< 13 October	15 October >

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} 20:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bones Sanders[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player and manager. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Adam Penale (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NSPORTS, and I found nothing suggesting that he meets WP:GNG. There were some game reports and the like mentioning him, but I didn't see any substantial coverage. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:22, 16 October 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) Rcsprinter (deliver) 10:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Swan (comics)‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Silver Swan (comics)

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

Contested PROD. No evidence that the fictional characters, alone or in group, meet the general notability guideline and, lacking reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, any article about them cannot be anything different from a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive search easily finds results. The Washington Times has an article titled Wonder Woman faces dangerous female, Apr 23, 2005, [Photo Courtesy of Dark Horse Comics] Wonder Woman saves Silver Swan in the trade paperback "Wonder Woman: Bitter Rivals." You have to pay to read the article, but its about this character, notable enough to be published in her own trade with another famous character. Other results I look through are just brief mentions, but altogether I say it counts towards her notability. Dream Focus 00:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well Cited by actual book sources, well written, I can see alot of time and was put into this artical. These characters appear very notable to the Wonder Woman series, and signifigant enough to put on wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the character is important in the Wonder Woman comic books. Arussom (talk) 19:37, 20 October 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) Rcsprinter (yak) 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actress[edit]

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

This is a generic foo society of film ciritcs listing; it has no independent significance. There is no evidence that the Boston film critics society is more than marginally notable and the fact that they have an annual beano (like every other similar society) at which they hand out (as does every other similar society) awards to the same people who got the Oscars that year, does not make the individual categories in any way notable. The acid test would be: if they handed out this award to Daniel Craig and Halle Berry, would they turn up on the night? A dollar says no. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These awards are covered every year in the national media.[3] I can see no basis for eliminating coverage of these awards.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A widely acknowledged award and organization that has significant and in-depth coverage for 30 years is notable.[4] In agreement with User:Arxiloxos' observation, my own BEFORE also indicates independent significance as shown by extensive and multi-year significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. 30 years of news coverage AND making it into the enduring record,[5] AND receiving scholarly analysis[6] if what IS key here. The nominator's "acid test" is not the issue, as there are even times when someone winning a BAFTA or OSCAR is unable to make it to an awards presentation. Blame that on their schedules, but not on the ceremony nor the organization. The true measure of notability is found when gauging the award and organization against their coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it falls under list-class, but its a true award given annually, I just wish this artical was referenced, and gave more of a description of the award itself, but it is salvagable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the nominator click on the link to the article Boston Society of Film Critics? Anyway, a simple Google search shows coverage of this award. [7] I Googled for "Boston Society of Film Critics" "Best Actress" and found decent coverage right away. Please follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 03:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG per link from Arxiloxos. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 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 Wonder Woman enemies . Black Kite (t) (c) 23:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Snowman‎‎‎[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and any article about her can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 October 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 (G12) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rear vacuum[edit]

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

Fails WP:OR. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exact copy of http://www.gmecca.com/byorc/dtipsaerodynamics.html, so it is a copyright infringement, but not original research. So, unfortunately, speedy delete. But, I am surprised that this concept is missing from WP. Not a big deal, but it is a central part of strategy in car racing, maybe best know as "vacuum cone"? I'll sure mark it is something that should be created soon - Nabla (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's called Drafting (aerodynamics). I can only find a single reference that refers to it as "rear vacuum", and even there not intending to introduce it as a term, but rather just using it descriptively. EEng (talk) 03:03, 15 October 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 List of Wonder Woman enemies. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Paula Von Gunther‎‎[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character as a topic does not meet the general notability guideline. As there is no reception or significance for her in reliable secondary sources, any article about her is unsuitable for Wikipedia since it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On emotional basis mainly, as I'm not sure where to start looking for references and such, keep. But if no acceptable arguments for this are found, please consider to redirect/merge per J Greb. --Ever wonder (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where to look for sources? High up on this discussion you see something saying: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Especially if you follow the "books" link, you'll find a treasure trove of reliable and independent sources providing non-trivial coverage of Her Ladyship. --Lambiam 15:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notable enough; just do the standard Google book search. Whatever happened to WP:BEFORE? --Lambiam 15:03, 21 October 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. Tone 22:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growth Engine Incorporated[edit]

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

Advertising page. I don't see a clear purpose why this company was added. Its just like an extension to manta page and company or a local wanting to have it on wikipedia to self promote. It looks like a bland small business with nothing particularly notable about it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't assert notability and a few quick searches show zilch. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another search engine manipulation business: specializes in search engine optimization (SEO) and local listing management. GNews, Books, Scholar have not heard of it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes for an incredibly dull web search--just company directory entries, except for this one web forum response where they explain the importance for getting your company into multiple directories. :) --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources on this. Fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 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. Tone 22:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy wiles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Sp33dyphil © • © 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (subject better known as Freddie Wiles) - has appeared in two notable TV series but playing uncredited, unspeaking roles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually Freddie apppeared on more that just 2 notable productions and did have speaking roles, and such is verifiable... but apart from knowing what he did, we can find out nothing about him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Visible bio is a collection of a couple of dozen minor appearances on TV shows. Nothing else of note to find on Ghits or from article, and no reason to think there would be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage of this person. Del per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League Experience[edit]

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

Non-notable event, borderline promotional. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Super Bowl otherwise Delete. This is a small part of the events surrounding the Big Game and can contribute possibly a sentence to that article. Maybe.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference is from a non-WP:INDEPENDENT website of the NFLs. Not much to merge without independent coverage, which I find little other than trivial mentions. If the articles had sourced information, I would say merge to preserve. In its absence, any new effort (if any) spent on this subject should be to add it to Super Bowl, not to improve this article.—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doh! Shoulda known to change the search term to "NFL Experience". Keep per Cbl62's coverage found.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably makes sense to rename it. I've never heard of it being referred to as the "National Football League Experience." Cbl62 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improving. But the "NFL Experience" has been a big tradition attracting 100,000 or more fans every year for 20 years. Yes, it's part of Super Bowl week, but it has received sufficient coverage in itself in mainstream media outlets to warrant a separate article. In other cases, where a significant adjunct to a major sporting event receives substantial independent coverage, we've allowed articles. E.g., NBA All-Star Weekend, FIFA Fan Fest (adjunct to FIFA World Cup), Kentucky Derby Festival and Thunder Over Louisville (adjuncts to Kentucky Derby), Super Bowl halftime shows. I find over 3,000 articles about the "NFL Experience" in major newspapers. A few examples include (1) 'NFL Experience' was show-stopper, Boston Globe, 1997; (2) NFL Experience almost as popular as Super Bowl, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2011; (3) NFL Experience theme park deals in football fans' dreams, Dallas Morning News, 1993; (4) NFL Experience is a hit even for families without game tickets, Dallas Morning News, 2003; (5) No ticket required for this Super Bowl experience, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2009; (6) Fans' NFL Experience starts today, Houston Chronicle, 1994; (7) NFL Experience will open in Tampa today, Orlando Sentinel, 2009; (8) The 'experience' lures pre-Super Bowl crowds, Bowling Green Daily News, 2000; (9) You Aren't Going to the Big Game? Try NFL Experience, Miami Herald, 1999; (10) No Experience Required to Enjoy This Sideshow, Orlando Sentinel, 2001; (11) NFL Experience a Super Bowl-Related Bazaar Will Be Running Right Next to JRS: Big Deal? See for yourself, Sun Sentinel, 1995; (12) Super Bowl's NFL Experience is bigger in Texas, San Antonio Star-Telegram, 2011; (13) NFL Experience all in a day's profit for RJS neighbors, St. Petersburg Times, 2009. Cbl62 (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wehwalt. This is a part of a larger event and IMHO does not warrant its own article. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that the NFL is using this Wikipedia article to advance its cause and sell tickets. It seems to be notable and has third party articles, looks good to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage identified by Cbl62 which shows independent notability for this article. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 20 October 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. A few good arguments on both sides. In general, I think the delete side may be a touch stronger, but I can't find any consensus here. Courcelles 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Braniel[edit]

