artcles there already having been discussed at AFD. The processes in place there give editors time to address issues, but incubation is not to be used as permament strorage for articles that are not improved. We do not maintain unsourcable content in mainspace on expectations or promises of coverage. Places such as the incubator or a user's draft space are where improvements take place for topics that are not yet ready for mainspace. And incubation is intended only as a temporary reprive... where if an article is not corrected to address the concerns of an AFD, it will eventually be deleted. And as for my "experience", I take pride in being able to improve articles that face deletion, and have a decent track record for doing so.... but my rescues are based upon actually having sources, and I do not find them in this case. I understand your angst, and offer a solution that does not mandate immediate deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information Michael, much appreciated :) Here's a brand new article printed in a Swedish newspaper yesterday: http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/kristianstad/article1580623/Kristianstad-forebild-i-tv-serie-om-miljon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGuest (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changed from delete per fact that we now have a reliable source that confirms assertions in that article. The film is now verifiable in a secondary independent reliable source to have been completed and set to and screen in a matter weeks. We can let this stay and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic news, thank you Michael for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGuest (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it a reprieve. I am aware of all the non-Rs discussing the film, but it was only the actual confirmation of its imminent airing in a reliable source that pushed it just over the top for me. Keep in mind though, that if it does not receive coverage or commentary after it airs, it could likely return to AFD. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 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. Courcelles 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Morsell[edit]

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

Non-notable actor; only claim to fame is starring in a 1995 video game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't have been PROD'ed? --Salvidrim! (t • c) 19:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. Virtually empty article. Even if a lot was added, it would still probably be best to just merge it to the respective game. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some evidence of a cameo in the Fresh Prince of Bel Air at some point, but still not enough work to meet notability guidelines. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:47, 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. causa sui (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BJP youth wing protest against Wikipedia's map of India[edit]

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

The article describes a single protest (disclosure: I moved it from dispute to protest) rather than a dispute. If, at some point in the future, it moves up to the level of a dispute between wikipedia and the BJP, then we could legitimately have an article on that. But, since we don't know if this will have any lasting significance, the current article does not satisfy WP:EVENT. The only point of interest here is that the protest happened at a wikipedia conference and we shouldn't be navel gazing. regentspark (comment) 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nom) --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this fails WP:EVENT. If we have an article on the Indian map controversy then merge any usable content there. As it is this is a news item more appropriate four our sister site Wikinews. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nom's point pretty much agrees with what I've been saying since it was created, although there might be an argument for a single paragraph in Wiki Conference India recording that a protest took place (if that article survives it own AfD intact). - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:EVENT. It has been three days and the story hasnt got any traction beyond the first days coverage. A single paragraph mention in the conference article would be enough.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and describe briefly in Wiki Conference India as suggested by Sitush and Sodabottle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems there has been some poor media reporting. As Sitush pointed out, The Economic Times has retracted their story,[11] the BBC and the Daily Pioneer have made changes/reworded their stories. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a one event protest, by ~~100 or so~~ a very small number of BJP youth members, and doesn't appear to have attracted sufficient reliable source attention to achieve lasting notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Edit: It now looks like it was probably far fewer than 100 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:EVENT, no brainer. ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or merge with Wiki Conference India. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should be lots of stuff on various map disputes which have caused furors - including, but not limited to, a PRC postage stamp showing all of China in red -- except for Taiwan! The Chile and Argentina stamps showing conflicting Antactic claims, etc. This article, however, is far too limited in scope dealing with a single event with a relatively small group of participants. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rework and rename to an article on the Restricted Zone (India). While the article is too much bound to a single event, there is an encyclopedic topic hiding in there: the notion of a Restricted Zone that may not be depicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy. I could not find this described in any other article, perhaps because I did not know where to look, but I think simply because the content is not there. Given such an article, the protest might well be represented there by a paragraph or two. --Lambiam 00:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Kashmir dispute for Restricted Zone. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A local wiki-kerfuffle of negligible notability elsewhere. Handwaving "look-at-me!"-ism at its finest. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is too early to be able to decide that this is not of lasting value. There is nothing to suggest that the issue has come to an end.MW ^ℳ 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transient news blown out of proportion. It might be worth mentioning it in some article (like Wiki Conference India) but not spend a separate article on it. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's anything notable, it should be on Wiki Conference India. This was a small protest without much notability or effect. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly merge selected content to Wiki Conference India. The probability of this one protest getting lasting coverage, having a significant impact or having an impact over a large area or population is virtually zero, so it doesn't satisfy WP:EVENT. Keeping the article would signify that events are notable simply because they relate to Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 14:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to satisfy either WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wiki Conference India. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wiki Conference India, Kashmir_dispute#Map_issues (background section). Delete link, no redirect. Non-notable on its own. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wiki Conference India Veryhuman (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wiki Conference India. But it only needs about two sentences or so. Anything longer than a paragraph would be undue weight. Silver seren^C 19:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and develop instead a section on the mapping law in Jammu and Kashmir. This has affected other international publications ... the most recent issue of The Economist on my iPad has an article about water issues in South Asia, one of which is between India and Pakistan (surprise! What won't they fight about?) over the tributaries of the Indus in that region, and an accompanying map ... with a note from the editorial staff that the print version in India can, under Indian law, only depict the region as Indian rather than divided by the Line of Control. And it's not the first time this has happened, and the last time they ran an editorial about how silly this is several weeks later. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this matter is relevant to at least three distinct subjects, Wiki Conference India (2011), Jammu and Kashmir, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (a fourth might be Criminal Law Amendment Act (1961) and a fifth Censorship in India. Covering it in a central article seems sensible. Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
Comment - editors seem unaware that redirect and merge is a keep, and most delete editors seem to be proposing keeping some of the content, which might require attribution preserving. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

I for one am not suggesting a redirect and merge. I am suggesting that there may be room for two or three sentences in another article, done from scratch. This article should be deleted for the reasons stated. BTW, I got "told off" for adding the Censorship in India category to the thing, although it seems pretty obvious to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my main point was that if this is not considered suitable for an article, there should be a redirect - external places already link to this title for attribution at least. Whether the "two or three sentences" are done from scratch or GFDL attributed is pretty much secondary, although I would describe it as a merge in either case. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, don't belittle the opinions of others; when I say "delete", I mean "delete". There are other ways to preserve attributions for GFDL concerns, such as how WP:BOOMERANG (see talk page) was preserved when the original incarnation was deleted. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no sense merging it, the article to be merged into is also under AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's clearly going to be kept -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not belittling anyone, the boomerang you cite is, frankly, not that good though - I would have thought that sort of thing should be in extremisonly. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as an article on the Indian map controversy - an article specifically discussing the impact of this 1961 law on maps covering the restricted zone. Cf. the other examples noted above affecting the Economist and other publications in India. This is a notable part of life there, and cannot be easily merged into existing articles (Line of Control, Kashmir dispute, and the articles Rich notes above all should link to it). Details about the event at the conference should merge into the conference's article. – SJ + 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS; no evidence that is of enduring notability. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 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. Courcelles 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pennsylvania Festival of the Arts[edit]

