< 25 November	27 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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyana Rathriyil[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a reference to the article from a reliable source, the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema, published by the British Film Institute. Here is the movies IMBD listing, just fyi: [1]. I'm sure Indian language books and news would also have many more references, so this should be kept to allow further development of the article in the coming years, since WMF is working on reaching out to attract more editors from India. First Light (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not questioning the film's existence but its notability. It is subject to the same guidelines as any film. We can't keep an article for "years" pending "further development". It's a 1996 film - when do you expect it to become notable? There are more likely to be reliable sources now rather than later. My Google News search came up with zilch.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I mentioned the Indian language sources, which are surely out there, and would take longer than a one-week AfD to shake out. I admittedly have a bias toward keeping foreign language films with fewer reliable sources, so that they can be developed over time. So the closing admin should take that bias into account. First Light (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can find some Indian reliable sources in a week. If not, there's always the possibility there won't be enough discussion, so the AfD would have to be relisted. :-) Failing that, if you found sources later, you could always recreate the article later based on changed circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know any Indian languages, I'm unlikely to find non-English sources at any time. And online sources will be scant, since the film was made in 1966. Because it includes some notable actors: Adoor Bhasi and Prem Nazir, and the music was by Paravur Devarajan, I still say that this is extremely likely to have many print and non-English sources. Again, the closing admin can take into account the fact that I have what is likely an exaggerated and non-conforming belief in Wikipedia:Systemic bias. First Light (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mmm the nominator has a point but Malayalam films from the 1960s sheesh finding good sources are a problem. But looking in google news for a 1966 Malayalam film article is bizarre!!! Why would there be anything in the news on it? The director, music, and cast and even singers like S. Janaki are all notable to Malayalam cinema and I think this film meets guidelines. But sources about it are likely almost entirely in Malayalam whatever the Malayalam title is and even then are probably not accessible in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this should be kept or deleted, but I am concerned that with a Malayam language film from 1966, we are running up against Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and FUTON bias. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you have any support for your claim of bias? I certainly see no evidence of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence for systemic bias on Wikipedia. WP:Systemic Bias explains what that term means:

The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting an imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups.

English Wikipedia#Users and editors describes the national demographics of its editors under "Origin of edits (04/10 - 03/11)", which shows that approximately 70% of edits come from four Western English-speaking countries. Only 3.2% come from India, which is the country we are talking about in this instance. It's hard to argue against an obvious and extreme systemic bias as demonstrated in articles just like the one we're talking about here. Keep in mind that nobody is accusing anyone of a personal bias. Also keep in mind that the English Wikipedia is the world-dominant Wikipedia, used by people from all countries. That is why you have editors from India creating an article about a 1966 Malayalam film that has an "imbalanced coverage of the subject" in English language sources. First Light (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Wikipedia nor I have a problem with foreign sources to support the notability of this article. What I object to is the proposition that the threshold of notability must be lower for articles about foreign films or that we must automatically assume bias just because the article in question is about a foreign film.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias isn't specifically about films per se, but the fact is that a 1966 Malayalam film will de facto have systemic bias, as would any other 1966 x in non-English language. It doesn't seem that you understand what systemic bias is. Can you honestly say that there is no systemic bias on Wikipedia? The fact that I (and two other editors) are saying/implying that it applies here is worth noting. With two reliable sources, this is surely borderline, which is why yet again I'll say to the closing admin: "take all this into account. In this case, you don't even have to Ignore All Rules, just use your own judgment based on what I've said (repeatedly now) about taking my comments into account." First Light (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going in circles (both in good faith). So, I'll let you have the last (substantive) word, and we can let other editors comment and the closing admin do whatever they think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per First Light. It can improve, although it should be improved in English here. Beyond495 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Noot[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this musician. Her only claim to notability is being featured on Grooveshark's home page. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, RS are unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, only personal/social networking sites; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:12, 2 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Kumar Kushwaha[edit]

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

I declined a speedy on this because there are claims of importance. However, in looking to add sources to the article, Google is failing me. Searching for the full name gets me social networking and not much more; searching for Kushwaha and "Hybrid cloud" gets me nothing. Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, and filled with unverified self-aggrandizing claims. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite a grand claim that has not reliable sources to confirm it, and I can find no confirmation either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written, no notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious WP:AUTO, here only for purposes of personal WP:PROMOTION. Completely lacking reliable sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 2 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Von Tru[edit]

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

No claim in article of meeting WP:BIO, no references. Good faith Google and Google News searches turn up no reliable non-wiki sources showing notability. Prod was contested without addressing notability issues. Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, RS are unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nominator has made their case. Colon el Tom 11:48, 3 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InMediaRes Productions[edit]

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

No verifiable evidence provided demonstrating significant coverage of the company in reliable sources independent of it per WP:General notability guidelines and WP:CORP. The references present that mention the company all appear to be press releases or otherwise company generated, and therefore not independent. Delete. DGaw (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, press releases are an unsatisfactory substitute for RS. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources and the article reads like a summary of press releaases which is all that I could find for sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:14, 2 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judge's associate[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, but, more important, duplicates the Australian section of law clerk. No need for a standalone article. Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion seems to imply that the Associate, a rather nebulous character in Trial by Jury (1875), was a term used in the nineteenth century in at least one country other than Australia. --GuillaumeTell 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's really relevant. The article is so poorly contextualized that if it weren't for the only source (the Australian handbook), the reader wouldn't even know what the article was talking about. If there's a reliable source indicating that "Judge's associate" has some noteworthy meaning other than in Australia, than I suppose you (or someone) would have to find that source to evaluate its impact on this AfD, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is so poorly contextualized that if it weren't for the only source (the Australian handbook), the reader wouldn't even know what the article was talking about." I am not seeing this. I do not agree with this.

"I suppose you (or someone) would have to find that source". The onus is on the nominator to look for sources and confirm that there aren't any. Are you saying that you have not done that? James500 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is, at most, a proposal for merger into Law clerk, where judge's associates are already discussed. Deletion is not applicable on grounds of duplication alone if the page name is a plausible redirect, which the nominator has not denied.
Google Books produces 2890 results for this expression. Amongst them are number of textbooks indicating that, in New Zealand, this term referred to a court stenographer. And I see material relating to England and Wales, including legislation in the Statutes at Large. James500 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive use of the term in RS. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split relevant material out of law clerk and into this new article. This has some potential I think. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to our article Law clerk, "previous associates have written that the nature of the associate's role is different from that of a law clerk in the United States". This suggests that they are not the same thing. James500 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I agree that the relevant material should be moved from Law clerk to this article. James500 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 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 The Hilarious House of Frightenstein. Sandstein 08:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fishka Rais[edit]

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

Two acting credits aren't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge article into The Hilarious House of Frightenstein. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G6 by Fastily ‎ (G6: Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rais Khan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

A dab page with only one linked entry? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for WP:CSD#G6. Only one link which is also the primary topic, no disambiguation necessary. France3470 (talk) 02:18, 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 already speedily deleted as copyright violation. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aneeta prem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. Fails to establish notability per WP:Person its basically just some random person who started a random website Smartyllama (talk) 22:16, 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 already speedily deleted as copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aneeta prem (2nd nomination) for further information. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aneeta prem[edit]

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

Smartyllama (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G12. It's copied from http://person.yasni.co.uk/aneeta+prem+1162342/founder Eeekster (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- Massive copyright violations --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:43, 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 no consensus. No consensus about the notability issue. The copyright problems do not compel deletion as they can be resolved by reverting to a pre-copyvio version. Alessandra Napolitano, please do not remove the quotations of copyvio material in this discussion, as short quotations do not infringe on copyright. Sandstein 08:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Dalton[edit]

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

This is a personal page for amusement. This person is relatively unknown outside of his institution. Livingtaino (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC as the former dean of the University of Arizona School of Medicine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator is a new user whose only contribution to Wikipedia after setting up an account is to nominate this article for deletion, claiming without offering any evidence that the article was created "for amusement". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyright violation, explained below. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (re: close paraphrases to the point of copyvio concerns) Before keeping, I'd review this[2] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If his name appears in two different articles about him, is that a copyright violation? If the name of his university appears in two different articles about him, is that a copyright violation? If two article about an oncologist both contain the word "oncology", is that a copyright violation? If several articles about someone who founded something contain the word "founding", is that a copyright violation? How about the articles about Doctors Anderson, Fenske and Betzer? There is similar wording in articles about them. Are those articles copyright violations as well, or is it just that various articles about a person's professional credentials contain similar wording, and similar wording also appears in various articles about other people with similar professional backgrounds? Remove "Dr Dalton" from the quote test and based on wording in common, now we ought to be suspicious of articles about Doctors Sneed, Nathan, Anderson, Monroe, Rodriguez and Johnson. We don't really think that articles about all of these doctors are copyright violations of each other, do we? I see no evidence of a copyright violation here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course isolated word and phrase matches aren't copyright violations. However, commonalities in phrasing, sentence structure, and the order in which facts are presented can add up to close paraphrase. For example, the source says "His research interests include biochemical mechanisms of drug resistance and new drug discovery. He is also an expert in the biology and treatment of multiple myeloma." The article relates this as "His research interests include biochemical mechanisms of drug resistance and new drug discovery. Dr. Dalton also is an expert in the biology and treatment of multiple myeloma." Articles with such severe foundational copyright problems are unacceptable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely unfortunate that when copyright problems are gainsaid, it becomes necessary to provide excerpts from the infringing material to prove their existence. Once this discussion is closed, I intend to remove the quotations from my comment, after which revdel can be used. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the current infringements seem to have introduced by Kickoff86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it may be possible to remedy the situation by reverting the article. Review of this matter is complicated by the fact that the source originally cited in the article, prior to Kickoff86's handiwork, is now a dead link. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very prolific and influential scientist. Web of Science lists 279 publications that have been cited over 12,000 (!) times with an h-index of 58 (!). Article is badly written and any possible copyvio issues need to be addressed, but subject clearly meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume233 (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC as demonstrated by Guillaume233. If the article is a copyvio you don't have to delete it - just rewrite it for heavens sake! --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There - I wikified it, did a partial rewrite, and added sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ He has won only as many awards as other researchers at that institution. The article reads like a resume. --LivingTaino (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LivingTaino, I am striking out the word "delete" from your comment above. Since you are the one who nominated this article for deletion, your "delete" !vote is already on the record, and you only get to !vote once. Of course, you can comment here as much as you like - just don't put the word "delete" in front of your comment. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, that's a weird reason. So if someone won a Nobel, but worked in an institute where another colleague won two Nobels, the first one wouldn't be notable any more? --Guillaume233 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, his notability is not based on any awards he has won, but on his heavily cited body of published work - as well as his tenure as dean of a major medical school. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per copyvio and close-paraphrase. With the extent of such content, I'd surmise the article should have been G12'd and not AfD'd. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just clicking the "news" link above gives several good sources. The book link is not very useful, many books cite his work. The Scholar link lists 11,900 articles that reference this person's research. As an aside, it is very rare to see an AfD for a researcher with this kind of citation data, this person is miles ahead of most bios that are discussed here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shangyuchem[edit]