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

I don't believe the article is notable. There are a number of sources, a few of which are reliable; however, I don't believe they establish notability. The reliable sources are about some arson attacks - these don't make the estate in itself notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the other housing estates have these, and I am currently working on progressing this. What about changing it to a userpage until it is notable enough?Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all housing estates do have articles. In any case, this article would still have to meet the general notability guidelines, which requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I do not believe that the sources in the article provide this. I appreciate it is a work in progress; however, I do not think it is notable enough for an article, regardless of how much work you put into it. You could userfy it; however, that would only really be appropriate if we can establish notability for it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be userfied now, and when it become notable enough, I can release it. I'm sure it is notable, and is going to be more in the future. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping you from userfying it now, I just do not recommend it. Unless Braniel is subject to widespread national/international attention, it is unlikely to become notable. Notability tends to be assessed by something's coverage in reliable, third-party sources. This means that Braniel, would need to have widespread coverage in national news/media which is not associated to the estate itself. That is not something which comes with time. Basically, that's a long-winded way of saying if it's not notable now, it probably won't suddenly become notable. Also, even if you userfy the page, it might still be deleted under MfD and will be no more likely in becoming a full article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Michael Stone, who was notable for several attacks during The Troubles and the Milltown Cemetery attack. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but that doesn't make Braniel notable. Michael Stone certainly is notable; however, just because he has an association with a place, there is no reason that the place suddenly becomes notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per notice Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean by "per notice"? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

per above on the top Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Housing estates are not generally considered to be notable and their articles are invariably deleted. I can see no reason why this one is special. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Michael Stone, lived here and this is where he planned his attacks is notable surely. Other minor things here only notable to people that live in the area/surrounding area as well. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the fact that someone famous lived there doesn't really make it notable. If we have an article on every housing estate in which a famous person has lived/worked, then we'd have articles on almost every housing estate in the world. As I said before, Michael Stone might be notable; that does not make where he lived notable. A place/object/organisation/whatever does not inherit notability from things they are associated with. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's like saying a street's notable because somebody notable once lived there. That would result on us having articles on half the streets in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't what I am saying. There is a lot more stuff to write about this place, but wiki rules say you have to have evidence via internet. Also, locally, this would be a very notable place compared to random users from throughout the world if you know what I mean.Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP guidelines say evidence of notability in any form, not just online. But the fact remains that this is just a housing estate in common with thousands of others throughout the world. And almost every article created about a housing estate has been deleted at AfD, which does create something of a precedent. If you can find something that makes this estate especially notable (and no, the fact that someone notable lived there doesn't count - it has to be something notable about the architecture, something notable that actually happened there etc) then feel free and that will be taken into consideration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also added info about stabbing incident in 2008. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but (and don't take this the wrong way) there has been a stabbing incident in a large number of housing estates in the world. Crime is not really notable - it happens everywhere - and therefore, it can't really be used to demonstrate notability of a place. Even if it was the location of a high-profile murder, it would not be notable, as it is the event that is notable, not the place. In none of the sources you provided are any of the articles/news reports about Braniel itself. Instead, they are about events that happened in Braniel. There is a subtle difference, and notable events do not make the place in which they occurred notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears salvagable due to the amound of references and citations included, the artical is being continuously expanded and improved by User:Dontforgetthisone, as for its notablity, we have many other articals on communities around the world, yes this is currently list class, but could easily be improved by an expert on the subject. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree. The number of references do not necessarily mean that the subject is notable. Not only do the references need to be reliable, they also need to attribute notability to the subject in question. The references provided attribute notability to events which happened in Braniel; this does not make Braniel inherently notable. Also, we may have articles about other communities around the world; that has no bearing on the notability of this subject. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Murders, Fires, Stabbings and already mentioned Michael Stone must make the Braniel notable somehow. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most housing estates in most cities across the world have been the locations of murders, fires and stabbings - that does not mean we need an article on each one. As I have said before, notability is established if Braniel itself is the subject of the sources you have provided. So far, each source is about an event. None of the sources are about Braniel itself. Therefore, it fails the WP:GNG, as notability is not inherited. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on communities, that is census-designated places. We do not have articles on housing estates, which are just...housing estates. They're not even accepted areas of towns (and we usually don't even have articles on wards and other neighbourhoods of towns unless they're especially well-known). They're just housing estates. Nothing significant has happened here. Some crime has occurred, which happens everywhere. Some notable individual lived here, which could be said of most places. There's just nothing which makes this place notable in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can certainly sympathise with the article's creator: 48 hours after creation, during which time s/he had continually edited the article, it was put up for AFD. Considering Wikipedia is full of location articles which are no more than unsourced stubs (and appear to have been started for no other reason than to give individuals something to claim credit for on their userpages), it seems like there are more important things we could be doing than debating a fairly new article which the creator is trying to expand and source in good faith.
Contrary to the statement directly above, we do have articles on housing estates (see [Category:Housing estates]) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for seeing my view. So would you be more for keep so I can make further edits to this. Thanks for getting that page of housing estates, would never have thought of looking for it. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that this was done in good faith and I am impressed by what has been done to the article. However, I am still not convinced that the article is notable. Yes, other articles about housing estates exist, but they do not make this one notable (in fact, a number of them could be deleted). I don't have an issue with the quality of the article or the major author; I simply do not believe it to be notable, and have seen no sources to suggest that it is. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do say there has been a lot of steady progression to this article. I think there could have more expansion to the Roddens and Glenview places mentioned and a bit more info on the parks. The article seems to be getting better and better per edit so I think it will turn out well if the creator/editors keep updating. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the quality of the article is not an issue here. My problem is that I do not feel the article is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and no sources have been provided which support the contrary. We've had sources which show events which occurred in Braniel to be notable, but none to suggest that Braniel itself is notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "I feel sorry for the article's creator" is not a very convincing reason to keep an article. The vast swath of references don't establish notability, only that this place does exist - mere existence alone is not sufficient reason to keep an article. The article can be reduced to "Braniel is a place. It has a school (source), shop (source), another shop (source), and in 2008 somebody was arrested in the area (source source source source)". I would not be against moving it to userspace while the creator works on it, but in its current state this article does not merit inclusion. Badger Drink (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At what part did a user say "Keep as "I feel sorry for the article's creator"" A user commented but did not opt to keep. Pay more attention to the comments before commenting yourself. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you punctuate that with a silent "so there" as you clicked "save page"? Just wondering. Badger Drink (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally we delete housing estates, and normally I !vote delete at those discussions, but there can be an exception for large ones which are in essence communities, and widely referred to as such in reliable sources, as seems the case here. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is widely referred to, though. Sure, it has new stories about it because things have happened there; there are news stories about most housing estates because things happen. As I've said before, none of these sources are about Braniel; rather, they are about events in Braniel. This does not make Braniel notable, but the events. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying The twin towers are not relevant because 9/11 (the event) happened in/to them. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The Twin Towers (note capitalization) garnered notability independently of the events of 9/11. This is more like saying "Joe Smith's 1984 Nissan Pulsar is not notable, despite news reports of a small subcompact car being destroyed by falling debris in the 9/11 attacks". Badger Drink (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Badger Drink. The Twin Towers were notable in their own right as the World Trade Centre before 9/11. Braniel, on the other hand, is not notable in its own right. Whereas the Twin Towers do not rely on the 9/11 attacks for their notability, Braniel seems to be relying on events for its claims of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Estates_and_housing_projects. I would like to have more recent information on population, but 10 years ago it had 5,000 residents. It has its own primary school with 400 children, a shopping centre, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a shopping centre, but a small shopping complex would sound more appropriate . I do believe the population has only slightly risen as several new houses have been built etc, probably hitting between 5,500 and 6,500 hopefully however I'm sure the population will be updated when statistics are released. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles Warkiller‎‎[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, any article about him as a subject can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DC Comics. The charater is not notable in itself; a redirect seems appropriate.
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New, unnotable character who's appeared in a half-dozen recent Wonder Woman comic books. Nothing substantial to be found. Suggested redirect destinations don't list this character. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:17, 21 October 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. Tone 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching english in modern times[edit]

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

Original research/essay, absolutely unencyclopaedic, nothing retrievable ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above: WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – original research. Sp33dyphil © • © 22:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also it looks like a copy/paste from somewhere else, and if I find it it'll be tagged for speedy as a copyvio. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed a CSD template as I couldn't find any evidence via Google that it had been copy/pasted (I tried with 5 different paragraphs, got no matches). My best guess is that it's a copy of someone's coursework off a personal text file. If you find anything, please do CSD! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just found some of it was a copyvio. I've removed the parts that I can identify as copied. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a few extra sections, which were copyright violations. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Also, while this is not a reason to delete in itself, I tend not to be enthusiastic about articles about teaching English which indicate that the author is unfamiliar with the fact that names of languages are capitalized in English -- such as "English". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As its an absolutely terrible article with no wiki-links and it looks like it is copied from somewhere else. 109.152.106.70 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for original research. MJ94 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, an essay. Complete WP:OR. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability as the only reliable reference is to one journal articleCurb Chain (talk) 10:55, 21 October 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 Wonder Woman enemies. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devastation (comics)‎[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it does not meet the general notability guideline, and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 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 minor DC Comics characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bana-Mighdall‎‎[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The fictional nation does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 October 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. Tone 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Di Crystal[edit]