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

Non-notable Central Pennsylvania local arts festival. No third party sources to establish notability as required under WP:N. None of the activities listed are in any substantial way unique or noteworthy. GrapedApe (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, per Eastmain's demonstration that sources are available, if not used.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this Google News search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The link provided by User:Eastmain suggests that there's a potential to write a good article. All we need is a competent editor with an interest in this topic. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Many possible sources exist, including such good sources as The New York Times and other reputable sites. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 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 keep per popular demand. (non-admin closure) Till I Go Home (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barfüßiger Februar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating the following articles:

No established notability. No improvement since May 2011. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Written by the 2009 Nobel laureate Herta Müller, recognized body of work; The Nobel site's entry for the author lists them all, and additional coverage by AP & Reuters exists in English, and presumably in Swedish, German, and Romanian. Thank you for not including the 2 I worked on from your previous set, but Wikipedia:There is no deadline still applies. Dru of Id (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – What has changed since the "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed and that's exactly the problem. Article topics need their notability to be established. None of those articles has done this since the last AfD. These books still fail WP:GNG. None of these books has shown that it satisfies one of the notability criteria for books. I acknowledge that Herta Müller is a praised novelist. However I do not see that she satisfies WP:NBOOK criterion 5. Thus notability of her books need to be established through notability criterion 1. I do not see that any of the books being the subject of the articles I nominated here satisfy this. Furthermore I do not see the point of these articles. What information do these articles convey that the list of works at Herta Müller#Works does not? As I see it these articles are just content forks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also worth noting that others in the "also nominating" list were also in the April 2011 batch of nominations which also resulted in Keep consensus. These prior AfDs should also be linked here. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the nominator's acknowledgement that "Nothing has changed", I'm inclined to think that this debate should be closed as a repetition of the April 2011 nominations that resulted in Keeps (unless there are some here which weren't part of that previous nomination list, that is). AllyD (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Müller is a "praised" novelist? Really? She won the Nobel Prize for this body of work. This is textbook WP:NBOOK#5. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment by nominator Herta Müller received 24 awards in 30 years. Granted, I am quite impressed by this as this is an achievement. And I do not want to downplay this in any way. However I still cannot see the encyclopedic value of these one line articles. This information is just a fork of the information in Herta Müller#Works, where it fits quite well. In which way does this kind of content forking improve the encyclopedia? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems to violate our deletion policy: "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". The claims that these works are not notable are blatantly false. Barfüßiger Februar, for example, is the subject of a whole volume of literary criticism: Fleischfressendes Leben. Warden (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just like last time. If you're thinking of continuing to nominate this article until it's deleted, that won't work. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't even notice that the nominator was the same both times. Yeah, that's disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These literary works resulted in their author winning a Nobel Prize, which I think most people would agree is the most prestigious prize for literature in the world. Of course, they are notable for that reason alone. They meet WP:NBOOK#5. Stubs on notable topics are an OK beginning, and these short articles can be expanded and improved over time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - Disruptive nomination. This field has been plowed. Carrite (talk) 04:37, 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 delete. Courcelles 02:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Sub-Atomic Particle Acceleration[edit]

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

Theory that has not received any coverage. Polequant (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found. May be a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Incomprehensible brabble presenting a totally non-notable fringe theory. The "Princeton Association of Physics Masters" named in the article also has no Google hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 November 2011
Delete as non-notable, per search. Probable hoax. -- 202.124.73.193 (talk) 08:04, 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 delete. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hickman[edit]

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

local face, probably a great guy but nothing that vaguely passes NN Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be two pages for the same person named "Don Hickman". There is the first page, Don Hickman, which was set for deletion and was contested. There is also a second page Don Hickman (newscaster) which was approved as an article. Can either the first article be removed or be merged into the other article? - Mr Xaero (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: both Don Hickman and Don Hickman (newscaster), both fail the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the second one fail if it was an approved article? - Mr Xaero (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved how, by whom?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through Articles for creation. --86.6.32.228 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, see this page move. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any Wikipedia policy saying that everything that comes out of Articles for Creation is automatically "approved". It just means that someone found the article to be worth creating. There is no "approval" process here, no pass-fail administrator putting an "approved" stamp on an article. Everything works by consensus, which is the process we are undergoing right now. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one, and consider deleting Don Hickman (newscaster) as well. Both pages were recently created, probably as memorial pages (he died this month). About the only references available are obituaries. Those obits do describe him as "one of the most recognizable people in Springfield", "the Walter Cronkite of central Illinois", etc. But there should have been more coverage during his lifetime if he was truly notable. The only in-depth coverage of him I found, aside from obituaries, was this article about the five candidates for mayor in 2003. (He came in fourth.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 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 keep. The balance of the arguments says their is notability here, and that is a keep. Courcelles 02:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttlecraft (Star Trek)[edit]

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

No established notability. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it is has too much in-universe detail. Shuttlecraft are important in Star Trek but what there is to say about them would probably only take a line or two in a more general article. BigJim707 (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rotting corpse of a gutted article. [Almost] sufficiently covered at User:EEMIV/Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek, which I hope to move to mainspace within a week. --EEMIV (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete EMMIV's version seems superior in any way that counts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is easily established by reference to the numerous sources which detail this topic. The references to another draft article above seem to demonstrate that improvement is feasible by means of ordinary editing. It is not our editing policy to delete articles in the course of such improvement. We make changes in situ so as to preserve the edit history. I have made a start on this. Warden (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please see WP:GNG. While I appreciate your efforts, I do not see that this topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources". Second, the file you added here violates WP:NFCC Policy 10c and I am going to remove it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your image addition. The file lacks a non-free use rationale. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable outside general vessel info, per EEMIV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The expense of showing shuttlecraft on-screen was essential to the development of the transporter. Roddenberry made the shuttlecraft central in the plot of "Galileo Seven" specifically to force the construction of a shuttlecraft set, which is a notable milestone in the development of the franchise. The frequent destruction of shuttles attached to the stranded Voyager has also frequently been remarked upon in reliable sources. Powers ^T 16:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they didn't have the shuttecraft finished on time so they had to start filming the pilot episode without it, deciding they'd just beam people to the planet instead. Dream Focus 16:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Add any notable information to EMMIV's article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is almost entirely in-universe at this point. That's great if you want a grab-bag of trivia on Ablative hull armor and such. Let's leave that to Memory alpha and (regrettably) delete this article. Majoreditor (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep"Too much in-universe detail?" Then use the edit button. Google book search shows the following books which are not franchise novels, with coverage of shuttlecraft on Star Trek: [12], [13], [14], a real world simulation, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Appears to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edison makes a convincing argument. Dream Focus 02:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EEMIV's version doesn't provide a justification for deletion of an existing article, but a histmerge after editorial merging may be appropriate. Shuttlecraft in Star Trek are notable, per what Lt. Powers states and what Edison demonstrated above. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per sources provided by Edison. --Pnm (talk) 21:37, 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. v/r - T P 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Female masking[edit]