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

Reason Smokefoot (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC) The article appears to simply be an advert. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 2 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Island national basketball team[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was declined. I can find no sources that this team ever existed, or competed in an international competition. I. A. 08:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy is certainly appropriate, given that the national basketball teams of Norfolk Island are the Boomers and the Opals. Hoax. Colon el Tom 00:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. hoax. Norfolk Island does not have nation status in international basketball. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it was a hoax, perhaps a misunderstanding of this. Still, there is no "national team" (other than Australia) and therefore no "Performance at Summer Olympics" to record. Melburnian (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a hoax, as Norfolk Island does have a basketball federation separate to that of Australia (see here), a separate country code assigned by FIBA, and presumably a national team as well. However, they do not seem to play in organised international competition, nor does there seem to be any third party coverage of the team. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 3 December 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. It appears that the delete !voters present the only policy based arguments. Per WP:LISTN "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." As far as I can see, there is only a minor mention of repeated names and the topic is not covered in significantly. The other source doesn't address the subject. Alessandra Napolitano should note that WP:LISTN is a perfectly policy based argument for the notability of a list and therefore the nominator's argument is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. v/r - T P 00:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of repeated names[edit]

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

No encyclopedic value because it is just a long, incomplete list. Does not satisfy WP:LISTN that demands that the list topic is discussed by itself. Parts of the list are discussed at various places, but not as a whole. Most sections are better suited with far more complete listings such as List of tautonyms for animals names, List of people with reduplicated names, List of Australian repeated place names, List of tautological place names. Additional issue is that tautonyms are not reduplications, but the combination of a genus name and a species name that are the same. hence, they should be treated separately, as it already done with the other lists. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With no policy or guideline-based rationale for deletion advanced, the nomination is ipse dixit WP:IDONTLIKEITism. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, thank you for pointing out that the only way to get junk removed here is by knowing exactly the policies and guidelines or that you otherwise will get a automatic keep. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're new to this, please see WP:BEFORE which may help avoid further aggravation. Warden (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It didn't take long to find an encyclopedia which contains a similar list - Pago Pago, Lulu, ack-ack, &c. The claim of the nomination that this material is unencyclopedic is thus shown to be false and WP:LISTN is satisfied. Warden (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have shown that the Comic Encyclopedia mentioned repeated words. WP does that as well here in an article explaining specifics, just like the Comic Encyclopedia. Does the link you provide has a LIST of these names?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See for yourself. I was wondering what technical terms might be used to described this phenomenon and now that you've given us reduplication, this opens up yet more sources for study. Reduplication contains lists of examples too. Our editing policy indicates that we should build upon this, rather than deleting it. Warden (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have tautonyms and reduplications combined in a completely incomplete list, which if made complete is nothing more than a duplication of the already existing lists. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid duplication of other, narrower lists, this one can reference them, where they exist, so making it a list of lists. That would be ordinary editing — I'm still not seeing any pressing need to delete. Warden (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one of the purposes of lists on Wikipedia is to provide information, this is another "list of X that Y" without any justification that is too broad. The source provided above mentions tautonyms in passing once (on p. 646) and provides a brief list of examples, but it provides no evidence that a list of such "repeated names" is a useful or encyclopedic categorization. While it (along with other sources about tautonyms) suggests that the tautonym is an encyclopedic topic (and they certainly are as a lingustic construct), such a passing mention alone does not indicate notability per WP:LISTN. Also, as an aside example, I'm no expert on the nuances of the Chinese language, but are all the examples from Chinese necessarily tautonyms... that is to say, is it the same two words in succession in Chinese, or simply in the English transliteration but with different actual tones in Chinese? Such issues lead to WP:OR and verifiability issues as well. In the end, could the content be merged to tautonym? Perhaps, but such a list, which is too lengthy to be of value there, but is unlikely to ever be complete in itself and might have verifiability issues, does not seem appropriate. Note: the "list of lists" suggestion by Warden above seems feasible, and my !vote is not averse to that, assuming that the content of said target lists meets appropriate inclusion criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The listing editor here, User:KimvdLinde, complains that the article is long, incomplete, and unencyclopedic.

If "long" is to be a reason for deletion, that would necessitate deleting half of Wikipedia, and if "incomplete" is a reason, then there goes most of the other half, leaving Wikipedia but a poor thing indeed.

As for "no eyclopedic value," I see from consulting the American Heritage Dictionary (5th edition) and the New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd edition) that "encyclopedic" simply means "comprehensive." For example, the AHD cites a usage example from William James, who once referred to someone who had "an ignorance almost as encyclopedic as his erudition." It is true that Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia, is not comprehensive, but that is hardly a reason for making it even less comprehensive by needlessly deleting articles.

In any case, the article is of interest to readers concerned with linguistics or recreational linguistics and ought not to be deleted. Wahrmund (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split into the articles that Kim mentions (and probably others) then make into a disambiguation page of repeated place names, tautonyms, repeated personal names, etc. This seems like a good compromise. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 08:45, 4 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Yi Seok[edit]

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

The phrase "Lady Yi Seok" turns up nothing on either Google Books or on Google News. I also checked three major Korean media Web sites, JoongAng Ilbo, Chosun Ilbo, and Korea Herald. Nothing turned up on any of them. The Web hits that turn up seem to be generated based on this article. The article has no references and the writing style suggests that it is a hoax. Yi Seok is a pretender to the Korean throne and a pop singer who has been covered in the international press. But this article does not seem to be about his wife, who would not necessarily be notable anyway. Kauffner (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Also likely to be a political/cultural minefield. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 2 December 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. Sandstein 08:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Lucas Miller[edit]

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

No clue what would make this person notable. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:NG Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Appears to be this findagrave entry...(broken stone difficult to read) aged 4 years would be 43 years, says leaves wife & 6 sons; entry does not provide any information which advances a claim of notability. Dru of Id (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His son, who had the same name, would meet WP:POLITICIAN if a source could be found verifying that he served in the South Carolina legislature. I found sources mentioning his military service in the Confederate Army. Perhaps the stub could be rewritten to make the son the subject? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an article about the son, who meets WP:POLITICIAN as a state legislator, and perhaps an article about the father as well. The father (along with his brother Stephen Decatur Miller) was a delegate to the 1832 South Carolina Nullification Convention, an important precursor to the Civil War, according to State papers on nullification: including the public acts of the Convention of the people of South Carolina, assembled at Columbia, November 19, 1832, and March 11, 1833; the proclamation of the President of the United States, and the proceedings of the several state legislatures which have acted on the subject. His son served in the South Carolina General Assembly in 1853, at the age of 21, according to Reports and resolutions of South Carolina to the General Assembly, 1854. The son served as a Colonel and commanded a unit at the Battle of Antietam (called Sharpsburg in the South) in September, 1862, according to The War of the Rebellion: v. 1-53 (serial no. 1-111) Formal reports, both Union and Confederate, of the first seizures of United States property in the southern states, and of all military operations in the field, with the correspondence, orders and returns relating specially thereto. 1880-98. Colonel Miller served under General William Dorsey Pender, until Pender was killed at the Battle of Gettysburg in July, 1863, according to historian Stephen W. Sears here. Several other books about Gettysburg confirm his Miller's role there, and in the retreat in the days that followed. Colonel Miller was killed in May, 1864 at the Battle of the Wilderness, according to Heroes of the old Camden district, South Carolina, 1776-1861, which gives the general outlines of his military career. Additional biographical information is available in The history of a brigade of South Carolinians, known first as 'Gregg's', and subsequently as 'McGowan's brigade', published in 1866. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So the father and son are notable, is he notable, though? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Without sources in the article all the claims of notability are unsubstantiated. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cullen has done impressive research here. I hope you will find the time to add some of these sources to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it seemed to me that the son is more notable that the father, I have restructured the article to be about the son. They shared the same name. I've mentioned the father and the uncle briefly, but have added seven sources, mostly about the son's military service during the Civil War. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per hard work by User:Cullen328. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic Interest & notability established. Tom Pippens (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Roe[edit]

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

Non-notable former college football player, fails WP:Athlete. Yankees10 00:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never played professionally, and college offensive linemen rarely achieve notability and receive any coverage that is not routine. Offensive linemen get bruises, not Wikipedia articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While college football players can qualify under WP:GNG if they have received significant, non-trivial coverage of their college career in the mainstream media, my searches don't reveal such coverage for Mr. Roe. Cbl62 (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 02:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electrotherapy (cosmetic)[edit]