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

Promotional article about nonnotable actress who has had, at best, bit parts in anything other than her own indie projects. Originally deleted as hoax because article claimed she'd been in Donnie Brasco; that claim is now gone. No reliable sources which demonstrate her notability (for example, the Variety citation is merely a listing of her self-made film. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as full of unsourcable hyperbole. While its WP:PROMOTIONAL tone might otherwise be addressable, and while some of her work is verifiable, I cannot find enough coverage of the person or her works to support WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 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) 04:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy[edit]

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

Book by Ozzy Osbourne, scheduled to be published next month. References only state where to buy it and where Ozzy will be signing autographs. Despite the fame opf its author, fails WP:NBOOKS for the time being. Delete with no prejudice against recreation once the book itself meets our notability requirements independently of its famous author. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat a sequal to his previous book "I am Ozzy"(a new york times best seller) which has gained popularity. The book has gained alot of popularity and when the book is released the page can be expanded, and be reviewed. I see no reason for it to be deleted. Davidravenski (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The fact the book is a sequel to a popular book is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited. The fact an upcoming book is anticipated by potential readers is news, not encyclopedic. When the book has been released and has proven to be notable, an article can be recreated; until then, Delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can be recreated when its notability has been established. Right now none of the references establish notability. Agree with reasons given above by User:The Bushranger. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Given the relatively close date at which this book is scheduled to be published, it is possible, even likely, that reliable sources that would save this article from deletion will be published before the close of this AfD. That must be taken into account when closing this discussion, and focus should be on last-minute comments. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. While there are 2 delete !votes and no objections, I'm relisting this per the nominator's comment concerning possible post-release coverage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last Minute Keep based on post-release coverage in Billboard [8], MSNBC [9], Fox News [10], International Business Times [11], probably more, all of which are new sources since the last comment here, demonstrating notability under WP:GNG --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:57, 14 October 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Allowing more time to evaluate Joe Decker's last-minute sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources: Those sources and information from them should be added sooner rather than later, but based on those, the article should be sufficient to pass NBOOKS now. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete. seems like routine coverage generated by a round of interviews and pre-release issues sent to the media to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge to Ozzy Osbourne#Other work. The cited sources by Joe Decker are sufficient for me to say keep, but I can see how they could be considered routine coverage. But in that case, merging to the Ozzy article would be better than deletion, and I'll note that the article (as of this writing) doesn't mention the book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources listed above seem to be sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK - yes, they are a little routine, but apparently that isn't cconsidered by the guideline, which only disallows "media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". These are none of those. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 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. Hut 8.5 15:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boutique La Vie en Rose[edit]

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

unsourced and no indication of notability. Article created by editor with a WP:conflict of interest. noq (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—per WP:NOTADVERTISING. There is this article, which if there were even one more like it, and if there were any reason to think it was the same company, which there doesn't seem to be, i would consider sufficient to pass the gng, but every other ghit in a reliable source is merely a passing mention of this company or others with the same name and not a discussion at all. i guess the editor who created the article is to be commended for honesty?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obviously i missed a bunch of sources, so i'm withdrawing this for now, and will think some more.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as spam and as a copyright violation. Phrases such as "the leading" and "have flourished" mark this out as spam; it's a copyright violation of [12] (warning: that's a horrible site; after you skip the intro you need to get to the "the company" section, which is trickier than it looks). The author has also pasted even more blatant spam on their user page in violation of WP:UP#PROMO, which I have tagged for speedy deletion.RichardOSmith (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per rewrite. Now the spam and copyright violations are addressed (which had to be addressed and speedy deletion would have been the most obvious method) the only remaining cited concern is notability and there appears to be sufficient coverage to meet the WP:GNG RichardOSmith (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, COI issue and written like an advert. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some potential reliable sources (although they are surprisingly scarce), [13], [14], [15]. Also I believe the 'Boutique' in the name throws off the searches, the company is most commonly called just 'La Vie en Rose' which does pull more ghits. I was going to vote Keep, as the company has a large presence in Canada with numerous stores in prominent locations, however, the lack of reliable third-party information raises considerable concern. France3470 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now rewritten the article to include some of the sources mentioned here. Though far from prefect, I believe this article now satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH and addresses previous concerns with it being a copyvio. France3470 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - An excuse to look up lingerie, for the betterment of the encyclopedia? Hard to pass this one by. The company has boutiques in Canada, Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, Romania, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan.[16] Here are some reliable sources to support notability: The Windsor Star, IT World Canada, Canada.com, LesAffaires.com, cyberpresse.ca, The Star, cyberpresse.ca, lesaffaires.com. From the first cyberpresse.ca article, "La Senza, La Vie en Rose and Claudel (which owns and Lilianne Lingerie Briere) are the three industry leaders in Quebec and across Canada" --Odie5533 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is kept it cannot do so in its current form as it is a copyright violation. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France3470 appears to have surmounted the task. Thanks France3470! --Odie5533 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; excellent work. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100% KEEP, and someone should add an image. Logo or something...? --Hydao (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOREASON. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found and added to the article show the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Provides enough accurate citations to help back up anything in the article that is in question, very salvageble, I feel WP:GNG is fully met. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 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 per G7. Baseball Watcher 23:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaventure Mall[edit]

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

This article appears to fail the notability guideline. 5 stores are not enough to make a mall notable. I've listed it at AFD because I don't know if anyone will object to this. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does certainly appear to fail WP:GNG. It's closed and shows no signs of establishing notability nor any references at all. §everal⇒|Times 18:28, 14 October 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. Cross-pollenation with Ralph E. Chambers can be done [[WP:BOLD|ly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. E. Chambers Company[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG by itself. Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case someone wants to try to rescue the article, here are some magazine and book sources mentioning this company:
1. "Illions Times Ride Set-Up At Dalles for "Fourth"". The Billboard. 58 (28): 80. July 13, 1946.
2. "SPOKANE ORPHANS..." (photograph caption). The Billboard. 59 (31): 84. August 9, 1947.
3. David W. Francis; Diane DeMali Francis (2002). Ohio's Amusement Parks in Vintage Postcards. Arcadia Publishing. p. 90. ISBN 0-7385-1997-9.
4. Jim Futrell (2002). Amusement parks of Pennsylvania. Stackpole Books. pp. 31f. ISBN 0-8117-2671-1.
5. Erno Rossi (2005). Crystal Beach: the good old days (second ed.). Seventy Seven Publishing. pp. 28f. ISBN 0-920926-04-5.
6. Jim Futrell (2006). Amusement Parks of New York. Stackpole Books. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-8117-3262-8.

--Lambiam 21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep - These sources above are basically mentions of the topic in sources. Perhaps more sources that address the topic in detail can be found. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ...and merge information from Ralph E. Chambers into this article, to consolidate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They did some notable work, according to the book results. Google news also shows what looks like coverage from Farm and Dairy [17] but their website isn't loading up right now. Dream Focus 02:20, 15 October 2011‎

Comment The nomination says Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG by itself. What specifically is not notable? I have tagged the article for needing inline citations, but it would seem that the details in the article may well have come from the references mentioned but not included as inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but more likely Merge - major amusement ride companies, though now mostly bankrupt, seem to notable because the interest in the rides keeps coming back, mostly in the form of "features" in the newspapers and historical preservation societies. Merry-Go-Rounds seem to be especially popular. But I did notice that Ralph E. Chambers has his own article, and there doesn't seem to be much different about his and the company's history. So likely many people will want to merge the two, I'd prefer to the company article. Smallbones (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Defunct business with some historical significance; its rides were at a World's Fair and have attracted some notice from preservationists. Tend to agree that the article about the engineer is redundant to the firm, and that the firm is more notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information on the company should be merged into the biography on Ralph E. Chambers. In the instance of Harry Traver, who had the Traver Engineering Company, the biography survived, and I suggest that should be the case here. If merged, the AfD would be moot.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 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 Electrosexual. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Machine Records[edit]