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

Subject nowhere near notability. Some mention in anthropological literature of 'female masking' as a form of crossdressing in some tribal cultures, but this is unrelated to the subject of the article. Nevard (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the article is totally uncited and no evidence is presented. It might well be true, or else something made up. No way to tell. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete lack of sources and per nom, is simply not notable - Alison ^❤ 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is not about what it purports to be. According to what I found on Google scholar, books, and news, "female masking" appears to be used describe a Darwinian reproductive method, more often than a way to mask gender (such as wearing pants to hind a woman's shape). The article is such a mess it needs to be blown up and started again from scratch. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 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 keep. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Privy digging[edit]

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

This is an incomprehensible, repetitive, poorly written, weird point of view, self-sourced article with a smattering of information that could also be called amateur archeology or scavenging. Essentially the pet topic of a single editor who frequents this and similar articles, one of which is also nominated here. The links in and out are to and from other articles owned by the same person on the same topic. The owner of this topic should find a personal blog for this theory about digging up outhouse holes. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable both as a matter of general archeology (Archaeologists dig up Shakespeare's 'cesspit') and as a particular American enthusiasm (The Urban Treasure Hunter). There are amusing parallels with our work here at AFD. Much of what one finds is dirt and dross but the occasional treasure or diamond-in-the-rough makes the activity worthwhile. Warden (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - bit of a WP:Walled Garden (excuse the pun), eh? The article contains interesting facts but is too long and has very few citations: WP:ESSAY. This and Historical digging need to be considered together with Dump digging - probably all three need to be merged into one, much shorter, fully-sourced article.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Too much OR here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. I find significant coverage in reliable sources straight away. The New York Times [20] and Times-Union [21] have articles about this topic. Dream Focus 16:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article is something of an essay, but the topic is a notable part of archeology and can be improved with the many references available."Too long?" "Includes original research?" Use the edit button. That is why we put it on each article. Edison (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, of course you're right, privies have their fascinations, and even almost-entirely-unreferenced articles can have their bottoms wiped. Only thing is, we'd have to chop 98% of the article; and the rest is really just an amateur attempt at Archaeology so a Merge is the only realistic alternative to Delete - and be aware there are THREE similar, overlapping, WP:OR-dense WP:ESSAYs on closely-related topics (read: the same stuff).

So (please take a quick look), we have Dump digging and Historical digging and Privy digging to merge together, and then we most likely need to merge this into one of the carefully-written articles on Archaeology. Really want to keep all three? I doubt it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they get coverage on their own, then yes. The references I found indicate Privy digging in fact does. Dream Focus 07:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete "Historical digging" as a vague topic overlapping Dump digging and Historical digging and keep the latter two, which are both actually notable parts of archeology. Edison (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This seems to be about a variety of poor quality amateur archaeology, akin to treasure hunting. Several of the holes in photos appear to be deeper than is safe. Nothing is said about the importance of recording and publihshing the results of investigations. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the coverage found by Dream Focus. There appears to be a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources establishing the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Since I am the one who started this AfD, I wanted to reiterate what Chiswick Chap said... there are three of these articles purporting to be about amateur archeology, all of which are essays that I would, at minimum, hack down to a few paragraphs in total. In short this article may have a fine, upstanding basis for an article, but in practice it is rambling mess. I know what can happen when I am an expert on a topic... I tend to ramble. But these rambling articles need to meet a stern and serious attempt at curtailing the fluff and keeping the few gems of encyclopedic content. In other words this article is like a pit full of worthless garbage with three unique bottles of interest hidden. I tire quickly of sorting through someone else's garbage; however, the irony tastes especially keen given this article's topic.

One of the unfortunate problems is that there is not a respectable article about archeology to which these gems might be set into without a lot of cleaning, polishing, and (metaphorically speaking) hauling off a lot of night soil. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Alpha Quadrant may be right, there are a few gems in the THREE ARTICLES, and there are some decent references out there on Google. But I like to saw logs! is right on the amount of WP:OR garbage in all three articles, which still read as WP:ESSAYs.

I suspect we need to WP:TNT the privy and its two companions, and start over:

nobody has established that they are separate topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Aside) Those were my comments both times, Mr. Chap. I made it more obvious with a quick line break. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like anyone to establish that the three articles discuss separate topics. Since (1) the same pictures and (2) the same editors and (3) the same rambling and (4) the same original content abound in all three articles, can we just start over? I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the decision is to keep, I will NOT start an article about Finding Hidden Treasures in Household Drains. I will start three of them... One about finding them in P traps, one about finding them with a Roto-Rooter, and one about finding stuff in a sewage pump. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down here in Chiswick we often find Hidden Treasures Digging Down By the River. Or Digging By the Roadside. Or Digging Under Garden Compost Heaps. Egad! Redlinks! Quick, Dig Another Three Articles !!! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although related, historical digging and privy digging are separate topics. And both of them are different from archaeology. Privy Digging Essentials [22] 12:55, 25 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themischr (talk • contribs)

Themischr - account created today - has only edited Privy digging, Historical digging

Language used in Themischr's comment very similar to today's comment on Privy digging by User:Consultant09

Could this be a WP:SOCKPUPPET?