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

Dubious title, dubious references, content picked up from other articles on electrical therapy Gciriani (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Electrotherapy is an established area in the cosmetics industry, compared to other articles which focus on physiotherapy, or the science behind it (hence the article probably should not be judges as a science and technology article, but one in the cosmetics category). I don't understand what you mean by dubious references, which includes textbooks used on accredited courses, and many others. There is actually very little content picked up from other articles, as is evident from the 50+ citations. Cosmetic electrotherapy is both notable and is supported by multiple reliable source, eg. accredited NVQ courses here, and here. Accredited BTEC courses here and here, books on electrotherapy in the beauty (cosmetic) industry, here and here (and the books devote several chapters to cosmetic electrotherapy, not just a fleeting mention). If you find the title dubious, by all means find a better alternative. --Iantresman (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, sufficiently distinguished from existing articles not to be duplicative, and supported by reliable sources. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well-written, well-referenced article about a notable topic. I have no problem with the name, which is appropriate and unambiguous. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 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. non notable and promotional DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CompareData[edit]

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

No external references and nothing to establish notability Vrenator ^talk 10:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 2 December 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 Memory management. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coalescing (computer science)[edit]

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

This is not really important enough to merit a full article. It should probably be merged but I don't know to where. CodeCat (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Memory management. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be merged somewhere (altough I don't see a pressing need to do so), but than can be discussed on the talk page. —Ruud 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and merge to Memory management. No reason given for deletion by nom. --Kvng (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's room to develop this topic as an encyclopedic article. The term has broader use in computer science than just memory management, so it should not be merged there. It can refer to coalescing anything. For example, in a compiler, it can refer to coalescing operations, e.g., as described here. Msnicki (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and expand/fix. It will just get buried in MemManagement. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 2 December 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. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achondroplasia in children[edit]

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

This article is not encyclopedic in nature and has many inaccurate statements. There is already an article on Achondroplasia that is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdradius (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to lack of heading. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dubious medial information or stubify. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? What makes it dubious...it is a genetic disorder.Sngourd (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is clearly notable. The vague, handwaiving assertion of inaccuracy contained in the nomination is extremely unhelpful. Without specific cases identified, the nominator would have us comb through the article sentence by sentence to verify every bit of information before the article could be kept. This expectation of AFD participants is not reasonable. However, just to ensure that the article isn't far afield from mainstream medicine, I've randomly selected a few consecutive sentences to verify. From the "Care of Achondroplasic Children" section:

The home setting for an achondroplasic child should be modified in a way that is fitting for a child with a growth mutation. Toys should be considered and altered to fit the needs of the child, or size of the child, such as tricycles and backyard playground equipment. Other fixtures in the home should be replaced to attainable heights for the children such as light switches or door knobs.

This information is cited to Trotter, Tracy L., Judith G. Hall. "Health Supervision for Children with Achondroplasia" Pediatrics. 116.3 (2005): 771-783. Conveniently, the referenced article is available online. The following text from the reference directly supports the material quoted above:

Consider adapting the home so that the child can become independent (eg, lower the light switches, use lever door handles and lever sink faucets, make the toilet accessible, and supply step stools)

Discuss adaptation of toys, especially tricycles, to accommodate short limbs.

While the excerpt from the article is not written in the same way as the supporting reference, it normally shouldn't be. Properly verifying content requires a willingness to transpose its meaning to syntactically dissimilar source material. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming it's not a total copyvio, this is a notable topic; even rare diseases can be notable. Needs copyedits and rescue. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was originally written by one person, and had a list of books information came from, plus was longer. [3] Perhaps the author didn't realize an article for Achondroplasia already existed. Anyway, I see there is enough valid information to warrant a separate article, since merging it would make the other one too long. Dream Focus 09:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To delete an article that is describing a medical syndrome that is proven by evidence would be a mistake. Even if it is rare, that is not a reason to delete it.Sngourd (talk) 19:42, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 United States network television schedule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was deleted this past October and has been recreated by the person who originally created it a month ago. It's too early to have such page. While we're at it, why not have a "2013–14 United States network television schedule" article also? Farine (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2011–12 United States network television schedule#Time for 2012-13?. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there was a violation of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL last year, does not make it an excuse to repeat the violation this year.Farine (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete! I don't care about the violations! I think we should keep the article! The 2011-12 article was created at this time last year, so this should STAY!!!!!!!!!! 68.44.179.54 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article can be re-created in the spring of 2012, when the actual schedule is known. Of the actual information in this article, a significant percentage consists of a list of shows that will not be broadcast in 2012-13 (such as Charlie's Angels and How to Be a Gentleman). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We have no way of knowing which shows will air next fall. The networks don't know. --NellieBly (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Both again, TOOSOON & CRYSTAL. Most of the pilots from the networks haven't even been approved beyond preliminary stages where nobody has been hired except writers, and I don't care what IP's decided when it came to creating the page, because a known editor makes that final choice. Please, this article doesn't need anything in it until early April at the earliest, so I highly suggest a salting as this is going to be recreated in the same form in two weeks with the same lack of information. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete and again delete. Administrators, make sure that this article does not ever get recreated again before June 2012. BTW, did I said that I was for delete. Farine (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, network schedules are set by mid-May and 80% of the pilots are announced as firm go's by mid-April, which is why I asked for a salt until April. June would be way too restrictive. Also, your delete rationale was already expressed properly in the nom statement; you don't need to cast a separate vote below it. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - April is fine, though May would be even better. BTW, how long will this AFD keep going on? Everybody wants the article deleted. So I don't see where the "debate" is .Farine (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - An AfD goes for seven days. There is no clear "speedy delete" rationale, so that is fair and par for the course for these discussions. Nate • (chatter) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and suggestion. However we are starting to hear of shows that are getting renewals for next season - see Zap2It's Renew/Cancel Index website, for example. But since this is about a schedule I agree it's a few months too premature. Suggestion: why not on a temporary basis simply add a 2012-2013 section to the 2011-2012 schedule article detailing what has been confirmed, etc. up to this point, and then transfer that material to a full article once it's warranted? 68.146.80.110 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea is not bad. However, knowing some of the editors on Wikipedia, it wouldn't take long that this 2012-2013 section overflows and starts looking like a disguised article nested on the 2011-2012 article. That's why it would be best to forget altogether about the 2012-2013 programming whether it's on its own article or through a section of another article. But that's just my opinion.

As for the shows that are being renewed, the information can be treated at the moment in the respective articles of theses shows. Regards Farine (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced speculation goes against WP:CRYSTAL and even the networks don't know what shows will air next year. This can be recreated next April, but until then, please make sure this stays a redlink. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who planets#T. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trenzalore[edit]

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

Article creator keeps recreating it, after a speedy delete, and after it has been repeatedly redirected to List of Doctor Who planets#T. It is written as an essay, with no reliable sources, and no notability meriting a standalone article. It seems that AfD is the only way this will be settled. First Light (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

enforce Redirect per nom. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

"Article creator keeps recreating it, after a speedy delete," It took me a long time to work through and create the content provided. After each deletion it took much of my time to recreate the article as it can be seen at this point. " it has been repeatedly redirected to List of Doctor Who planets#T" If you look at the reference you will see that while the information is identical to the link provide under planets that I retrieved this information from the tardis wiki website. Please click to following reference link to verify ^[1] . "It is written as an essay, with no reliable sources, and no notability meriting a standalone article." The article is written on the basis for the outline of a movie script.This article was suppose to encourage those willing to add input on how a future doctor who episode should be structured. "it seems that AfD is the only way this will be settled." I am new to Wikipedia so i am unfamiliar with anachronisms "AfD" I going to assume that it stands for article for deletion. I see no basis for deletion given the arguments that i have present.

Awaiting your responce, Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)JerryDean Smith[reply]

^ Smith, JerryDean. "Trenzaolre". tardis index file. wikia. Retrieved 2011-11-24.

Tardis Wiki is not a reliable source, as it is a wiki. Wikipedia should not be used to "encourage those willing to add input on how a future doctor who episode should be structured" as it is an encyclopedia, and is for factual information. I agree with the nominator, as it has no reliable sources and has no notability. I say it should be redirected to List of Doctor Who planets#T and protected. Doh5678 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who planets#T and protect if necessary. Trenzalore has no real world notability to justify an article. What isn't copied from the Tardis Wiki appears to be an original WP:SYNTHESIS of information from unreliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, my first choice would be to redirect it to List of Doctor Who planets#T. I've asked the article's creator, kindly and a few times, to read wikipedia policies - he doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia isn't a place to solicit fan discussion about a theoretical television episode (or even professional collaboration on a real television episode). This should be a redirect, since it is apparently mentioned in the Doctor Who series and was already listed at List of Doctor Who planets. First Light (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect- really no more needs to be said. Reyk _YO! 07:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above Stuartyeates (talk) 22:51, 2 December 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 Largest known prime number. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2^43112609 − 1[edit]