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

vanity label with no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Electrosexual. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electrosexual, as above. Not independently notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:30, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonophobia[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism, pure original research and synthesis. Crusio (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Crusio's opinion. Jingiby (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—although i don't think this is a neologism. it doesn't matter, though. there are multiple sources that attest to its use, and any native speaker of english could conceivably utter this at any moment, but no sources discuss the word itself in an encyclopedic manner, so the article should be deleted.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are all of three published sources that use the term,[18] two of them over forty years old, all of unknown neutrality or reliability. Each uses the term once, in passing. Definitely not notable. First Light (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, the article itself is pure synthesis and original research. First Light (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total WP:OR. Athenean (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism; original research. No reliable sources widely use the term. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be made up of original research; a seemingly non-notable neologism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Originally researched neologism →Σ τ c. 02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:OR --Odie5533 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~searching revealed no hits~~actually there are hits;WP:OR;WP:SYN;no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 11:00, 21 October 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. Um. A bit dificult to redirect this with no source. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inajira[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm more than willing to create a List of Ravenloft characters to merge this to, if that sounds reasonable. BOZ (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ; this definitely isn't notable on its own, but we could gather up all articles like this and combine them into a list with some sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Certainly not notable on its own. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:42, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Lang[edit]

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

Delete It is with some hesitance that I place this article for deletion. Looking at the talk page, I see that it is apparently part of a course assignment at a university. However, the course description includes "prepare students to be intelligent users of media". This article clearly fails WP:BLP1E. The person is otherwise completely non-notable. Her only other claim to fame is winning an award for journalism in 2008. See [19] and search for "Michelle Lang". Also take note that only one other winner of this award category has an article on this project, that being Michelle Shephard, and she has multiple other claims to fame. This is a really weak. Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why winning a national journalism award, given under the aegis of Canada's principal newspaper association, isn't enough to demonstrate notability. And BLP1E rather clearly doesn't apply when one of the claims to notability is as a journalist killed on the job. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Getting killed a on job doesn't make you famous. My point about the award is that making a claim to fame based on the award is weak when nobody else who has won the same award has an article on this project solely because they've won the award. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The award is identified elsewhere on Wikipedia as the top newspaper/journalism award in Canada, which would be a strong indicator of notability. The fact that our coverage of a field is currently lousy and incomplete is no justification for keeping it that way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does the article "clearly" fail BLP1E? It does not even fall under the scope of BLP, so how can it fail that policy? Perhaps the nominator meant WP:BIO1E. However, I think that even if the subject had not been killed so tragically, according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) she would still be notable, by dint of the Basic criteria and the Additional criteria / Any Biography, #1. Some other Canadians who are not notable for any specific events or such, but mainly as recipients of the same prestigious national award, are Guy Badeaux, Vic Roschkov, Sr., Val Ross, Jay Scott, and James Travers. --Lambiam 20:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also think that the National Award Or the widespread coverage of her death make her notable (See also Category:Journalists killed while covering the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)). Together, the two separate events clearly exceed WP:BIO1E. First Light (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perhaps I shouldn't have looked at the nominator's user page and seen the bravado about disruption because I can't seem to wonder now about that motivation, even though I'm supposed to always presume "good faith." I suggest that is why it is critical for Wikipedians to watch how we present ourselves to others on our user pages, which is another basic premise of Wikipedia user spaces. To address the issues: First, Lang is dead and so WP:BLP couldn't even apply. Therefore, the nomination should be thrown out on that point alone. Second, if notability is of question, I would suggest you consider the following: Michelle Lang was FIRST Canadian journalist and only the SECOND female to have died covering the war in Afghanistan. Morever, her death is illustrative of the dangers for journalists in the "embedded" system of reporting. She would therefore be of interest to those in the future who are looking at war correspondents and female war correspondents. I think these points alone make her noteworthy enough for encyclopedic coverage. Third, I speak on behalf of the university project mentioned. I am the instructor who assigned this stub to a student editor to expand, and this student will be soon adding these edits in the next phase of our project. Crtew (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Not powerfully notable, but notable nonetheless. I added a ref. for her award. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, particularly Crtew. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:GNG] is fully met, no violations here, the person meets the standards for WP:Notability. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 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 with Colby College (non-admin closure). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The colby echo[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable student newspaper. Reads like a copy and paste from somewhere. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPAM andy (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: 1) It is not a paste from somewhere, google before you make that claim. 2) We are in the process of adding sources. 3) If we are not notable enough for a wiki page, then we need to start deleting other weekly campus newspapers' wiki pages.

Keep GNews gives dozens upon dozens of hits. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've moved the article for proper capitalization. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colby College. Google hits don't make a student newspaper notable, coverage in reliable, independent sources does. If more independent sources are available then I'm sure this page would be worth keeping on its own. The argument that other pages need to be deleted doesn't help this one; see WP:ALLORNOTHING. §everal⇒|Times 16:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge A few university and college newspapers are notable as such, but they are the exception. There's no reason to think this is one of them DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reexamination of the article I'm inclined to go along with a merge to Colby College. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 16 October 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 - "things that were given money by someone" is not grounds for inclusion Shii (tock) 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIBIS[edit]