I only have one user account and did not create a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Working to add citations and relevant information to this article. Consultant09 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has potential, and additional information and editing can be done to improve its quality. The creation of Wikipedia articles is a process and with further effort this can be a valuable addition. This topic has a significant amount of coverage in numerous reliable third party sources in the form of books, articles, websites, and documentation and can be further cited. Consultant09 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be true, but it does not address the fact that we have here an article (indeed, a family of overlapping articles) that nearly entirely lack citations, are long, structureless, and rambling. They would be better deleted (WP:TNT) (as a family) and recreated (as a single article or brief section in another article such as Archaeology) with a defined structure and a full set of citations from the start. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Although this article needs more citations, it represents a significant contribution. It makes no sense for Wikipedia to delete it, since individuals looking to be informed for this activity need a quick review that is readily available online. Themischr (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a work in progress, with an emphasis on 'progress' and arguably many of the works therein could be construed as 'a family of overlapping articles', to address the misleading comments above. Moreover, just because someone makes the superficial connection that overlap exists, does not automatically negate an articles importance, its validity or authenticity and so on. As a primary contributing author and someone very familiar with the overall facts and complexities involved, I look forward to improving the article further.Olesachem (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly sufficient specific content -- and references to keep. This is the sort of work we should be strongly encouraging, not listing for deletion. This is the sort of article that is important to keep, much more important than any borderline notable academic or porn actor. there should be a very large literature, and the possibility of links with many Wikipedia locality articles. Deleting this would show a remarkably strange conception of the purpose of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ "There is clearly sufficient specific content -- and references to keep. This is the sort of work we should be strongly encouraging, not listing for deletion." Arguably one of the more productive, sensible and democratic comments made this month regarding the privy digging article. There’s always room for improvement and as a primary contributor and someone who has worked extensively in this field, along with historical digging, dump digging, and a wide variety of hands on landfill research over the course of more than 2 decades, I look forward to working together to improve this article on all levels.Olesachem (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Olesachem (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI comment: the strong smell of sock puppetry overwhelms that of the topic. I have filed an SPI, and think that a relist is in order until the matter is settled. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 30 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 merge to Excavation (archaeology). causa sui (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical digging[edit]

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

This is an incomprehensible, repetitive, poorly written, weird point of view, self-sourced article with a smattering of information that could also be called amateur archeology or scavenging. Essentially the pet topic of a single editor. When PRODded, the owner of the article removed the tag and made no attempt to correct any discrepancies. The owner of this topic should find a personal blog for this theory about digging up trash. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge - well, yes, there really are too many WP:Content forking articles in this WP:Walled Garden about amateur Archaeology - the Garden includes Privy digging, Dump digging, as well as the current article, and clearly this is (at least) two articles too many, so we should consider all of them together. The three articles have been created (Privy digging in October 2009) and have largely been edited by a single user who has edited no other articles since he (I presume) created Historical digging in August 2009. (Dump digging was created by another user but largely taken over since September 2009.) The three articles have very few references between them, and most of the paragraphs (and many whole sections) have no citations at all. There are quite a few (correct) external links wrongly buried in article text: these could be moved to inline citations, but in any case they are not adequate sources for the large amount of WP:ESSAY claims made. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Excavation (archaeology) which is the same topic. Warden (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see the point of the argument to merge, but given that the article contains no sourced content whatsoever, I don't see that it would add anything to Excavation (archeology). That article has enough unsourced content of its own without us adding more. There's clearly an original research problem in this clutch of articles, and I feel a merger would simply make matters worse. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains many sources. Your statement is therefore quite false. Warden (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague topic which duplicates material in Privy digging and Dump digging. No good refs except those duplicating the other two topics. Full of original research, and largely an essay. Nothing worth merging. Edison (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is an article apparently about the worst kind of amateur archaeolgy, akin to the kind of treasure hunting known as "night hawking". It is unecyclopaedic WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although related, historical digging and archaeology are separate pursuits. This article has potential and additional resources and editing can be done to improve its quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant09 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, everyone please be aware that Consultant09 has repeatedly edited the following articles: Historical digging; Privy digging; Dump digging; as well as once editing Garbology; Night soil; Outhouse; Archaeology, but no other articles. (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Chiswick Chap as I only work on articles on which I have knowledge and interest. If you would like to suggest some constructive feedback for what needs to be accomplished I will attempt to address your concerns.

Thank you. The articles, if they are to survive, need to be supported throughout by citations to reliable independent sources (neither Wikipedia nor yourself). The case needs to be made that 'historical digging' is indeed more than just unsupervised amateur archaeology, again by citations. Material that is unsupported needs to be removed. Further, since there appears to be considerable overlap between the articles listed above, and there is currently so little material actually supported by citations, we need to reach consensus on whether there need to be so many articles, whether just one would be better, or indeed if any coverage is needed at all outside major articles like 'Archaeology'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response and will work to add the requested citations. I do understand your point but strongly believe that Historical Digging and Privy Digging have notability and are separate areas that are related to, but not covered by 'Archaeology'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant09 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Merge I reiterate that Wikipedia is a work in progress, with an intended emphasis on 'progress'. Moreover, just because provocative and ultimately unconstructive comments are made occasionally, does not negate an articles importance or validity, its authenticity or its importance to the research community in general. As a primary contributing author and someone intimately familiar with the overall facts and the complexities involved, I look forward to improving the article further, and/or merging it with the Privy digging article providing that's the democratic consensus.Olesachem (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Upon reflection, historical digging and dump digging are quite similar and should probably be merged. I think that privy digging refers to a different activity and should probably remain separate.Themischr (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as the more general article of the three ; there is some duplication, which can better be handled by a little rewriting into WP:Summary style than by merging, because there's substantial specific content also. This is the sort of work we should be strongly encouraging, not listing for deletion. Deleting a stub or a borderline notable person makes very little difference one way or another, but this is the sort of article that is important. There should be a very large literature, and the possibility of links with many Wikipedia locality articles. Deleting this would show a remarkably strange conception of the role of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Keep~~ "Deleting this would show a remarkably strange conception of the role of Wikipedia." Arguably one of the more productive, sensible and democratic comments made this month regarding the historical digging article. There’s always room for improvement and as a primary contributor and someone who has worked extensively in this field, along with privy digging, dump digging, and a wide variety of hands on landfill research, I look forward to working together to improve this article on all levels.Olesachem (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once is enough. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Colonel. Note: an SPI will soon reveal if the suspicion of socking is based on fact. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 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. Courcelles 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lachlan Robinson[edit]

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

Article about a schoolboy sportsman who shows promise but who does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability of Australian Rules Footballers. He hasn't yet played in a professional league. Robinson may one day be notable as a sportsman, but isn't yet. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above; I'm in that age level, and know hundreds of people that may be notable one day, clearly aren't now. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable as far as I can tell. Also creator seems to have a conflict of interest in the article. --Marjaliisa (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. May be one day. But not now. Johnlp (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATH. created by single purpose editor, probably his dad. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable bio should have been tagged with db-person. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also fails WP:CRIN notability requirements. Non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kid who isn't notable as a footballer or cricketer, also no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle - from an earlier version: "Robinson has modeled his batting technique on Rahul Dravid, as many talk about Dravid's 'textbook' batting technique. Robinson also has a textbook technique just like Dravid's." :-D AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:57, 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 merge to Peach#Cultivation. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peacherine tree[edit]

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

Proposed deletion removed. This is a copy of a 1908 advertisement: The Pacific monthly, Volume 21, p. PA552-IA22, at Google Books. The word "peacherine" doesn't appear to be in general use.