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

How is this number special?? It is most likely special for being the largest known prime, but this might become out-of-date in a year or so from now. Georgia guy (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the fact that it won someone $100,000 is a reason to consider it noteworthy. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the record event among all events that have ever happened with respect to how much money someone won?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, since the million-dollar prize for the Poincaré conjecture is bigger. But I understand Perelman refused to accept that, so maybe this one is the biggest. It's certainly a rare event. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But a bevaprime (see the megaprime article for what this means) will give an even bigger prize. Georgia guy (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems notable and, in any case, there are better alteratives than deletion such as merger with largest known prime number or Mersenne prime.Warden (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How is it more notable than other large Mersenne primes?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's the largest? Jenks24 (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But in a year or so from now, this probably won't be true any more. Georgia guy (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Largest known prime or possibly Mersenne prime but don't keep own article. It got some news stories but much less than a huge number of sports records and they nearly never get an article but only mention in other articles like record collections and biographies. We shouldn't make an article each time some record is broken, and I say that as someone who is very interested in prime records and have a website [4] about it. Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Integers asks for three unrelated properties. This has one (primality) and everything else is a consequence of that. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Largest known prime number, which already covers it (as, er, it's the largest known prime number), is far from being too long and is a far better place for readers to read about it in context.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Largest known prime number or Mersenne prime. Although I am the creator of this article, I agree that it shouldn't be a separate article. As PrimeHunter says, this number has no notable properties apart from currently being the largest known prime number and being a Mersenne prime. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It shows up early in a Vi Hart math doodling video: Doodling in Math: Sick Number Games. Pretty popular stuff in some circles. Merge is best. Jd2718 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not kept, then it should get merged into both Largest known prime number and Mersenne prime. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Largest known prime number and Mersenne prime per WP:NUMBER; the number alone is not notable but the Mersenne primes are. HurricaneFan 25 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect somewhere, anywhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliable sources exist, please integrate into article. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youth in Asia[edit]

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

Is this a sufficiently notable band? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has five pages devoted to them in Ian Glasper's book The Day the Country Died. They are also covered to some extent in the books Visual Vitriol: The Street Art and Subcultures of the Punk and Hardcore Generation and The Story of Crass.--Michig (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Michig's sources. We wouldn't expect to find online sources for a band whose coverage primarily would have been in the early 1980s. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:54, 1 December 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. And rename to Akuapem Anafo. Sandstein 08:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of the Akan state of Akuapem Anafo[edit]

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

Messy unsourced article (tagged since 2008) that fails WP:NLIST. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this messy fragment is in my opinion fixable/expandable, the name of Nana Gyan Kwasi III, a local chief of the Akuapem Anafo ('Akuapem South' division/territory of Ghana) is mentioned in: Gilbert, Michelle: 'No Condition Is Permanent': Ethnic Construction and the Use of History in Akuapem. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 67, No. 4 (1997), pp. 501-533, see snippet view at findarticles.com. I've added the source to the article and clarified the information, please check. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option is creating a stand alone article Akuapem Anafo and merging the information of this 'list'. It is possible to find sufficient context in our article Abotakyi_Accord#Larteh_Accord or in the articles published by Ghanian media [5], [6], [7]. I got lost in the names of local leaders (Nana Djan Kwasi II, Nana Gyan Kwasi III etc). I'm not sure whether the sources describe one person or more people. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article. We have now a short and referenced stub about the Akuapem Anafo territory. I suggest to keep the article and rename/move it to Akuapem Anafo. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Vejvančický has, as so often, delivered the goods. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. And he did it in such a professional, non-contentious manner. Appreciated. I'm good with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Ruiz[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable footballer; hasn't appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under current rule for professional league and professional league. Segunda División B isn't listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Matthew_hk t c 17:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder. Both clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 2 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Coimbra[edit]

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

A non-notable footballer, never played in national league (Brazilian Serie A to D), no Copa do Brazil game and a handful game in the state league first level. Matthew_hk t c 18:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It's clear he never played in the Portugese league, nor in the Brazilian national leagues/cups. The article might marginally pass NFOOTBALL due to his one appearance in the Carioca championship, but I don't see evidence that the article would ever pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might pass WP:BIO for just being interesting or unusual. Not any footballer can go an entire career without playing. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 11:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, he fails WP:NSPORT as he appears to have not played ever. While this may be interesting trivia, he has not received significant coverage for it, and as such fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although there are several claims here that the article fails NSPORT, I don't think that's accurate. There is an article at www.fferj.com.br that says he played two matches for Flamengo before having his contract cancelled. It's very likely that he played in the 2006 Campeonato Carioca (a fully-pro competition), but the match reports (Sumulas) are no longer available at the FFERJ website for that competition. The bigger question is whether a player with so little professional experience should have an article if the GNG cannot realistically be met. Jogurney (talk) 19:13, 2 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaJet Airlines[edit]

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

Failed business project, without any information beyond the fact that the start date was delayed several times and finally scrapped. Otherwise pure speculation, therefore not notable per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CORP AdAstra reloaded (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete never an operating airline. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 3 December 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 I. V. Sasi. Sandstein 08:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Padhavi (Malayalam film)[edit]

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

Unreleased film. Clearly fails WP:NFF. None of the existing sources talk about the film. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I.V.Sasi where the film, even if unreleased for years, can still be spoken of in relationship to that director's career. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 2 December 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Columbus Crew head coaches[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The table is not large enough to be an article on its own. The table and key are already merged to the main Columbus Crew article. Best, Albacore (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as in previous AfD- much better as part of main article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous examples of lists like these in Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Hockey League, European soccer teams, and even other MLS teams (D.C. United). By keeping all of this info in the main article, it becomes rather long and out of focus. The Crew article is about the club as a whole, but adding the historical info about the coaches is not really relevant to the current article. There are short ones that are featured list status, like the Miami Marlins list. InTheAM 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing wrong with having a list of head coaches, the article just needs slight padding perhaps. Giant Snowman 10:16, 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. v/r - T P 00:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Bank[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:N. The sources thus far used are facebook pages, blogs, and other similar non-reliable sources. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and music. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - This page should not be deleted or yet be deleted so quickly as it is edited each day as shown. There is no WP:DEADLINE. In addition, this article is for an upcoming artist who deserves to have a article (WP:CHANCE) in this website. The sources missing will be fixed and reliable. Do NOT delete (WP:DEMOLISH) this artist's page, thank you. UniverseGirl (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the above argument from a supporter: "an upcoming artist" is an artist who is not yet notable, DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete At least he's not killing. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 11:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE This article is factual and is not only about an up coming artist with there in fact notoriety, but who is being put in the Guinness Book Of World Records. This discussion should have been closed since it seems that the users putting it up for deletion are racial profiling the page. Under Wikipedia Laws there must be a chance given to the article and if there is not there is always a legal issue that can resolve it; for the irrational dialogue being said.Marcus Donbey 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yung Bank(Young Uncertain....) (talk • contribs)

Where did you derive racial profiling from? His rap name simply suggests he's robbing banks instead of committing murder. I apologize for not explicitly pointing to policy before. As a musician, the subject appears to fail all criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO. Neither you nor the article described the nature of his notoriety, so in good faith I'll assume he fails WP:CRIME. Also note that WP:CHANCE is an essay, not Wikipedia policy, and is just a viewpoint of some editors. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets first shed light on what you just stated, note: everything you have said has been copied and sent to an attorney. You are out of context and out of character, you are slandering the musician, and also Wikipedia. The artist name stands for young black man getting money not killing as so many others portray the black race. As a journalist myself you are degrading my work, not with facts but with bias conversation. The article in fact being edited everyday holds the fact that it is not yet done, things will be changed, things will be added, and things will be removed. The criterias you just listed has nothing to do with the argument; your statements are false, nor are you a Wikipedia admin. Therefore there is no need for you to express your opinion on an article to which you feel is not to your standards. Now as far as you slandering this artist name his management shall be notified by me and his legal team. If by chance it is made available to track where you are from it will be done and you will be taken to court. Marcus Donbey 23:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yung Bank(Young Uncertain....) (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 without prejudice. If somebody wishes to contest this for real, it can be restored upon request to me or at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Progressives[edit]

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

Article restored after previous WP:PROD. The Prod grounds were "Electoral Commission gives evidence that the party exists - albeit on a small scale - but no evidence is provided or found that the party has attained any notability." and that remains the basis for bringing it to AfD. (Please note: the subject of this article is neither the old Progressives formerly active in Scottish local government, nor the new centre-right party proposed by one contender in the recent Scottish Conservative Party leadership election.) AllyD (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - sorry, this AFD is my fault! The article had actually been deleted following the prod period, but I saw the redlink and queried the closing Admin, asking for a copy of the text. Instead, the Admin (very kindly) restored the entire article. When I saw that it was about the insignificant modern organisation I realised that it was ripe for deletion. I had thought that it was about the old local govt grouping. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amended suggestion: Redirect to Progressives (Scotland), as "Scottish Progressives" was a term applied to them. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Delete, possibly as speedy. This is really an article that has been deleted through a prod whose deletion hasn't been contested. It has simply been restored through an admin misinterpreting a request as contesting a prod. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess 961+[edit]

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

This chess variant does not seem to be notable. The references given do not assess the notability. SyG (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. To me, it seems like made up applies. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is the same as Transcendental chess except that the bishops do not have to be on opposite colors. It is the same as Fully Randomized Chess (which has no WP article, but is in Pritchard's Classfied Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, second edition, p. 74.) These predate Chess960, thus they predate Chess961+. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even seem to be a game with clear rules. I found no mention of "Chess 961+" in the article's external link. No evidence has been provided that the game has been played or studied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. (Besides being utterly pointless.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chess variants, if V can be met, as NN. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Many changes have been applied to address the issues raised and elaborate the entry Tomatool (Check!) 13:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention you made changes to address issues raised. A big issue raised is notability. Where are your change(s) to support notability? (Because, I'm not seeing any such changes.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:47, 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. Content fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Kingdom[edit]

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

Unneeded article fork. Straight copy and paste from section of Vandals. Spinning Spark 13:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment odd one this. It's almost a copy though the maps have diverged. Guess it comes down to whether the Vandals article is 'too long to read comfortably' and so should its Kingdom section should be condensed, with link to the full text on a separate page - might not be a bad thing? If so, question is why the user is working on it so slowly/AfD was so quick. I'll ping him and see what's up; it's an account that has edited many historical pages so there may be 'method in his madness'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Copying text from one article to make another is not an acceptable practice, where they permanently duplicate each other. There are three possible ways of dealing with this:

Prune the parent article (for which this article is already identified as a main article).
Greatly expand this one, so that it adds detail that does not appear in the parent article.
Delete this one.