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

Project that existed briefly and apparently did not leave much of a trace. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a potentially notable SIBIS; it's apparently a device that "special" children are made to wear to keep them from banging their heads on the wall. But this article is about yet another EU research project, this one dating from 2003, that apparently never amounted to much, with an extremely vague programme: Its aim was to develop "innovative information society indicators to take account of the rapidly changing nature of modern societies and to enable the benchmarking of progress in EU Member States" in an Information Society. If I read more text like that, I'm going to need a SIBIS. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The run-of-the-mill page referred to above (...yet another...) is only an essay and not yet Wikipedia policy. Although SIBIS was the first major survey to look at the Information Society, to judge by the comments at this AfD to date, it obviously ain't sexy enough for Wikipedia... And yes, the other SIBIS (Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System) is also notable enough to have an entry in this encyclopaedia - desambig. pages are great.--Technopat (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Already exists: Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System.--Technopat (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is an offsite page that basically encourages people to start articles on minor EU research projects without regard to whether they meet any notability criteria for inclusion. As a result, literally dozens of these things show up at AfD. They also tend to be written in slanted, grandiose, and uninformative grant-application language. This one's by no means the worst: this one, you can at least follow well enough to see that its mandate is quite unspecific. I invoked WP:MILL to point out that it's an example with precedents. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Information society and then redirect to Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System. No need for disambig since there have been no links to this in the three years of its existence. I would call this a Wikipedia:Permastub since it only existed for two years, and thus unlikely to ever get more notable. Any conclusions about the "rapidly changing nature of modern societies" is going to be stale by now, but might have been worth mentioning in a more historical context. The policy is general notability, and yes, these discussions tend to be based on opinion and essays are good to summarize those. The other guideline is that wikipedia is not a glossary: every acronym that was ever invented for a couple years does not get its own article. Thousands come and go each bubble. Encyclopic entries are supposed to be fully developed topics. Nothing to do about being "sexy" or not, just what an encyclopedic topic really is. W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yet another essay invoked. Essays are great - and many of them contain stuff that should, in MNSHO, be incorporated into policy, but until that happens, the "relevant guidelines will be given more weight". Since when does temporality per se preclude notability? The claim - referenced - that SIBIS was the "first large-scale cross-national survey" to approach the subject of the Information Society, seems pretty significant to me. I started this article 'cos Wikipedia was my first stop after coming across this acronym in a second publication and had no idea what it was about - except that it obviously meant a lot to the different authors citing its results. There was nothing out there at the time - nor about any other SIBIS, for that matter. I have participated in some half-dozen EU/transcontinental projects - some major, and most of 'em for bigger bucks - and it would never occur to me to create an article on any of them. Not because of any possible conflict of interest, but simply because they are not encyclopaedic. Well aware that there's not much more padding available for this one, except to provide some of the data provided by the surveys, I realise that I'm repeating myself, but obviously this "article" will have to go to make up for all that space needed for fully developing the fancruft on pages about soccer/baseball players/trainers, popstars, models and the like. --Technopat (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never claimed temporality per se precludes notability. Just that it needs evidence that it meets the general notability guideline, (guideline, not essay!) and since it has none in three years probably will not getany. Looking more closely at that first source, it is clearly by someone in the project, and is talking about a "module being piloted" (present continuing tense), and the "first... to be conducted in all EU Member States as well as the USA". The "subject" it is talking about is "telework", not "Information Society" in general. From the other sources it seems the study was in fact done. If it really was still the first by then or not, maybe. So as I said, yes, it was worth a mention, which is why I did not vote to totally delete, but just not an encyclopedic topic of its own. And please do feel free to help with getting rid of the fancruft; I spend probably two thirds of my day doing it, but we need all the help we can, with the Wikimedia folks refusing to help by tweaking article creating ability. W Nowicki (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please substantiate your claim that the first reference is "clearly by someone in the project". Likewise, regardless of your statement that it is about telework, the full reference states the following (my bold): “This paper is based on the work in SIBIS, an ongoing EU Fifth Framework research project that develops and pilots innovative indicators for measuring Information Society developments … This module is being piloted in the SIBIS general population survey, the first large-scale cross-national survey to be conducted in all EU Member States as well as the USA.” and said paper is included in a 795-page publication titled "Challenges and achievements in E-business and E-work". So, as per the reference, it is not "merely" about telework, and even if it were, it would not invalidate the claim. Regarding your invitation to join in the work getting rid of fancruft, I shall reply on your discussion page so as no to go off-topic here. --Technopat (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? The authors of the paper cited are Tobias Husing and Karsten Gareis of Emperica GmbH. On the http://www.sibis-eu.org/team/team.htm website page, it gives Emperica as the prime contractor and these two as the first members of the project team. The project web site at http://www.sibis-eu.org/publications/articles.htm has the first two papers listed are from those two authors. Of the papers I have had published or read in scientific journals, I cannot remember any whose entire content was about a project that was still going on (using present tense in the article) by an author not in that project. The title of the paper is "A New Approach Towards Measuring Spread and Outcomes of Telework" (the paper title is not given in the wikipedia article reference, but I will assume in good faith it was due to laziness). The sentence before the one you quote says "..we will outline a questionaire module for the measurement of telework." So the claim in the journal itself is about one "module" of the survey about "telework" and the claim in the wikipedia article is misleading. So yes, it should be mentioned in the article on telework. Just as in, say, Drosophila melanogaster mentions the first of many studies of this species. There is no stand-alone article on just that first study. W Nowicki (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you were able to find the time to check the document so thoroughly and thus save Wikipedia from the clutches of a plot to undermine its readers. Likewise, I thank you for assuming good faith and deciding that my apparent error was simply due to laziness and that I was (deliberately?) trying to mislead. All I did was ask you to substantiate the claim, about the authors, which you seem to have been able to do - I didn't ask you to question my integrity. But Wikipedia can count itself lucky to have such dedicated and polite editors out there to wrong-foot all us evil-doers. I'll call it a day here so as not to go even further off-topic. Curious experience it's been. --Technopat (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per W Nowicki. Not notable. Cannot be improved. --Kvng (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couple of side mentions, fails notability. Even the wasted budget, just a few millions, is peanuts by EU standards. See no need to further weigh down the already bulging Information Society article with this Brussels-based bloat. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:23, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ryder[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. (PROD was contested by IP with no edits except to this article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malissam: Appears that he is a public figure with a radio show in NYC. Perhaps previous jobs should be removed but he is still a public figure as supported by his reference link at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malissam (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Malissam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind when you say "a public figure", but the question is whether he satisfies either or both of the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. If you haven't already done so I suggest looking at those guidelines. Can you find evidence of satisfying them? I have looked, an have not managed to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people and do not see any issues with this article. Would suggest checking links provided in references section of article. Also added additional information and reference link about Theater Thursday columns written by subject. atlradioguy (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — atlradioguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The references indicated do confirm that the subject works at a radio station, and that they wrote a column. But where are the reliable sources that actually talk about the subject? such coverage is one of the core requirements of our notability policies, particularly WP:BLP. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE.::*The links provided link to the subject's bio on the website with information on him. They provide sufficient proof that he is a public figure and should have this page. If you feel this is too much of a biography or "resume" why don't you make the changes you see necessary and close this debate? #aggravating. atlradioguy (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — atlradioguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately you do not seem to have fully taken on board what has been said above. Nobody has suggested that the article should be deleted because it "is too much of a biography or resume". The reason is a lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, links to which are given above. If you can find evidence of satisfying one or both of those guidelines then the matter can be reconsidered. Also, you use the same expression "public figure" that was used above by Malissam (who, like you, has edited only the article and this page) but, as I said to Malissam, you have not made it clear what you mean by that. If you simply mean that he is a person whose has appeared on a radio station and in that sense has appeared in public, then that is not sufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia's criteria. If you mean something else, more relevant to the notability criteria, then perhaps you can explain what you do mean, and if possible indicate where there are reliable sources to show such relevance. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject is not apparently the focus of coverage in reliable third-party sources, the minimum threshold for verifiability and notability for biographies in this encyclopedia. Welcome, atlradioguy, and please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Notability (people) is you have any questions. I see that your four edits to date are to the Matt Ryder article and to this discussion and I know that Wikipedia's "notability" policies can be sometimes unclear to new editors. - Dravecky (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is an apparently-failed DJ who has moved on to radio sales. Nothing wrong with that, but does not mean subject warrants an encyclopedia entry. References in article are not substantial, secondary WP:RS sources as to subject's notability. Web search did not find any, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG since there is only trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:50, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiawasch SahebNassagh[edit]

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

A prolific composer who, for all his compositions, should have attracted more attention, but searches fail to find any reliable sources for this subject. Article reads like a resume, and is probably an autobiography (based on the similarity of the creator's username and the name of one of the organizations the subject has been involved with). The COI issues could be addressed if there were any reliable sources to base facts on, but there don't appear to be. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find anything reliable on the web. Fails WP:MUSIC. The only RS provided is an interview with Etemaad (in Persian Language Wikipedia) which I think is not sufficient to establish notability.Farhikht (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : per nom, the only reliable source is allmusic which is just an entry for one album with no description, not enough to establish notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Fails any form of notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, Nomination withdrawn (WP:NAC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Davies (philosopher)[edit]

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

This article has just one reference, that too of "The University of Auckland", which to some extent can be said as a primary source (as the concerned subject is a professor in this university). Also many facts are not cited in it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep Presidency of the Australasian Association of Philosophy and the American Society of Aesthetics might just squeeze past point 3 of WP:PROF, so I'm not going to argue non-notability. The claims are unsourced as yet, but such sources shouldn't be hard to find - I'll have a look this afternoon. Yunshui (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Found a text reference for the presidency of the american society of aesthetics (no copy online unfortunately). Added some other sources as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, sources added, although some more will be better, this article looks a little fine now. Thanks for the help! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:50, 14 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stodacom[edit]

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

Not notable and no reasonable assertion of notability. Highly promotional - reads like and advertisement . No external refs Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This advertisement has been speedily deleted three times already: ....has three lines of business services: Business due diligence, Insurance claims verifications, employment screening and Computer forensics investiagtions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—per above, although perhaps we should consider the fact that it is "among the best known in town"?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:52, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stodart Musika[edit]

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

Unreferenced except by Facebook and Linkedin. Very promotional and almost certainly an advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence or claim of notability, no references of note. Promotional tone.--Dmol (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. →Σ τ c. 02:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and is purely promotional. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:53, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fragile Patience[edit]

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

Facebook pages can be one of the most unreliable sources, and the author has no page on Wikipedia, thus serious concerns raise over notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the authors first novel, so if a page was created, it would be immediately removed due to size and limited sources. Rhain1999 (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is only why notability is an issue. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This child continues to self-promote on Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant self-promotion. Not notable, no sources other than Facebook. Maybe Salt too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 'cause they couldn't say it on Facebook if it wasn't true. Delete: It was revealed on October 14, 2011, that the novel had begun writing and the title was revealed. Sounds like there's a bit more work to do, although if the novel is full of interesting turns of phrase like the novel had begun writing it might be an entertaining read. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable third-party sourcing or coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke can't find anything on the net. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not remotely notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search revealed nothing as aboveCurb Chain (talk) 12:08, 21 October 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 keep. Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Castillo Narváez[edit]

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

Meets WP:BLP1E, I cannot find why he was notable while he was alive. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BLP1E clearly doesn't apply to people whose notability stems in part from their murder. The widespread, international response to the killing demonstrates notability. Possible changer of title to a Murder-of form doesn't belong at AFD. Borders on a speedy keep for me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: nomination withdrawn per Hullaballoo's comments above; see Slavko Ćuruvija (similar case of journalist's murder). Alex^{discussion ★} 20:51, 14 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Angel (Novel)[edit]