(The above "find sources" links don't really work. Try these instead: news books scholar) Melchoir (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio and not really a notable term. JIP | Talk 06:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It can't be a copyvio of a book which is out of copyright... but WP shouldn't contain pure verbatim copies of advertisements, however old. (Of course it could cite and quote such things.) Google shows the term does exist, so the article could be rescued. I'll have a quick look for decent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (or~~ Redirect-with-Merge as new section) - I've done a 'rescue' on this article - a complete rewrite with new sources and a historic quotation. The tree continues to be available on catalogues in Australia and New Zealand, even if it's now rare in the USA where it originated. Hope you now like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, and I love rescuing articles, but I'm not convinced on this one. Are those sources even talking about the same thing? I suspect they're just describing unrelated cultivars with similar marketing. The article needs a reliable secondary source to connect the dots. Melchoir (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. From the sources (and similar ones if anyone needs more) it is clear that a fruit tree hybrid very similar to the 1909 cross is still in existence, along with the name, and the descriptions certainly match up. Unless there are preserved specimens from 1909, however, we'll probably never know exactly what the original hybrid was - but then, that's the same position with dozens of fruit varieties today. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's current description is: red, large, tastes good, and flesh may be yellow or white. There could be thousands of cultivars that fit that description. Anyway, the Pacific Monthly source doesn't mention color or size. I really think the article is a case of original research. Melchoir (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair, the description is Peach x Plum hybrid (with one site proposing Peach x Apricot, seems like a mistake) with a simple description of the fruit. Of course we can quote more descriptive text if that is what is needed. I've done no OR, everything is by finding, quoting, citing and summarizing sources, which is what we are supposed to do, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, plums? They're not mentioned in the article or the sources...

The OR is simply in drawing the conclusion that the sources are talking about the same plant. Melchoir (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not minded to argue as I feel that Marjaliisa is probably right, this material should be a new section of Peach, so I'd be happy to go for a Merge, really. But since you ask, how does one ever know that when a word is used, it refers to one thing and not another? W.V.O. Quine posed the problem in philosophy, and it has no easy answer. As far as not-quite-ordinary-looking peach-like (or maybe peach variety) trees go, however, if nurserymen call them Peacherines and we can cite them on that, we have to believe them, that's what we do on Wikipedia. Your philosophical servant, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not such a hard problem for Wikipedia: that's where secondary sources come in. If there were a book that said "The peacherine was developed in 1909 and remains popular in Australia a hundred years later", then that would be the end of it. Melchoir (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It says in the article on Peaches that a Nectarine is a kind of Peach, so the Peacherine can't be a Peach/Nectarine hybrid. Maybe merge this with Peach? The Edible Garden ref seems to indicate that a Peach/Apricot hybrid is called a 'Peachcot'. --Marjaliisa (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that would be appropriate, a new section there; but perhaps we shouldn't assume it is a kind of peach without direct evidence. ~~That can't be right. A Nectarine is a Peach x Plum hybrid, not a type of peach as such. So I think Peacherine is effectively a back-cross, we can hunt for evidence if that is needed.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a new section of Peach. I really appreciate the work that Chiswick Chap has done, and find the whole subject interesting. However, at this point, all four of the sources in the article are promotional advertisements selling something marketed as a "Peacherine". One is a 1909 magazine ad and three are contemporary plant sales websites. None are reliable, independent sources needed to establish notability for a freestanding article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can live with that, but I think the sources are sufficient to demonstrate existence of the variety for a new Section of Peach, so I'm suggesting a Merge as well as Redirect (I've struck my 'Keep' above). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 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. Courcelles 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Invitational David Peel Golf Classic[edit]

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

I initially took this article initially to WP:PROD and was declined by the author of the article. A google search only shows links to other wikipedia entries and miscellaneous minor sites. This article fails WP:GNG & WP:SPORTSEVENT. Enfcer (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reasons as above. Themanfromscene24 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some guys played a round of golf. A year later, they played another round. That's it. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, absolutely zero notability, contravenes WP:NFT, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 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 keep. New sources added which establish notability. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WSHR[edit]

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

Lacks notability - the only reference is noting a change in output, otherwise completely uncited. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles on federally licensed radio stations broadcasting unique programming (i.e. not retransmitters, which this station does not seem to be) are generally considerd inherently notable. FCC ref has been added to the article. RadioFan (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. RadioFan (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Licensed station under the FCC, several references, carries unique local programming. In a word, notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 6000 watt federally licensed station which originates some of its programming is de facto inherently notable per the outcome of countless AFDs in recent years. Edison (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Especially with it being owned by a school system. School-owned stations are, sadly, a dying breed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:39, 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. Courcelles 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Scott Kanon[edit]

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

Likely hoax. No non wikipedia evidence of this person's existence. While the cited books exist nothing on google books suggests they have the evidence claimed. Photo looks like a modern photo that has been edited (metadata says its been through photoshop but thats not conclusive). No evidence of "The great moutain rag" existing either.©Geni 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur (although if we delete the article and the photo, we should keep the 'Great Mountain Rag' midi -- assuming it's original... but would a hoaxer create a new song just to make a hoax seem more realistic?) DS (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Quite amusing, but still... Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Complete lack of verifiability and likely a hoax per my observations about the image. From the one source I checked in Google Books, it says absolutely nothing about this person or the music. –MuZemike 05:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, pretty obviously a hoax, violates WP:V. (Also, image deletion request should be filed at Commons, since the licensing is likely invalid.) --Kinu ^t/_c 23:17, 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. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Earth[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because it is of a book that is discontinued and never released. And it's not nearly as notable as Midnight Sun. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no reason why this page should exist. Fails notability almost by definition. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web search shows that this non-book is is just as non-notable as the article itself suggests. Directory listings, WP entries, social media, and their various mirrors only. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nowhere like Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs where this can be merged? One gets the feeling that given the size of the fandoms, there is probably a place where aborted yet sourced spinoffs can be mentioned. Or, if none exists for Dr. Who, then such a list may be appropriate to create. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films, but that focuses mainly on things produced for the screen. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:36, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low End Specialists[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. full of uncited claims of greatness. no evidence of charting in billboard as article claims. [23]. most of the gnews coverage merely confirms it turned up to play [24]. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and have not charted, so fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song of the Soviet Army[edit]