I have no reference as to which should be done, but if no onew is prepared to undertake either of the first two, deletion is the only possible option. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vandals until someone writes something original. --Xijky (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I've now expanded and reorganized the article a bit. It would be unfortunate to delete it before it's properly established.Newsleep (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is there agreement that the matching section at Vandals can be cut down? For if not, this can't work... did you discuss this on the Vandals talk page already? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Newsleep or some one else will edit donw the section in the Vandals, this must be deleted (Only commented above). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this discussion is going nowhere. WP:CONTENTFORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus with erection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cartoon. There has been no long-term coverage of this artwork, so it fails the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source. Xijky (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I reagard the cartoon as obscene. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That statement has absolutely no relevance to our decision of whether to delete it. Firstly, obscenity is subjective and we do not make these decisions based on our own subjective feelings. Secondly, it could be obscene but notable, in which case we would keep it, or not obscene but non-notable, in which case we would delete it. This isn't The Little Kiddies Book Of Wholesome Subjects, it is an encyclopaedia. We cover everything that is notable, including bad stuff. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view this is borderline, so I will stay neutral for now. If anybody can dig up proof of ongoing controversy or legal actions then I would !vote "Keep". Otherwise I feel it could possibly be merged into an article on a relevant wider subject of freedom of expression, defamation of religions or something like that. I see no reason to delete the image if there is any article that can find a valid use for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lack of sustained coverage indicates to me that this is not notable. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I find brief coverage at the time of the original publication, but I find no indication of lasting notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There's no requirement that continuing coverage is required to establish notability. The O'Reilly coverage at the time is sufficient. 184.60.19.128 (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the summary of WP:N states that notable topics are those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, I would disagree. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is old news with a short shelf life, and notwithstanding the breathlessness of tone at the time, the scope and quality of coverage weren't impressive. A Google search reveals more hits for controversy generated by an English sculpture [8] ~~At best this may merit a sentence in the University of Oregon's article.~~ JNW (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Keep Jesus was a man, I'm sure he had lots of erections, probably looking at men. No need to censor. --Haa zues teeni weanii (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Oh, grow up! You registered a disposable comedy account just to post that? That statement has absolutely no relevance to our decision of whether to delete it. It really is not helpful and some people are likely to find it offensive. Please leave the grown ups in peace so we can discuss this sensibly. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Research shows Jesus was gay http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices --Haa zues teeni weanii (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I regard the cartoon as obscenely funny and notable. --Haa zues teeni weanii (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've indef blocked this blatant troll-only account -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep Jesus was a man, I'm sure he had lots of erections, probably looking at men. No need to censor. --Haa zues teeni weanii (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, grow up! You registered a disposable comedy account just to post that? That statement has absolutely no relevance to our decision of whether to delete it. It really is not helpful and some people are likely to find it offensive. Please leave the grown ups in peace so we can discuss this sensibly. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Research shows Jesus was gay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices

--Haa zues teeni weanii (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I regard the cartoon as obscenely funny and notable. --Haa zues teeni weanii (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've indef blocked this blatant troll-only account -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like I said in the first nom two years ago, this was just notable as a cable news Outrage of the Day in the distant past and nothing more from a student publication usually happily ignored by most people, and hardly needed attention here in any way just because they drew Jesus like this. The picture of said cover wasn't in the article the first time and looks like something whipped up in MS Paint in five minutes. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a one-off student thing with no evidence of any lasting notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Failure to demonstrate lasting notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No more or less notable than the 2011 Mexican drug gang attack twitter hoax article. Sufficient third party coverage exists for both, and I have !voted accordingly. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well cited. National controversy. jorgenev (t|c|s) 00:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cited to what exactly? WorldNetDaily isn't exactly a source that shoots down the middle, and the other source is a blog from Michelle Malkin (at the time). That's it, nothing from the other side or neutral, outside of O'Reilly's segment. It was just a lame "for the lulz" moment ignored by everybody else who refused to give this story the time of day. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student Insurgent, a student newspaper at University of Oregon is not notable.WP:N No circulation information is available on there web site [9] though the Newspaper does say it has been in publication for 23 years there is no way to determine the demographic reach of the paper as stated. Total student enrollment for the university [10] is approximately 23,000.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wasn't going to bring this up as it sounded like kicking the dog, but the publication's Facebook page only has 26 likes. If that isn't being completely irrelevant to anyone at U of O, I don't know what is. Nate • (chatter) 08:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprisingly this didn't generate "outrage" for a week in world-wide media. Probably would have been not worthy for inclusion even after a week (and nothing more) of world-wide outrage. WP:PERSISTENCE states "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" and this seems like such a case. I think the Piss Christ article is pretty good though. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:47, 1 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Martin (activist)[edit]

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

This article clearly fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS The subject has made the news solely for his (currently unresolved) sex discrimination court case against the London School of Economics. Depending on the outcome, the case may prove to be a landmark one and worthy of an article, but until Mr. Martin is notable for more than initiating a court case, he does not meet the criteria for inclusion here. Slp1 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Martin is notable for one event. Currently, not even the event itself, a court case, seems to be notable. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tom Martin is a notable person making a large impact on society. He is already known for more than merely initiating a court case, though that was the primary matter than brought him to public attention.

Regarding WP:BLP1E, the article quit clearly contains information on more than one event that Mr Martin is associated with: it currently discusses a court case; newspaper and other media coverage; and a video.

Regarding WP:NOT#NEWS, the article is not about news but about an individual who is involved in current/recent news. The mention of news within the article is entirely within guidelines as it might perhaps not (yet) justify its own separate article. The article on Tom Martin does not break any of the three sections in WP:NOT#NEWS.

Regarding the one event guideline, this is about whether to create one or two subjects, not whether to create none at all. There is nothing against a single important event being covered (e.g. 2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran) and even if the current case dissolves into nothing, Mr Martin's actions - and therefore himself as a subject - will have a large and widespread effect. --Douglas1958 (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating here, Douglas, but I don't think you are reading the policies and guidelines correctly. The only reason that Martin has received some coverage in the media at the beginning of September is because of the launch of the court case, the one event. Making an youtube video, and giving interview including a podcast interview on a men's rights website (voice for men) doesn't count as separate events. We know nothing about Mr. Martin or about his life except information related to this case, because he is not notable for anything else.

The point of WP:NOTNEWS is that WP does not seek to report news "as it happens" as a newspaper does. As the policy says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", and in thus in my opinion, this article does actually break this policy too.

Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. It may be that in the future "Mr Martin's actions - and therefore himself as a subject - will have a large and widespread effect" as you put it. But it hasn't happened yet, and when/if it does, the article will be justified and can be recreated. Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Slp1 is correct in his/her interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT. This person is not notable for anything except raising a large stink and filing a court case over one class he took at one university. And even if the court case eventually becomes significant, the usual policy would be to write an article about the court case rather than about the plaintiff. Also, the references cited are not impressive; they mostly reflect publicity-seeking rather than genuine notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 4 December 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) Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 13:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rippetoe[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article references are not (valid) secondary in nature. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rippetoe literally wrote the book on powerlifting, even if he's mostly retired at this point. He's an important part of the powerlifting and crossfit culture, people (myself included) want to know more about him. Half of the sources in the article are secondary. (Full disclosure: I created the article, but have no actual vested interest in this subject.)—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates)

Comment - Let's look at the references. #1-Is not a valid independent reference-there is a good reason wiki-type sources are not valid. #2,3,4-This is not about him-these are articles he wrote. #5,6-Are books on Amazon. #7 Marginally secondary in nature. The interview is not considered secondary or independent. #8-Is a dead link #9-Does not mention the subject of the Wikipedia article. #10-Mentioned as part of the seminar teaching staff. #11-An interview is not considered secondary or independent. #12-Listing his name as part of the class teaching staff is not a strong secondary reference. #13-See item #1. #14 - Only a listing of his name and association with the gym. #15,16,17,18,19-Books on Amazon.

He may or may be someone major in power lifting, but I do not see references that support WP:NOTABILITY in Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interview, Secondary, Interview, Inteviewed on NPR. Here's 4 from the first 2 pages of google for "Mark Rippetoe". Edit: I've integrated these into the article, I will add more as well. (See additional comment below.—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 20:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rippetoe has written the only book available that provides barbell instruction in detail. This book has sold over 80,000 copies in its second edition all over the world, with sales rank at Amazon as best in its category, averaging ~#600 of all books sold. The third edition was recently released and is in the process of distribution. As an active strength training coach and writer, Rippetoe continues to make contributions that will be added to complete this page and increase its importance to the user. Barbell/strength training may appear to be a niche sport, however improving strength is the foundation for all sports and basic health and is extremely important to both the athletic and general population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montster58 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Montster58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - None of this meets the notability criteria in either WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO.reddogsix (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've addressed WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC points met in a comment below, others have addressed more generic WP:BIO concerns. —siro χ o 18:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if you're gonna have any one single weightlifting author on Wikipedia, this guy is it. I dare you to find someone with more internet/gym name recognition saturation than this guy. Honestly, if he is not notable, then the policy needs a change. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added several sources in order to address the various issues raised:

WP:BIO:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Rob Sachs, What Would Rob Do to Lose 10 Pounds in 2009?, 2009. Interview on NPR.
Pete Eyre, Mark Rippetoe, libertarian Gym Owner, Chats with Motorhome Diaries (2009).
Matt Reynolds, In the Trenches - An Interview With Mark Rippetoe
Charles Staley, Mark Rippetoe: Starting Strength, mp3, 2008. Audio interview with Mark Rippetoe.
Chris Colucci, Starting Strength: An Interview with Mark Rippetoe, 2009. T-nation interview with Mark Rippetoe.
Charles Poliquin, Five Valuable Strength Lessons From Mark Rippetoe, 2011.