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

PROD deleted, as they usually are, by page creator with no explanation. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:CRYSTAL. Some information could potentially be smerged to CHERUB or Robert Muchamore, per point 5 of WP:CRYSTAL. Yunshui (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All information on this Article has been approved by the author of the book on the official CHERUB website, therefore this article should not be deleted. Click this link to see the website: http://www.cherubcampus.com/book14.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 555legoboy555 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the author's own site tends not to be a reliable source (see WP:PRIMARY). Wikipedia does not tend to list books (or albums, artworks, films, plays, concertss etc.) in advance of their creation, unless it can be demonstrated that their imminent release has generated sufficient coverage (in the media, academic community or literature) - this is the gist of WP:CRYSTAL. Yunshui (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per interesting, reliable and important upcoming article and just common sense. Rhain1999 (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated when it is actually published, if it is actually published, under the title under which it is published. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source is unreliable, being the book's publisher. So, no sources usable, fails WP:V. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, at least not yet. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:58, 21 October 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Student Experimental Film Festival[edit]

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

Deleted once as an expired prod. Have they now provided sufficient evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and rationale at talk page. New university-level film festival, insufficiently sourced to support notability. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither source supplied are independent of the university. I have carried out due diligence searches but I can find no evidence that it can meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a story coming out in a month or so in the Press & Sun-Bulletin, a daily periodical serving the Binghamton area. Would such a source be sufficient enough to make this page notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afiore321 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately we need to see the article before we can judge its contribution to notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added several sources to the page. They are websites of several of the artists who contributed to last year's film festival. They all reference SEFF Binghamton. Does this make the page more notable? The sources are all unaffiliated with the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afiore321 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:RELIABLE. Artist's blogs and 'Linkedin' pages are not acceptable sources. Additionally, adding programs of non-notable films and their producers just looks like an attempt at promotion, and at the least is WP:LISTCRUFT. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return to author at User:Afiore321/draft/Student Experimental Film so he can continue working on it, as it is definitely not ready yet for article space. And to User:Afiore321... I urge you to study WP:PRIMER to get a feel for Wikipedia's requirements, and then WP:V to understand that everything written in an article MUST be verifiable in a reliable source, and then WP:RS to help you better understand just how Wikipedia determines what a reliable source is. Ask input from others as you work, and you WILL get the avice you need. Let the festival get reviews and coverage, and at such time as a streamlined and far better sourced article is ready for a return, it will be welcomed. It's just that this one is too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 16 October 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falling (Brooke Hogan song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS due to not appearing on any significant charts. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather spectacularly fails WP:NSONGS. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Redemption. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason why you are voting for merge when the article literally has no references? 11coolguy12 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why merging? Just delete; fails WP:NSONGS--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 10:05, 17 October 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anterior fornix erogenous zone[edit]

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

It appears as though verifiable sources can not be obtained for this article. The article describes the concept of the "Anterior Fornix Erogenous Zone," in other words, a purportedly erogenous zone of the female anatomy.

The sole citation is a transcript of an interview with the concept's author, "Dr. Chua Chee Ann" (whose name appears throughout the article), who therein espouses the "discovery" of aforementioned concept and touts himself as "the discoverer" (sic). The transcript is a part of Dr. Chua Chee Ann's personal website at http://www.aspot-pioneer.com/ wherein aggressive product advertising - centered on the aforementioned concept - accompanies other hyperbole, including the claim that this man is "one of the 500 Greatest Geniuses of the 21st Century." Specifically, Dr. Ann advertises and sells a "technique" for stimulating the erogenous zone. Incidentally, the wikipedia article in question contains further citations which have been searched and found to be misleading (the journal referenced does not contain anything to do with the article).

Google searches have yielded only the veritable Wikipedia page, Dr. Ann's website, and other mentions of the concept in derivative, non-verifiable literature. The references are circular (i.e. they all come back to Dr. Ann's website). The concept has been searched on PUBMED. First, Dr. Chua Chee Chan has not published any peer-reviewed literature. There is only one result returned; importantly, it is an Italian paper whose abstract reads

"Clitoral bulbs, clitoral or clitoris-urethrovaginal complex, urethrovaginal space, periurethral glans, Halban's fascia erogenous zone, vaginal anterior fornix erogenous zone, genitosensory component of the vagus nerve, and G-spot, are terms used by some sexologists, but they are not accepted or shared by experts in human anatomy."

I caution, however, that a comparison to the "G-spot" is not quite appropriate because the latter concept, which has a Wiki entry of its own, has in spite of its poor reception amongst scientists been researched by more than one person. Thus I discourage the reader from making a voting decision informed by such a comparison.

For these reasons I believe the article ought be deleted specifically pursuant to WP:V (subsection WP:RS, WP:SPS) policy. In lay terms I believe that the subject of this article i.e. the concept it espouses can not be verified by any sources but self-published and unreliable ones. In addition I am fearful that this article may, in fact, directly promote a commercial product. If this is found to be the case, I believe this is a disturbing instance of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial advertising, suggesting a need for more aggressive monitoring. It is worrisome to think some members of the public have been tricked into financially supporting Dr. Ann, and even more worrisome to consider we might be to blame. Thank you. Xabian40409 (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this is not where Wikipedia should be. Commercial nonsense, advertising, no reliable sourcing, so not Verifiable (and never will be). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Keep with a deep sigh and eradication of the current content. GBooks discloses that this area is real, or at least thought to be real; for example, I came upon Payne-James, Jason; Busuttil, Anthony; Smock, William S. (2003). "Anterior+fornix+erogenous+zone" Forensic medicine: clinical and pathological aspects. Cambridge University Press. p. 387. Retrieved 2011-10-14. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the citation in question also traces back to Dr. Ann's paper, but it appears to me that this and other hits may show more general acceptance of the finding. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please try clicking on the "books" or "scholar" links above before submitting an AfD. There are dozens of books and articles discussing the area. II | (t - c) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I did. The articles I located mentioned the concept only in casual discussion or dismissed it as spurious. In other words mention is not equitable with credibility, notability or even verifiability when it comes to scholarly literature. At the bare minimum one expects to find an original article validated by peer review; in this instance there is neither. Furthermore, the only person who's supposedly confirmed this concept's validity is Dr. Chua Chee Ann, who has zero authorship and zero credibility. See above. Thank you. Xabian40409 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tortrei Technique[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, referenced to three conversations!! Theroadislong (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to back up any claims of notability. This appears to be describing a Photoshop effect which is not something invented by the artist and should not have an article. freshacconci talktalk 10:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tortrei Technique uses any digital manipulation software to create various effects, as a painter would with various sized brushes and pallet knives but that is only part of the technique. The Tortrei Technique is the transformation of a digital photograph into a design completely unrelated to the original photograph. Thank you for making me aware that I have not made that clear in the article. This is a new technique, only in use for the last 2 years, just as Tradigital art was when the term was first used in the 1990's. User talk:Hartfree-Bright/talk--Hartfree-Bright (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication how this is different than any other digital effect using any digital software, other than you giving it a name. This, I'm afraid, would fall under a neologism as there does not appear to be any third-party usage of the term. Anything produced by this technique would fall under digital art. Wikipedia is not the place to establish the notability of a word. freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEO, the term seems to have been invented by Amanda Hartfree-Bright. Google returns just 4 pages (apart from WP) - one Amanda's at Surrey Open Studios, two at Distinctive Art, and one at Yasni. SO, fails Verifiability. It might become notable in a few years' time, but it isn't yet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I am admittedly not an art expert by any stretch of the word. Even so, the term doesn't not seem to have significant coverage from reliable and independent sources under the title of the article. An art expert may have a reason for why this method is notable that I would be willing to consider but at this point, I don't see any inclusion guidelines being satisfied. OlYeller^Talktome 17:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap and 01Yeller21 Thank you both your comments have been constructive and I can understand your points of view.