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

Unreferenced and not very well written article. Suspect that the lyrics shouldn't be there as they may be copyright. Bob Re-born (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think the copyright concerns are misplaced. But I don't think this particular piece of Soviet music is noteworthy as measured by substantial coverage in reliable sources. It exists, and it's one of several written by a prolific Soviet era composer, but there's nothing much else to say about it. JFHJr (㊟) 03:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No - Since i see the there is no article about the Song of the Soviet Army i created that!.--Red October 22:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozdushno-Desantnye Voiska (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. →Σ τ c. 07:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a well known song. The Russians played it for the North Koreans at a concert the BBC thought noteworthy enough to cover. "The ensemble's repertoire included colourful numbers such as wartime songs "Just War", "Song of the Soviet Army" and Russian songs well known to the Koreans". So, its well known to the Koreans. It was part of the official Victory in Europe celebration, and become a popular war song after that. If someone who speaks Russian could look around for how many books with songs in them feature it, or what is taught in college level textbooks for music, it's probably there. Dream Focus 13:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this is highly notable Soviet song, classics. Often performed by the Red Army Choir. GreyHood ^Talk 09:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs expansion but it's a famous song. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We must keep this article because this is well known song in our country and other parts of the world.--Red October 13:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozdushno-Desantnye Voiska (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonxion[edit]

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

Delete. I fail to understand why this low-rise suburban office building is notable. MTLskyline (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web searches on "jonxion" return mostly false positive, so I added "brossard', where it is located. Zero Gnews hits. General Ghits show routine directory listings and sales sites, plus primary links. Maybe if and when it is fully developed and occupied, it will generate notability, but fails WP:GNG now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to add references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A slight improvement, but not especially substantial. Refs sound advertorial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage found by Eastmain does look in-depth and they are reliable sources independent of the topic.--Oakshade (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a building with office space for rent. Coverage that establishes little more than that it has opened and that space is available in it cannot turn this into a subject that belongs in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a couple of small office buildings, or even a complex of several small-to-mid-sized buildings are not notable. PK T(alk) 12:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps Jonxion is notable in part because it is a representative of the development of that stretch of Lapinière Boulevard and the "C" sector of Brossard. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no significance here, it's just an ordinary building. Is it being used for some unique purpose, or the land it sits on of historical value? I think not. Does not qualify for an article.--Apple2gs (talk) 03:30, 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 keep. A future possible merge/redirect can be discussed/handled independently from AfD. (Closing discussion early). Neutrality^talk 06:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fumi-e[edit]

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

Move material. Delete this article which tries to introduce into English a Japanese word, unnecessary to understand the topic. Article fails to demonstrate sufficient English notability for this word. This can be explained as a practice to uncover Christians by demanding that they step on an icon of Jesus or Mary. Or induce Christians to refrain from what they thought was sacrilege. Student7 (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Move where, pray tell? This isn't a Japanese word for a standard English concept - there is no equivalent because it is a specifically Japanese concept, and one mentioned in most accounts of the Christian purges. Take a look in Google Books and see how often they are discussed (they are a preoccupation of Endo Shusaku, for example). --Gwern (contribs) 00:53 21 November 2011 (GMT)
Keep – Easily passes WP:GNG. Did you even check book results? And it's not that it's "trying to introduce" anything into English; it's that we don't have the term "step-on-picture," and all scholarship mentioning its use leaves it untranslated. JFHJr (㊟) 00:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and notable. Badly sourced, bu that's an editing issue. Not happy about the way a significant section was deleted just before nom.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like it should be part of larger a series on Persecution of Christians in Japan - Wikipedia has little information on this topic (Fumi-e is somewhat out of context alone). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to write such an article, not that it'd make a logical merge target anyway, nor would it bear on this AfD. --Gwern (contribs) 01:07 21 November 2011 (GMT)

Weak Keep. Not seeing any valid reasons for deletion, but merging the content into Persecution of Christians in Japan does also seem a reasonable course of action. --DAJF (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many scholarly sources that already use this term in English, so this article does not try to "introduce" the term into English. It has long been part of English language discussion of Japanese persecution of Christians, and is a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google book search on "Fumi-e" + japan returns many useful sources. I've added a few to the article, along with some text. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons already given. The article is well sourced, as well, and meets no requirements for deletion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Iqbal[edit]

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

No assertion of notability within the article, and research doesn't turn up much other than his own publications. Searching shows this subject does not pass WP:BASIC general notability guidelines, nor does he appear to pass WP:AUTHOR: he's neither the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable third parties, nor is he widely cited by peers that I can see. JFHJr (㊟) 00:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have added citations to the article, a new Reception section with a detailed critique of Iqbal's Science and Islam, and a brief account of the war-on-terror controversy around Iqbal that hit the newspapers in 2003, with citations. I suspect that alone would make him notable, but there's more to him than that. Hope you find the article improved now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is now improved and sufficiently referenced. Thanks to Chiswick Chap for his competent work on the article and for the persuasive explanation above. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improvements are visible in the article. Mar4d (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newly added sources appear to establish notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 14:41, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlett Rock (Essex County, Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Seems to fail the GNG (unless this is actually something more than just a rock that gives it inherent notability). Yaksar (let's chat) 02:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, there's another Bartlett Rock in Plymouth County that suffers from the same issue as this one. Again, I couldn't find any evidence that this rock was a tourist attraction, a famous location, or otherwise. Again, I still found some geographic websites that did name it and provide coordinates, but nothing describing the location in detail. If someone can find something with significant coverage of the subject, let me know. Otherwise, well, not all rocks can be the Rocky Mountains, so delete. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that this is a navigation hazard. If so, it's a small island and likely the subject of significant commentary; for example, we might find accounts of ships that have hit it or of other uses, especially in local histories. I can't be sure about any of this, so I'm not going to say "keep", but this is clearly not just a random piece of stone. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Bartlett Rock. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I believe you are correct. It apparently rises 2.5 feet above the water at low tide,[25] or at least it did back in 1879. We don't have an article about Sandy Bay, Rockport, so this article seems a curious addition. If somebody wants to save it, I'd suggest creating an article about the bay instead and merging there. Personally I support a delete. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:53, 21 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really, this has no content worth keeping at this point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:38, 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 delete. causa sui (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Edelson[edit]