WP:AUTHOR:

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... 1. The person is regarded as an important figure. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

The above sources indicate that he is (1) regarded as an important figure (5 raving interviews, including one on NPR, one of the most independant and general a sources there is); and that (2) he is known for originating the concept/theory/technique of the 5x5 incremental weight training program, colloquially^{[11][12][13][14][15][16]} referred to as "Rippetoes" or the "Rippetoe Program". —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 20:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I am not familiar with most of the sources, and cannot evaluate the journals in this field--except that I do know that one of the ones in which he published, Journal of exercise physiology, is a first-rate widely known title. Examining WorldCat, I see Strength and conditioning journal is held in almost 300 academic libraries, so it probably has a good reputation also. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rippetoe is author of multiple books which sell (no small achievement), and a genuine populariser and evangelist for weightlifting. There are 350,000+ hits for him on Google as I write. He is NOT a self-promoter: observe that he hasn't tried to write his own page. I recognise that weight-lifting is a difficult area for Wikipedia: Reliable Sources are difficult to identify for someone who isn't aware of the field, but really, it would be better for contributors to this discussion to be lifters rather than wiki-lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowjoe17 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I first heard about Mark Rippetoe through NPR in 2009. http://www.npr.org/blogs/wwrd/2009/01/what_would_rob_do_to_lose_10_p.html His relative lack of mention in mainstream media should be irrelevant next to the fact that he is considered one of the premier strength coaches in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.134.155 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — 07.38.134.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Rippetoe's books have recently become a standard source in the strength training literature (This one, in particular, is well-regarded). In fact, many Wiki articles are based on and refer to his work directly; see the "References" sections here, here, and here. I believe he is relevant enough to have his biography on Wikipedia, although I am very, very concerned about the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxgoku1488 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Linuxgoku1488 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Firstly, as an author and instructor, subject demonstrates "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" from WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, given subject's publication in academic journals and influence the subject demonstrates based on these publications, "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and "7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." from WP:ACADEMIC. —siro χ o 17:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mark Rippetoe is a bestselling author and well-known coach in his field (barbell-based strength training) and in the CrossFit community. His book Starting Strength is a very influential beginner's guide for those lifting for strength or who are interested in competing in powerlifting. Fans of his work have even created a Wiki dedicated to it. There is no reason to delete this article, although I believe it does require significant rewriting and more references to the influential online publications serving the fitness community. --Nenuphar11 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nenuphar11. Ezratrumpet (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TBH, this article jumps out at me as blatant spam. It's chock-full of "references" which do not meet our guidelines for reliable sources. Hopefully in time this can be corrected, as the subject does appear to (minimally, at least) meet our general notability guidelines. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:16, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Orlowski[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage or even enough articles mentioning them of any sort of note. The notability reference there is something on his own site from a non reliable newspaper of which he used to be editor (it says quod vide as its standard). Practically all the hits with google are articles by him in The Register which he is the executive editor of and therefore the stuff isn't even under editorial control but just editorial. I don't there's anything there that couldn't be better put as editor under the register article, it could do with a bit more in it as it is pretty much a stub and it is actually notable. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless some WP:RS's can be found that establish notability. The subjects own articles are certainly not enough to establish such. Furthermore, since we have no real secondary sources, i can't see how we, under WP:BLP, can defend this article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. First, I would like to note that while among many Wikipedians (and not only them) Orlowski's writing has a bad reputation of being very polemic and factually unreliable (example), this is not in itself an argument for deletion - notability is not a badge of merit, but a measure of the impact a person has had. Some points:
- The New York Times describes him as "a British journalist who has written extensively on techno-utopianism."
- This is significant coverage as the main topic, but not in a reliable source.
- According to the Independent, Orlowski was "described in some quarters as a 'cult figure'"[17].
- Andrew Orlowski has been lampooned (but this is original research at the moment) in Cory Doctorow's novel Makers as "Freddy Niedbalski, a technology reporter for the notorious British technology publication Tech Stink" (see also).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While i agree that reliability of the person is not an indication of notability, the trouble is that the article, as well as your sources, do not convey notability according to our guidelines. And that is the springing point here. We need secondary reliable sources that establish the persons notability. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times article HaeB mentions [18] actually has three separate quotes from Orlowski regarding the Singularity, so it appears the Times columnist, Ashlee Vance, considered Orlowski to be a notable source for his article. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not significant coverage... Is there any significant coverage about or of Orlowski? Outside quoting him, or mentioning him offhand in an articles not specifically about him? Ie. what i've seen so far is secondary mentioning, not significant coverage. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, did you get a chance to look through the impressive number of citations of Orlowski's columns in scholarly journals and books? See my last comment, Tillman (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 below.

To my mind, this pretty well answers the question of AO's notability. There are literally hundreds of cites of his columns in academia. Possibly more than his work merits, but there they are... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Orlowski's pretty well-known in both the tech and climate-skeptic blogospheres ~~-- but it's true he's short of third-party RS mentions.~~, and his columns have been cited hundreds of times in scholarly journals and books -- see my remarks at Tillman (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 below. This seems unequivocal evidence of Orlowski's notability. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (changed !vote to Keep)[reply]

I found these 3rd-party RS mentions, not yet in the article:

Guardian, 16 August 2008:

Andrew Orlowski, executive editor of the technology website The Register, says: 'The web is a secular religion at the moment and politicians go to pray at events like the Google Zeitgeist conference. Any politician who wants to brand himself as a forward-looking person will get himself photographed with the Google boys.'

This quote was also used in the book Google speaks: secrets of the world's greatest billionaire entrepreneurs by Janet Lowe, page 9.

Orlowski made a presentation to the Innovation, Technology, and Spectrum Policy conference at George Mason University in 2006:

Information Economy Project

Orlowski was strongly criticized as "what I would call a professional troll" by Guardian columnist Paul Carr (writer), in his 18 February 2009 column.

Orlowski wrote several articles (op-eds?) for the Guardian around 2006-2007, such as this one on Net Neutrality. We mention his Wikipedia Guardian piece already at his bio page.

Dmcq, you wrote at his wikibio talk page:

I'll ask at WikiProject Journalism about this, do they have some special provision for notability in cases like this where there are hundreds of things on the web but they're practically all by the person himself? Dmcq

Did you get a reply? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Journalism#Andrew_Orlowski and nobody said anything in reply. I notice above this was notified for the authors project, perhaps that would have been more appropriate. There's two things in the list above about him, that he write a techno blog and that he's been criticized as a professional troll, which I would have said were specifically about him. Would a few statements like those perhaps establish notability of the person? Or should we look at what makes authors notable? Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are an impressive number of citations of Orlowski's columns (mostly those in the Register) in books and scholarly publications. See, for example, this list of 15 cites of a 2003 Orlowski column "Most bloggers 'are teenage girls'–survey". There are hundreds more: [19], [20]. So it does appear Orlowski's columns have had a significant influence over the years, especially in the scholarly literature. See what you think. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are a couple of books in those google returns which I believe have enough of a mention to satisfy notability. With the number of cites that easily does the trick I believe. I had looked up his name with climate change in Google books and found nothing useful and must have then just forgotten to do the person himself. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the cites. I wonder if they know they are in essence citing a blog? Dmcq (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? With social-scientist types.... well, my bias towards the physical sciences is showing.

Were you planning to add some of this stuff to the article? I'm not quite sure how to do the academic cites without the appearance of OR. Maybe:

(draft) Orlowski's columns have been cited in hundreds of articles in academic journals (cite to Google Scholar). Some of the most widely-cited columns were (cites to specific columns at GSch.) --? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:07, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NetAnts[edit]

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

No indication of notability: no reliable sources (and even the official site is a dead link), a search just turns up download links JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: A search for the Chinese name "网络蚂蚁" (from the article) gives a lot of hits - but I cant say if its notable or not - I do not read Chinese... Christian75 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. NetAnts was the most successful download manager in China for several years, even though now it quit from history. (enough notability.) Official site may be viewed via Internet Archive. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations:

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment The three links above seem to be and interview which only mentions it in passing, a short article which covers it a bit more along with some other software, and a download link. So only two proper sources, only half an article of coverage and not enough for WP:GNG. I did check the page on Chinese Wikipedia but that has no sources, only the dead official link. I've not tried a Google search with the Chinese name as I too would find it too difficult to evaluate the results.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage of the software. --Nuujinn (talk) 04:12, 26 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, Sandstein 11:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in RS to pass muster. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:42, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xylophone Tuning Company[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (music). memphisto 10:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. memphisto 10:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hi, I'm Nick Angeloni, the creator of the article. I was previously unaware of Wikipedia's standards for bands, and am glad to have been informed. Upon reviewing your standards, I both expect and encourage the article to be deleted until my band can achieve success that is more compatible with your standards. Thank you for taking the time to sort this out. -NickA87 (talk) 2:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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. m.o.p 23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballad of the Starcrossed Miner[edit]

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

Poem is entirely from a copyrighted videogame, no notability (poem, not game), and no content without copyrighted text. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The game is notable, but the poem is not. SL93 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To Planetfall. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the purposes of this discussion, I have not deleted the copyrighted material from the article. If the text of the poem were not there, what would be left to merge? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:44, 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 Procedural close. already been deleted —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen[edit]

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

The article fails on 5 main guidelines :-

1. The article fails on precedent as List of The Christmas Song covers has been merged back into main article. As far as I can ascertain there are no other songs split between the article on the song and other recordings and unless size dictates, I can see no reason for it.
2. WP:SONGCOVER applies which states "When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (not a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies: the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition), the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS."
3. WP:NSONGS. States, inter alia, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" A list of covers of a song would be covered by this.
4. There is no issue regarding size.
5. All the information in this article is now duplicated at Skibbereen (song) where I put it after I redirected the page.