Freshacconci; You say that "anything produced by this technique would fall under digital art" I have not suggested that it is not digital art I am saying it is a digital art technique requiring skill and knowledge to use and is not simply the activation of preset software effects. Tortrei Technique uses the various processing facilities of manipulation software as tools for producing art in a specific manner in the same way as a conventional artist uses brushes and palette knives to produce images using the wet on wet or dry brush technique, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartfree-Bright (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Whoops! Sorry I forgot to sign the last comment. --Hartfree-Bright (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it didn't take skill or that it was just an activation of an effect. I've worked with Photoshop for around 15 years so I know what it takes. However, I don't see how this is anything other than manipulation of software like any other. But the main issue is not the ease or difficulty of the process but rather whether the term is being used in reliable sources. This doesn't seem to be the case. freshacconci talktalk 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod nomination, the author should read WP:GNG before adding her creations into Wikipedia. Secret ^account 05:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the topic seems ultra-narrow (so narrow that the only practitioner had to write the article about themselves). Nothing evil here, just lack of notability (to me at least). --Smokefoot (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR --Odie5533 (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO Curb Chain (talk) 12:05, 21 October 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 19:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOCIO-EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT IN YOUNG CHILDREN OF TEENAGE MOTHERS[edit]

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

Essay. This was also a contested PROD. →Σ τ c. 07:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research - or possibly a copy of someone's undergrad thesis. Either way, not even close to being acceptable content. Yunshui (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added Teenage mothers' children mental development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this discussion; its text is identical. Yunshui (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 09:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello this is my first article in wiki please help to improve the subject of article is about teen mothers children mental health. which is not a new topic there are several researches done with this topic before. but I make mistake in choosing title and make another mistake by coping it in new page. please help me. best'Ilab62 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise and delete. Hi Ilab62, your article is a good start and contains cited research which will hopefully be a useful addition to wikipedia. The main problem currently is that there are lots of statements with your own conclusions throughout the article, such as "Children with secure attachment are having better socio-emotional development and ability to interact entire life" and "Children of teenage mothers show problems in cognitive and socio-emotional development, which continue into adolescence". In the second quote you're also generalising to all teenage mothers but this is not justified - I'm sure many of these kids would be just fine.. All this can be remedied, but otherwise the article is not encyclopaedic..

Secondly, I would suggest that the name be changed to something like Parenting by teen mothers as IMHO that would better reflect the content.

Thirdly, some content like the Programs & Notes section at the end needs to be radically shortened & generalised. Wikipedia shouldn't be providing detailed descriptions of each support service (there are probably thousands of them worldwide) - that can be left to their websites.

Finally, there are lots of issues with style but this can be fixed later ..

Public Health is a very important area so I hope you continue working with Wikipedia, Ilab62. While you work on the article you may want to put it in a sandbox under your username, e.g. User:Ilab62/Parenting by teen mothers, so people won't bother you until you're ready to submit it. eug (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly this is well-intentioned; it seems to consist entirely of Original Research (see the "Notes" at the end which thank her research advisers for helping her with the OR); could well be Merge with other articles, but must clearly not be in the current form. No doubt the sources will be useful somewhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a prime example of WP:NOTESSAY. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, Merge socio-emotional and behavioral development in young children of teenage mothers and teenage mothers' children mental development, obvious forks. Second, Weak keep. The articles seem like a pretty good start for a new editor, various copyediting issue remain (like "Thank you to Professor Karen M. Finello and Professor Marie K. Poulsen of the University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine, for giving me great ideas and insights on early childhood mental health"), but neither them, nor the problems with some unreferenced statement are an issue that should warrant a deletion. Perhaps a temporary userfy would help, so that the editor can remove all the essay like parts and copy-edit the article properly according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTESSAY - dissertations are inherently inappopriate for an encyclopaedia regardless of how well written and sourced they are. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete - not the right kind of work for WP, looks more like an essay or dissertation for a Health and Social Welfare uni course. Bin, no amount of work in userspace would fix this. BarkingFish 19:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still a Delete - It is good to see so much enthusiasm from a new author, and so much sympathy from AfD reviewers. The article however remains (since I last looked on the 14th, see above) an essay with personal opinions (WP:NOTESSAY) consisting of personal research (WP:OR) written with passion. The correct course remains to delete it; some of the materials identified could be useful as evidence in existing articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as original research. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 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 Power Challenge. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ManagerZone[edit]

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

Almost entirely reliant on primary sources (not guaranteed reliable), no particular indications of notability, major awards etc., refs leading to "You are not authorized to view this page" etc. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:48, 14 October 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) 00:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every single source in first-party or player-created (Wikis, off-site forums, etc.), except for one which is nothing but the victory of the game in a 2004 month-long per-vote popularity contest, that does not talk of the game further than the profile the game itself wrote and submitte to MPOGD. No notability is assessed whatsoever. {RefImprove} tag from Feb-2010 to Oct-2011, but was removed after the addition of the sources detailled above (not reliable sources, thus IMO the tag should have stayed). Page creator himself acknowledged the page had been deleted a number of times in the past in the page creation's edit summary. Salvidrim (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are simply to back up the explanation of game rules and thus could arguably be removed entirely. I'd like to draw reference to the similar Wiki page for Hattrick, which doesn't provide refs for game explanation either. That would eliminate many of the problematic references. I'll look into secondary sources for the charity work as well as anything that'll prove notability. Hattrick faced deletion in 2008 as well, and as far as I can tell was allowed to remain based on the number of users and a single article. That does not indicate it as being any more notable than ManagerZone at the time, though it does have more secondary sources included at present. Neoskywalker (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoskywalker86 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment A secondary source titled "The greatest game in the world" isn't very persuasive when trying to assess notability. If anything, a quick skim leaves me the impression that tit is glorified publicity. But that's beside the point -- the primary sources are fine for fact-checking, but they do not grant any notability. They don't "need to go", as long as other independent sources offering reliable & significant coverage are found. Salvidrim (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is exactly my point. If Hattrick can be allowed to stay based on that article (as far as I can tell) and allowed time to improve, i.e. it has provided some sources for notability through its involvement in academic work, then I don't see the rush to delete ManagerZone. While the ManagerZone entry has been around for a while now, it's not really been cleaned up and improved until recently. Neoskywalker (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguing for or against a deletion because of a consensus reached on another article is not a very solid argument (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Maybe I am misunderstanding your argument, but I understand "Hattrick was kept, thus ManageZone could be kept too". We should judge this article's notability on this article itself, not on consensus reached on something else, no matter how similar the subjects. Salvidrim (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your "Hattrick" argument isn't very helpful unless you know why it was kept. Looking at one of it's past AFD's for Hattrick, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hattrick_(2nd_nomination) , it looks like it was kept due because people dug up reliable, third party sources. (It may have had more sources back then in 2008 than there are now? Or sometimes people find sources for articles in order to "win" an AFD, but then never actually add them to the article very well afterwards.)

Anyways, there's 2 ways to look at it. You could call the Hattrick situation irrelevant, because you're trying to use it's 2011 status to justify what happened 3 years ago in it's AFD. Or you can call it relevant, and it won it's AFD because of it's coverage in reliable, third party sources. Either way, this article needs more third party sources to survive. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to my arguement above. Short version: lack of third party, reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Challenge, per WP:ATD. The company is notable and news sites often mention the game when talking about the company: Gamastura.com, VentureBeat.com, EscapistMagazine.com, GamersHell.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Salvidrim (talk) 05:47, 21 October 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. None of the new editors/single purpose accounts have provided evidence to refute the established editors arguments that point out that the article currently fails the notability guideline. As such those arguments have been given little weight. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard English, writer and entrepreneur[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)