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

This bio has been tagged for notability and for being an orphan for one year, and I cannot see the subject as meeting our notability criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be four reliable sources in Google news, but the coverage appears to be trivial one sentence mentions. The subject appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:V. Multiple dead links and Wikilinks do not encourage me that he's notable. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 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 No Consensus to delete. I do not see any consensus for a particular course of action in this AfD. Listing again in hopes of getting a fuller discussion or stating a merge discussion on the talk page are the best options going forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Wainwright[edit]

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

Totally a non-notable fictional character of the notable soap opera among people outside of the soap-opera dedications, including casual viewers and casual Wikipedians who have never typed this character's name on the search board. Could not find reliable sources in Google to prove her supposed notability in the real world, and I don't think this fictional person has ever been mentioned in print publications, including periodicals and academic journals. Who is really interested in this person and her storyline nowadays? I mean, was there one coverage of her outside the soap-opera periodicals while she was on the show? --Gh87 (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No notabiltiy whatsoever. Should be merged into a List of Santa Barbara characters article or something similar. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
- That list has very short brief descriptions of characters; are you sure about this? --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm sure - she seems to not be important in the grand scheme of the soap, and her article is almost entirely a plot rethread, like "then confronted Lionel, resulting in an old-fashioned food-fight that led to love making." She deserves a paragraph mention on that list about her personality, nothing else. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Please re-consider this vote and reply by Madison-chan before taking them seriousl. This user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 19 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The character is notable in the sense that she has made her mark on the series and has proven worthy of an individual space because of her being a major role on the show. All in all, a deletion is not necessary and a merge the second possibility, the first being keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casanova88 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have no realworld notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 30 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. The policy based arguments for deletion are clear enough. That " project that could revolutionize the Internet" will be cause for an article after that happens, when there are reliable sources saying so. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EHCP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article for non-notable software product. The article was created by a single purpose account, and this was done in collaboration with the software developers (see this). There are no credible assertions of notability in the article. Biker Biker (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. This probably qualifies for speedy deletion as re-creation of previously deleted content. Prior article was deleted, and deletion upheld at review. This version contains text substantially identical to the previous one. It is expanded with a feature list, but does not address the underlying issue of lack of sources and lack of encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ehcpuser: Actually I did not write that article, but, I can say about that: You say, "non-notable software product"; ehcp has been downloaded more than 65000 times, installed in thousands of webservers (http://www.serversnstuff.com/product-review/ehcp/). Is this a non-notable product ?. I really got tired of writing something on wikipedia, about ehcp. Probably this will be the last bytes that I write to wikipedia. You say, "lack of encyclopedic significance". You said it before too. There are hundreds of articles in wikipedia, which is only a product in market, just like Plesk. If Plesk is a product, ehcp is also a product. if echp has no encyclopedic significance, also does Plesk. I think ehcp article (and links, such as in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_hosting_control_panels), are tried to be deleted by persons who does not want ehcp to rise. You say "re-creation of previously deleted content". This is absolutely not true. Previously, I had added some content about ehcp. Now, somebody else - which in fact I dont even know personally - has added the content to wikipedia. For notability, again: http://www.google.com/search?q=ehcp 239.000 results enaugh for notability? (some are not related to this ehcp, actually)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehcpuser (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Ehcpuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - the presence of the Plesk article holds very little value in this discussion, as Plesk may also be a good candidate for deletion. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The 239,000+ Google results may not have much value either (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test). Chris (talk) 22:17, 17 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has a "Features list" ending "...and many more" WP:NOTADVERTISING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy1966 (talk • contribs)
Delete IF there is any in-depth coverage by reliable sources (other than how-tos and forums), it isn't in the article and I'm not seeing it among the Ghits either. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a few different reasons:

This article is quite similar to the original EHCP article, which was deleted with deletion upheld at review.
It is overly promotional in its tone, which is normally an addressable issue. However, in this case there are practically no third-party sources to go on to get an honest evaluation of the product, bringing me to my next point.
The product is not notable due to its lack of coverage in secondary and tertiary sources. According to WP:PRIMARY, secondary sources should be used to establish notability. There appear to be none, so the product can be deemed not worthy of mention in Wikipedia.
No reliable sources not directly affiliated with EHCP have been found. According to WP:RS, blogs and forums not reliable.

Chris (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was no coverage in reliable sources the previous time, and that siutation remains the same this time. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. webehostin.com: We Be HostiN.com uses this web panel software. This is an open source project that could revolutionize the Internet. EHCP's wikipedia entry contains nothing but truthful information. All of those features exist in his software, and you may download and test it yourself. www.echp.net. Please do not delete articles which contain truthful information. Please become informed before passing judgment. I find your lack of testing disturbing. Great software, and the article should stay. Also, you can verify that we use EHCP by using the following link: http://ns3.webehostin.com (see the EHCP logo)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earnolmartin (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Earnolmartin (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Earnolmartin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -

EHCP's wikipedia entry contains nothing but truthful information.
— Earnolmartin

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
— The Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia:Verifiability

All of those features exist in his software, and you may download and test it yourself.
— Earnolmartin

Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
— The Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia:No original research

Great software, and the article should stay.
— Earnolmartin

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.
— The Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Also, you can verify that we use EHCP by using the following link: http://ns3.webehostin.com (see the EHCP logo)?
— Earnolmartin

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
— The Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia:Notability

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
— The Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia:Notability

--Chris (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
— Chris

Please define reliable. There is no better source of information than from first parties (people who use the software). That is how it's always been. Why should a third party be deemed more reliable than users? This leads to problem as the rich control the media. They don't like projects like these which threaten the establishment... IE CPanel charging people to use open source tools. Would it be OK if I started a website and left a review for EHCP? Would that be considered a reliable source? Would that then keep the page from deletion? You don't need published sources to verify content. I've proven myself as a user; thus, I can vouch for the page.
— Earnolmartin

Comment - Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 01:33, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boys & Maughan[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Non Notable local law firm, lacks significant coverage so does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP

Mt king ^(edits) 09:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boys & Maughan fails WP:CORP. A Google News Archive search for "Boys & Maughan" returns only passing mentions. Similarly, a Google Books search for "Boys & Maughan" returns only passing mentions—directory-type entries. Also interesting to note is that their "about us" page refers the reader to Wikipedia for more information:
...
The firm has at various times practised in Folkestone, Sandwich, Cliftonville and Canterbury. It is now represented in Margate, Birchington, Broadstairs and Ramsgate. More information can be found on our Wikipedia page.