The reasons for a AfD, rather that a redirect are twofold, firstly that as a search term it the title is pretty useless, secondly, having been reverted by the creator of the article and then invited to an edit war by the same editor who already has warnings for edit wars left me with no alternative to an AfD. Others may like to consider the grammar of the article title. The article also remains unreferenced. Richhoncho (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is judged on his own merits
WP:SONGCOVER refers to an individual cover, not to a list of artists
The article is not unreferenced, as it links to the article of the artist that refers to the album or to the album itself. But if desired, I can copy the sources.
The comments of Richhoncho about earlier warnings of editwarring and my grammer are just plain disgusting. If he is trying to win a discussion by making personal attacks, I am done with it. This loser can stick the article straight up his a**e. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I will apologise for the grammar comment, it went a little too far, but it did establish a further reason for the article to be deleted, rather redirected. However, I was correct to mention your invitation to edit-warring as a good reason for bringing the article to AfD - if you hadn't have brought it up in the first place I wouldn't have remarked on it! I note you have now speedied the article as creator. Fair enough. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above; no need for a separate article, and not enough for meaningful encyclopaedic content. Chzz ► 12:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I reformatted the content in Skibbereen (song) here, to remove the excess section headers and empty tables, thus reducing it from 25 lines to 5 lines. Chzz ► 12:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete not notable as a separate list; not reason to split from song. Uniplex (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 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 per WP:G5. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tachash (animal)[edit]

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

Article has been created by serial sockpuppet LittleOldManRetired (talk · contribs), the latest sock of Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs) as the latest installment of his bizarre obsession with this subject. See Wikipedia:Ani#The_return_of_Michael_Paul_Heart. Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources vary between unreliability and not stating what the article creator says they do. The article is a mishmash of original research, misrepresentation, and synthesis. --NellieBly (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a lot of the same improperly sourced, partially OR, material created by a blatant sock, and removed several times previously from Tachash -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and synthesis. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The same editor has made extensive edits to Tachash, which also suffers from lack of reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have tagged this article for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion, as a page created by a banned/blocked user. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:19, 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 speedily deleted under A10 Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A About the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy[edit]

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

Original research, unverifiable. There's no way for the article to be improved upon. Lithorien (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The author of this 'Q & A' is Michael B. Schweitzer is user 'mikiestar' who created this article. --Marjaliisa (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't redirect: Wikipedia really has no need for rambling conspiracy theory essays. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: totally original non-notable research. Wikipedia is not a blog. --NellieBly (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response by author: The author has added an introduction to the article that states the principle sources and explains the manner by which their information is integrated into a coherent question-and-answer format. --Mikiestar (talk)

It still contravenes numerous Wikipedia policies, including no original research, verifiability, and references to reliable third-party sources. It is a very good example of what Wikipedia is not. I suggest you create a blog at Wordpress or Google and post this personal essay there. --NellieBly (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ABORTION. Lugnuts (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and synthesis. JIP | Talk 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or possiblity redirect to appropriate article.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No verifiability or any sources on the claims outlined in the article. It looks likes WP:OR also. -- Luke (Talk) 16:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:OR/WP:SYN, wholly unnecessary POV fork of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A10 and I have tagged the article as such. Safiel (talk) 06:38, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Briggs Family[edit]

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

The family as an entirety fails WP:GNG. None of the sources listed provide in-depth coverage of the family. Instead, most are passing mentions, some are interviews, and the rest are WP:SPS from one family member. In fact, Ann Kio appears to be the only Briggs with some claim to notability. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 07:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should in fact not be deleted, there are many prominent African families and Briggs family seems to be one of the few that has any sort of documentation of their members notability, notability of an African family name in something other than sports. Articles and records in second and third world countries are hardly ever written let alone kept properly, so the mere that the family have any notability not just in Africa but outside the continent is reason enough the keep this article.

Delete, notability as a group not established. Hairhorn (talk) 05:13, 1 December 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. Sandstein 08:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Holtorf[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. One large puff piece based on primary sources, original research and synthesis. Has a long list of reference but looking at them reveals fundamental problems. First is the lack of urls when many are internet sources? Why? There is also a lot of sources by the subject not about him (not a fatal flaw by itself). Next looking at the references, what they claim to support do not often match what is in the refs.
Some examples of the problems. Starting from the start: ref 1 [21] - bio from someone he wrote for, not independent; ref2 [22] - an advertisement; ref 3 - [23] supports the first half of the sentance, not the rest which is WP:OR; refs 4 and 5 - [24] [25] support the 17 year delay but have nothing to do with Holtorf (WP:SYNTH); ref 6 - by him; ref 7 - [26] calls quack but doesn't mention Holtorf (synth); ref 8 - by him; ref 9 [27] - no mention of Holtorf's position (synth); ref 10 [28] 11 [29] 12 (insufficient to identify source, probably [30]) - no mention of Holtorf's position (synth).
This article fails to show how Holtorf is notable and lacks significant independent coverage of him. A search failed to find sufficient independent coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is a disaster and needs major work, with removal of the puffery and addition of links for the references. (Presumably the article creator did not know how to do that.) He does not pass WP:SCHOLAR since citations of his articles are minimal. But a look at Google News suggests that he may be notable due to a lot of exposure in the popular press. He seems to be used as a go-to source on medical questions by media sources ranging from CNN International[31] to the Chicago Tribune.[32] The Oakland Tribune calls him a "world renowned expert" [33]; so does the Los Angeles Daily News.[34] With rewriting I think this article is a keeper. BTW I see from the history that the article was speedy-deleted, reverted, and userfied before coming to us in its present form. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the writer of the article. I am more than willing to revise. I thought it was fine because I revised it already with the help of three different editors, one of which gave me a barnstar. They put it live again when they felt it was sufficient, not me. I didn't know I needed to provide urls in the refs. If more revisions need to be made, I'm happy to do them. Just please point me in the right direction as I thought I'd done all I needed. Thank you. 76.164.84.41 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urls aren't REQUIRED in the references - some references are not even accessible online - but they make it a lot easier for people to see what the reference actually says, possibly to evaluate the article or possibly to find out more about the subject. You can find a lot of information about how to do this at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Example:

Journal article: If the article is available online, use external link syntax to link the article title to the relevant Web page, for example:

Carr A, Ory D (2006). [http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030496 Does HIV cause cardiovascular disease?] ''PLoS Medicine'', 3(11):e496.

Note that it goes: open-bracket, then the url, then a space, then the title of the article, then a close-bracket, then all the rest of the bibliographical information. The single brackets tell wikipedia it is an external link; the information AFTER the space is what will appear in the footnote.

There are citation formats that can be used, but you've already got all the information in the footnotes; you just might want to add urls. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holtorf is definitely notable - plenty opf references in third party sources, and he's also a senior medical figure, member of an examining board, etc. Comment: refs certainly don't have to have urls in them. There's nothing stopping refs being improved over time, and certainly no reason to delete this article. I think it's a bit harsh to describe it as "puff", really. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About being a "member of an examining board", I wouldn't be so sure of that. For one thing, I can't find any board called the "American Board of Anti-Aging Medicine." [35]. They probably mean the American Board of Anti-Aging and Regenerative Medicine, offered by the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine - a certification which is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties. For another thing, he does not claim to be a member of the board of directors of that organization - just an "examiner", which any practitioner can do. Here is a list of the officers of that Academy; he is not on the list. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references are now all fixed. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was a big job! Based on seeing the full references I am still in the "weak" keep category. The references I linked to above actually may help to establish notability. The ones in the article are mostly either not about him or not from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through them all as I found and put them in, the ones which don;t appear to be specifically about him are mainly covering the controversy and opposing views on bio-identical hormones, vaccines, etc. so they do cover the controversy about his work, views and areas of interest. I think that as far as the "existence" of various bodies is concerned, to a certain extent we have to assume good faith about not being able to find them on the net - I know that here in the UK we have medical-peripheral bodies which don't seem to get a mention on the net. I'm not sure that there's a better way to cover controversy than to show Holtorf's own views on something, and then show the views from "the opposing side" as it were - which does seem to have been done pretty well, on the whole. Where opposing views don't actually mention Holtorf by name, it can be hard to do this any other way. Also, I did notice that some of the own-work and / or press material (articles etc.) has also been accepted by other RS for publication (I found the Lyme disease one by the Town Times writer in a number of other places. It was obviously originally published in the Town Times, which would count as RS, but the Town Times itself doesn't have an online archive, which is a bummer!) Just a note - I was the editor who CSD-tagged the first draft of this article as spammy, so I'm not inherently an inclusionist, or anything! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:HEY Chzz ► 02:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAPOLICY. re GNG, which do you think provide sugnificant independent coverage about Holtorf? re BIO, which part of BIO do you think is satisfied here. re HEY, what improvement do you see fixing up problems of promotion (the reason this article was created), OR and SYNTH (article unchanged in this respect). Only improvement has been the improvement in the formating of refs (good work) and one and a half new sentences, neither demonstrating notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (do I get a vote as the author?) -For notability: Current AOL health expert in Endocrinology, founding member of the Bioidentical Hormone Initiative, founder and director of the National Academy of Hypothyroidism, guest editor, peer reviewer, and contributor to several medical journals, has made a number of television appearances on Fox News as a guest health expert...what qualifies as "notable" if this doesn't? Zoeyeve (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lack of coverage about Holtorf and all the keep reasons above are not policy based, just he seems important. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's enough mention is RS to establish notability. Sorry, but I think you're wrong on the notability front - and looking for improvement in an article, per your other concerns, isn't a good reason for taking it to AfD. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion A7. The article was lacking in any claim of the subject's significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Harlowe[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – aside from what the nominator says, the article is written like an advertisement promoting the individual. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable, no claims of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a shame we even have to take this to AfD. No real credible claim of notability in this autobiographical spamvertisement. Google isn't showing notability either.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 05:13, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Houston[edit]

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

This musician may become notable in the future. But now, it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC; everything under "discography" are non-notable mixtapes. Contested PROD. Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has yet to release an album and no depth of any coverage. In short, fails every criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. Also, no inherited notability from famous relatives. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete -I was still editing the page. There were more things I needed to take care of. I saved the changes I had made to not lose what I had been working on. This is, in fact, my first time using Wikipedia. I hope this helps clear the situation.