Goodvac (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that I've copyedited the article to cut out all the unreferenced woffle. There's nothing notable about the firm itself. It should find another means of advertising. —SMALL JIM 15:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:27, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Anguilla Trust[edit]

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

See no evidence of notability. orphaned article. Echetus Xe 09:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability whatsoever. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails as to substantial coverage. By anyone. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local, minor-league soccer team. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 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 merge to N.F.-Board. causa sui (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South American Board of New Federations[edit]

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

Less then 5000 hits together on the English (740), Spanish (3770) and Portugese (77) names of this organisation. Still a severe doubt of notability about this organisation that unites small island groups and native tribes as "federations". Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with N.F.-Board. Giant Snowman 13:18, 16 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GiantSnowman, Merge and Redirect relevant info to N.F.-Board. --Jimbo^[online] 17:27, 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 Procedural close. Discussions to merge the article should take place in a merger discussion, not articles for deletion (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Racer (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Unsourced. I suggest merging it with the film's article. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:51 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - unlike the film's article, this soundtrack's article is not notable in the slightest, is pure fancruft as it says the specific time each song was played in the movie, and like the Nom said, is unsourced. --Madison-chan (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close- after a week nobody, not even the nominator, is advocating deletion. Merge discussion can take place on the talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:37, 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. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DESRIST[edit]

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

Article is about a group, or conference, or website (the article is not very clear on this) which has no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conference gets 1250 results in Google books and 484 results in Google scholar. Maybe there's something notable here? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The book results are citations in the reference section citing a paper or presentation given at a DESRIST conference. The scholar results appear to be papers that were presented at DESRIST conferences. Does that make the conference notable? None of it is coverage about the conference, but topics in academia isn't my strong suit. Perhaps that does make it notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think numerous notable presentations at DESRIST conferences make DESRIST notable enough for an article. --Kvng (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 17 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete numerous presentation are not enough to make a conference notable , or all conferences would be. There is no evidence that any of the presentations were notable. The article goes to some length talking about the notability of linkedin, etc. , but that doesn't disguise the fact that there's no real relevant reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 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. clear consensus; may be re-created if--and only if--further reliable sources are available. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Change the World[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)

Coverage of this organization is limited to a singular reference to Huffington Post, and Google News returns no results. The weight of the two presidential awards appear insignificant, as the Daily Point of Light Award has been given to over 1,000 community groups and the Obama award has over 2,000,000 recipients. Due to its lone source in the Huffington Post, the subject fails WP:CORP#Primary_criteria, criteria 2 and both additional considerations of WP:NONPROFIT, and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources are unreliable like blog posts, forum threads, etc. Seems pretty unimportant to me. --Madison-chan (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Looking into Kids Change the World, it has many awards if you look closely, including awards from Prudential Financial, the Nestle USA (2011), and has even had influence at the United Nations. They have even funded thousands of dollars of lung cancer research and provided thousands of cleft surgeries in overseas countries. Most uniquely of all, this is a youth-led nonprofit, not like most other nonprofits that are adult-led. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familytreeusa (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Familytreeusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment We need reliable sources to prove these claims. No offense, but it's easy to claim that not many groups are youth-led or that they've had influence at the UN, but we need reliable sources to prove that these are real or exemplary enough to merit an article. For example, I could claim that NASA has sent a pony into space, but I'd have to provide sources in order to prove that it actually happened and that the experiment was noteworthy enough to be included on Wikipedia. A silly example, but the premise in both situations is exactly the same: you need reliable sources to prove notability and all claims. Please see WP:RS to verify what is considered reliable sources. Coming on and saying that the group has done this or that and saying "keep" does not prove notability. This is not decided by a vote. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep I agree with Familytreeusa that this article should stay, but definitely needs more development. From a Google search, it is obvious that this is a worthy organization for its unique work and contributions. Worldvanguard (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)— Worldvanguard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any additional sourcing outside of that provided in the article. The organization is mentioned a few times in the HuffPost article, but certainly nothing constituting significant coverage. Furthermore, let's look at these awards in terms of why they are given, as opposed to how many people they are awarded to:

The President's Volunteer Service Award is given to groups or individuals based on their own self-reported hours of community service, and therefore, is not inherently selective or prestigious.
Daily Point of Light Award is given to orgs on the following criteria:

Community needs and solution — Activity must meet a community need or concern and serve those who are disconnected from the larger community.
Connections building — Hands-on service that results in building connections between the community and those who may be isolated from it.
Ongoing involvement — To be eligible, an activity should be at least six months in duration. One exception is the category of disaster relief. Nominations that do not meet these criteria may be held for later consideration.
Impact — Demonstrated real impact from the activity. How many funds were raised? How many people were impacted by the nominee's service?
Innovation — Activity should reflect innovative or unique approaches to solving serious social problems.

From that perspective, the Points of Light Award actually seems decently predictive of notability. However, there really isn't any coverage of the organizations activities per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:ORG, and no general coverage of the organization per WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional research should be done in this topic, and the key leaders that lead this organization. The organization itself may not have won many awards, however, a Google search on the executive director, president, and other board/advisory members may significant recognition from presidents and other major companies. Combinatorymath (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)— Combinatorymath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Saying things show up in Google doesn't bestow notability. Showing links to reliable sources (WP:RS) shows notability. Also, that recognition might not grant notability unless it was in a situation where it received notable news coverage and that recognition was given because of work done for the organization. If it's for something that they did outside of the KCTW, then that doesn't count because notability isn't inherited from the people who run or support the company. In other words, the recognition would have to be pretty special to give notability. I want to again emphasize that you need to show reliable sources. This is not decided on a vote- it's decided on the weight of the arguments that each person presents. In other words, signing up for an account just to vote on this debate (without giving reliable sources to back yourself up) doesn't really accomplish anything.(Not trying to be mean, just trying to make sure that you know how the AfD process works.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. I held off on voting and did some searching, but couldn't find anything to show notability for the company. No matter how noble the organization's intentions are, there's not notability in the here and now to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tributes to Led Zeppelin . not my field, but the consensus is clear. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Zeppelin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some local coverage is not enough to sustain an article, let alone a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge/redirect, per Arxilos below. Ghits seem to turn up primary sources or small routine gig listings where copy is mostly drawn from their press kit. Please also beware of false positives: the name seems to have used for a couple of different entertainers and projects in the US, including an unrelated early 80's tribute band with a young Dweezil Zappa. Working at it the other way, it did seem to be easy to find sources and even video of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page praising other tribute bands, such as Dread Zeppelin and Letz Zep. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage by reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for the edit history) but then merge/redirect to Tributes to Led Zeppelin (assuming that article is kept under some name). I think the overall topic of Zeppelin tribute bands is notable enough for an article, and this one should be part of it. --Arxiloxos (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above- interesting as a set of articles, but not as a single band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braniff747SP (talk • contribs) 20:46, 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.