-User Elvia.Y. It was not my intention to cause a misunderstanding. User: Elvia.Y.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see where any of the sources assert notability WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Tucker[edit]

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

Local musician, local paper coverage and personal site/MySpace page only sources. DreamGuy (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked, nominator has it right. Winning local paper's "Waco's Got Talent" award is not sufficient. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable "blooming" local country music singer. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Significant coverage for this singer looks to be limited to local paper and personal sites; subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:45, 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. Snow keep. Reliable sources have been found, addressing the deletion concerns. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wandering Jews[edit]

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

No references except from the book itself. No coverage whatsoever from RS. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is now a link to a review in New Statesman. Most of the article's references are indeed to the book, which is appropriate, since the article discusses what the book says. Joseph Roth's notability is not in question, and WP has articles about most of his other books. Peter Chastain (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply add 'Roth' outside quotes to a Google Books search with the title in quotes and reliable sources showing notability will be produced in large numbers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is substantial coverage from WP:RS sources: new translation reviews in The Observer [36], The Evening Standard [37], New Statesman [38], The New York Times [39]. These citations I've added to the article, but there are plenty more behind pay walls. Here's a link to a University of Chicago library exhibition, featuring the book in the original German. It even pops up in current, public performance, as this 11 Nov 2011 report from the Bavarian newspaper Augsburger Allgemeine shows. The article itself needs work--it is still a bit stubby and leans rather too heavily on the 2001 translator's forward--but this is work for future editing, not deletion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book (as shown by sources) by a notable author. First Light (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable book. The title is an allusion to the myth of the Wandering Jew; the phrase is used online so frequently (and not just to refer to the myth but also as an allusion in other ways) that Googling the book title alone wouldn't necessarily bring up anything about the book. --NellieBly (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now coverage from RS.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 14:20, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demetris Murray[edit]

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

From what I can tell he's just another college football player. Any coverage I found online is routine. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on my web searches, agree with nominator's assessment. Game reports and mentions in local paper's assessment of the team. Subject currently splits RB duties at a decent Division I school, but there is no indication that this is one of those college careers that all by itself merits an encyclopedia entry. He might make it in the NFL, might not. If and when coverage warrants, we should have this article back, but fails WP:GNG now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to bring back next season if the player produces significant reliable independent coverage. "Gonna be big next year" = "Ain't done it yet" and that smells of WP:CRYSTAL to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Ewaniuk[edit]

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

WP:NACTOR states an actress attains notability once she had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The subject's only (arguably) significant role in a notable show is her role on Happy Town. I would assume one of those immeasurable number of TV movies on SyFy does not qualify as a notable film, especially as the particular one she's in has yet to be aired. Furthermore, every source just provides very brief passing mentions of the actress; none of them independently focus on the subject herself. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though it is often difficult for a young actor to meet WP:BIO, this one does through WP:ANYBIO for her multiple award nominations,[40] and yes.. for meeting WP:ENT.[41] For someone who has a so-far short career, she's doing very well. And to the nominator, the GNG is not the only mesuring stick for determining notability... and as long as the articles do speak about her dirctly and in some detail, she need NOT be the main focus of such coverage, and what IS required in a BLP is verifability of her career and her awards, and such verifiability does not itself have to be significant coverage.[42] Time to fix the article... not delete it.[43] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even mention GNG but it sounds like you think she happens to fail that too while acknowledging her lack of in-depth coverage (failing WP:BASIC). As an actress and only an actress, WP:NACTOR (or WP:ENT as you insist) would be a far more determining criteria than ANYBIO; that's why NACTOR exists. And she doesn't meet it until she appears in a second significant role. Regarding WP:V, there is no verifiability of her passing ENT. Just being able to confirm she's appeared in a slew of very minor roles does not establish notability even for a BLP. Furthermore, I cannot find any credible evidence of her Young Artist award nomination in 2010 for Best Performance in a TV Drama Series (for guest starring young actress as IMDB claims). A list of nominees is here since the Young Artist Foundation website for whatever reason decided to remove it. Even further, the YAA are of questionable notability, with yourself even commenting they should be merged into YAF. The prestige of awards are generally determined by the notability of the winners, not the other way around.

But importantly, even if 2 minor YAA noms do somehow qualify for ANYBIO#1, WP:BIO#additional criteria mentions meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included, and in this case the combination of her complete lack of SIGCOV, her failure of ENT, and her relative obscurity (surely not significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded per BIO right?) far outweigh her marginal at best passage of ANYBIO. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. Passes WP:ANYBIO#1 per award noms.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:40, 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 Procedural close - article has been speedy deleted as hoax (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nolessor[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced since July, and I am unable to verify anything in it. ... discospinster _talk 03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. The first edit of this article stated, "He died of taking deadl dose of medication on the evening 20th July 2011. in his apartment in Belgrade.The reasons of suicide are yet unknown to the public." That was posted on 1 July 2011 -- nineteen days before the person's supposed suicide. There are also no sources that mention this person outside Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 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 speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Hernan Maradona[edit]

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

DH Maradona has not appeared in a game of a fully professional league (neither the Spanish third division nor the Canadian Soccer League are listed at WP:FPL), and does not meet WP:ATH. He does not inherit notability from his uncle. Cmprince (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets a little more coverage because of his famous uncle, but its still pretty insubstantial and nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per G4. This article was perviously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Maradona (footballer born 1989). Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4, still non-notable. Giant Snowman 13:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Speedy deleted under CSD:G4 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Valid list per WP:SALAT. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list on a notable topic and part of the bigger scheme of Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Lugnuts (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep – A discriminate list, useful for an encyclopedia. This article also qualifies for inclusion under WP:SALAT in the Manual of style for stand-alone lists, and additionally, is a functional part of Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hospitals are notable institutions and coverage of African hospitals is extremely poor. This should be kept and articles attempted to be created on the most notable ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these hospital list nominations should be together, since its the same nomination, and everyone saying the same thing for reasons to keep them. Keep because no valid reason was given for its deletion, and this is a perfectly valid list article, it quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 20:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Cameroon[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Valid list per WP:SALAT. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list on a notable topic and part of the bigger scheme of Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Lugnuts (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A discriminate list that's useful for an encyclopedia. This article is a functional part of Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Also, it qualifies for inclusion per WP:SALAT in the Manual of style for stand-alone lists. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hospitals are notable institutions and coverage of African hospitals is extremely poor. This should be kept and articles attempted to be created on the most notable ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these hospital list nominations should be together, since its the same nomination, and everyone saying the same thing for reasons to keep them. Keep because no valid reason was given for its deletion, and this is a perfectly valid list article, it quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 20:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Benin[edit]

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

Delete. A collection of red links for hospitals that may or may not be notable. Hospitals are not inherently notable. See also Wikipedia:Hospitals#Notability

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Benin-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Valid list per WP:SALAT. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:SALAT says "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists." Also, what use is a list of redlinks to readers? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list on a notable topic and part of the bigger scheme of Category:Lists of hospitals by country.Lugnuts (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we determine notability of lists? Given that the list consists of redlinks alone, I would argue that it is not a notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Red links don't pertain to notability, they just signify articles that haven't been created. This is a discriminate list that's useful for an encyclopedia. This article also qualifies for inclusion under WP:SALAT in the Manual of style for stand-alone lists, and additionally, is a functional part of Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hospitals are notable institutions and coverage of African hospitals is extremely poor. This should be kept and articles attempted to be created on the most notable ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can discuss which hospitals are notable and which aren't, and edit the list by normal means. Do it in the same manner that lists of notable hotels by country are done, or list of universities. Dream Focus 17:28, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in New Zealand[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINKFARM.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Valid list per WP:SALAT. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Flawed reasoning by nom. This list is NOT a so-called Linkfarm. The only external links are on the Northland Region hospitals. WP:LINKFARM specifically excludes lists such as this one (see point 2). Turning to WP:NOTDIR, this policy does not cover a list like this. This list is not a directory as described by this policy. Additionally, this is part of an established tree, see Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list on a notable topic and part of the bigger scheme of Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Lugnuts (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify systematic confusion between: (a) hospitals and the organisations that run them and (b) hospitals and their physical site. Needs sources for claims about hospitals that don't have articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A discriminate, useful list for an encyclopedia.

This article qualifies for inclusion under WP:SALAT in the Manual of style for stand-alone lists
It's a functional part of Category:Lists of hospitals by country.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hospitals are notable institutions and such lists perfectly valid and accepted on wikipedia. This should be kept and articles attempted to be created on the most notable ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined and specific subject that meets the standards for a standalone list, provides sources, serves as a reference for the purpose, linking to existing articles and serving as an impetus to create articles for those that don't yet exist. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another bad nomination. No valid reason given for deletion. Meets all requirements for a list article. Dream Focus 20:08, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jera (novel)[edit]

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

Appears to be a promotional article for a book that hasn't yet been published and which therefore has no references to reliable sources. All "references" are self-referential, and I can't find any reliable sources that this book even exists. Also note that the author's name differs between the body of the article and the infobox. Can't see a CSD category for this. NellieBly (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK as as-yet-incomplete, unpublished, and not-yet-notable novel. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that the lead covers genres and influences is a big clue that it's not an encyclopedic topic, and nothing afterward reverses that impression. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to have any notability whatsoever. Article can always be recreated if after publication the book gains some notoriety. LadyofShalott 08:29, 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.