Promotional article about minor author. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Magnifico writer. Should be on file at Wiki. Plenty of verifiable evidence in TV footage, radio, printed word etc. Internet is not that reliable as used by invasive advertisers, hackers, pornographers, viagra salesmen etc. Barbie Husrt (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail general notability guidelines. I couldn't find anything specifically about this Robert English on the internet that supported any reason for this article to remain here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Also, WP is not for WP:PROMO pieces, such as this one. It is possible to find remaindered copies of a few of his books on the web, but not reviews. Should not be confused with Prof. Richard English, the terrorism expert. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found plenty of references to Richard English, especially in the web site Rocks Back Pages and Constable Robinson catalgoue. There is no failure of notability. Maggie Worsley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh Talbot (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 October 2011 — Hugh Talbot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
RETAIN Passes notability criterion easily. He has been published in collections with Will Self and Tracey Emin. Signed Mark Ely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Ely (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Mark Ely (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP I recently heard one of his short stories on mainstream radio. It was fab. Since then I've read others. Equally fab. Plenty of references if you look properly. --Irene Walker75 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Irene Walker75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you have references, please list them here. Being on the radio and having fans does not automatically mean that you are notable and worth an entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
KEEP* We, a British office for an Indian production company, are working on an adaptation of one of his short stories for a Bollywood production. He has a large popularity in the sub-continent amongst the English speaking public. I can find plenty of references to him. It would be shame to exclude such a wonderful talent from your library. Shivani Dishan Shivani Dishan (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Shivani Dishan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- But Wikipedia is not a library. It's an online encyclopedia. Popularity doesn't always equal notability. For example, podcast novelist Phil Rossi is an amazing author with a sizable fanbase on the internet, but he is not really considered to be notable as far as guidelines here go. I can also say the same for several other authors. I also have to say that if you have references that would be encyclopedic and not vanity pieces, then you should be showing these to back up your claims of notability. Almost every link I've found that is about this author is a promotional link. Writing a book does give you instant notability, nor does having a film adaptation do it either. Still fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)TOKYOGIRL79[reply]
  - I also want to ensure that you know that these things are not judged on a vote. The powers that be of Wikipedia look at the arguments on either side and judge based on that, not on how many people vote one way or another. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment If a film is made based on a story of his, and if the film becomes notable, then there will probably be justification for an article, and it would be reasonable to try again. But making one in advance is promotion for the film. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' The keepers above are clearly sock puppets. No other contribs except for here. Jdorney (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP RE doesn't fail the notability criterion at all. Plenty of corroborative evidenece if you just look. I have heard his material on the radio. Wicked stuff! His entry should stay. p.s. Mention of a film with no mention of the title is not self-promotion. Ravi Patel20 Ravi Patel20 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Ravi Patel20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Just to let you know, these things aren't decided on a vote. You do have a say, but that say is not a vote. The closing administrator will be the one who ultimately decides whether or not this person is notable enough for an article. I should also warn you that so far people with no prior edits have been coming on and claiming that there's tons of "evidence and links" to prove notability but have not added any of that actual proof. If you or the author have links to prove notability, please add them. Just claiming that links exist or that you're a fan is not enough to prove notability. We don't give out wikipedia entries based on the number of fans somebody is claimed to have. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship activism[edit]

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

Unsourced (except for one fake source that points to a nearly empty site), this original research/synthesis essay appears to fail general notability guidelines due to insignificant coverage of the term after a good faith search for reliable sources. Moogwrench (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as someone's personal manifesto. Searching for this produced remarkably poor results, and no even vaguely relevant news or book hits; even the web hits didn't seem relevant. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and for lack of notability. There is nothing wrong publishing your personal manifesto on the web, but WP is the wrong venue. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.: OR, fails GNG. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR Curb Chain (talk) 12:13, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruin The Faith[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate notability Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG →Σ τ c. 02:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Search find Facebook pages and the like, and a couple of Youtube videos, maxing out at 268 views. The only one outside the band who seems to have noticed them is someone claiming they they are ripping off their songs from a Nepalese band. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail for WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per WP:GNG, although they are my fav indian metal band and I've watched their youtube video like 268 times. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:08, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Thompson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a non-notable article. Article was deleted. The individual is still not notable. Ism schism (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—this may be useful as well: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a developing biography of the Hare Krishna movement's most prominent critic of mainstream science. Though personally I think his views were hogwash, I believe that we ought to have a well-referenced biography of him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—in addition to the numerous sources already in the article (which admittedly is kind of a hash), there was a 20 page review of forbidden archeology in social studies of science: stable jstor link. clearly author meets gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is one review of a co-authored book enough to meet WP:GNG? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Timoshuk piece cited in footnotes indicates an international scholarly interest in Thompson's views, further evidenced by several academic reviews of one of his books, Forbidden Archeology. Adherents of fringe views are sometimes the target of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and I wonder if this might not be the case here. Carrite (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record the nominator is incorrect, close of the previous challenge ultimately ended as No Consensus, not Delete. Carrite (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been deleted as stated but the article was reinstated at a later date and the concensus changed from Delete to No Concensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reason as the last time; he article has little merit as a stand alone article. He does not appear to be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomson is notable look how many references are on the article already, by the way a whole section could be added about his alien studies. He authored a book on extraterrestrial life and the ancient astronaut theory, his book has been reviewed, atleast 6 sources for that online, and his work on aliens been widely read by UFO enthusiasts. Alienspaceships (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Alienspaceships (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Thomson is notable, also it is not a "recreation" of deleted article. Wikid ^as© 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable by the sheer volume of his publications alone, not to mention references to his works and their impact found in Google Scholar [20], [21], [22]. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:37, 20 October 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. (Although there appear to be three Keep !votes here, they're all by the same person) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Christoforos Schuff[edit]

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

Person notable for a single event, and that event not all that notable in itself. Not notable as a musician at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the event doesn't meet notability guidelines, and the musician part is not relevant at all. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, and should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. The one incident of allowing "church asylum" does not confer notability on every person involved. The incident itself might merit an article if it had sufficient coverage for a sufficient time over a large enough geographic area to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (events). Does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music) either. Edison (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDO NOT DELETE: The subject of this article fulfills the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music) i.e. at least two of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, namely criterion 1: "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" (note documentary of Spring 2011 broadcast nationally on NRK and criterion 12: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". The majority of various newspaper and radio/TV coverage since 2006 has profiled Schuff's musical activities as one of several notable features .Lapoderosa 00:17, 8 October 2011

CommentAdditional Notes: 1) "Fr." is a title and might be considered for removal from main title and inserted into the article itself. 2) Due to the foreign nature of the name "Christoforos", there have been up to 7 - 8 misnomers created across various media channels in Norway, making it difficult to search/verify/identify the subject. 3) At least in Norway, the subject has been featured in news (TV), books, magazines and newspapers up to several times a year since 2006/2007. Lapoderosa 00:27, 8 October 2011

Comment Could you please provide some examples of these articles, please? Stephen! ^Coming... 10:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A partial list exists in the reference list of the article itself (various TV programs on the NRK are not available outside of Scandinavia and thus may be difficult to view). The majority of sources are in Norwegian and direct access to online versions of print articles are subject to subscription for the electronic versions. Further sources (not full): (Article) God helg Magazine, 24 December, 2010 (Full front cover, + pp. 8 - 9, print only); (Book) Steffenach, Hill-Aina. Hodeplagg (ISBN 978-82-92804-02-5) pp. 78 - 79 & p. 115; (Book) Spanos, Apostolos. Codex Lesbiacus Leimonos 11 (p. viii); (TV) ^[1]; (TV) ^[2], etc, etc. With all due respect, is this whole discussion a case of Americentrism? Lapoderosa 17:10, 9 October 2011

^ [1]
^ [2]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are any of these inaccessible sources more than passing references? They sound like routine coverage which would not establish notability. Edison (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and *Keep. A television documentary broadcast nationally on the largest TV channel in Norway NRK on a Sunday evening (not late night cable, etc.) is hardly a "passing reference". Again, the subject DOES fulfill at least two WP:MUSICBIO criteria, namely criterion 1: "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" and criterion 12: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" (subject is featured nationally including interviews and music in a good time slot on the largest radio station in Norway, NRK P1). If the guideleines have been understood correctly, only one such requirement fulfilled is neccesary, yet the subject fulfills several in addition to other interviews, print and media coverage. All references are verifiable. Lapoderosa 00:17, 17 October 2011 (CEST)

References Many (but not all) articles may be purchased online here [[23]], just search for "Schuff". Lapoderosa 10:17, 17 October 2011 (CEST)
Delete per nom; the event doesn't meet notability guidelines. --Kylfingers (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, if you look at the dates of all the articles combined there is not merely one single event or date, but many and numerous forms of coverage on the person since 2006. The single event was at an earlier stage of the article. What part of "substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" various times including a documentary, print and radio coverage does not meet the requirements specified in WP:MUSICBIO criteria? ? ? Lapoderosa 21:39, 20 October 2011 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapoderosa (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. 2 relists and no arguments for doing anything other than deletion have been made. Davewild (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaina-e-Ghazal[edit]

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

Book fails notability as per WP:BK. According to the article on one of its authors, Zarina Sani, it is just a multilingual dictionary. Its title, and the external link in the article, suggest it has some particular relevance to ghazal poetry. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:53, 28 September 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the article fails WP:GNG. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:21, 16 October 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guideline at this time. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Automatic[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 03:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - they don't appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:BAND except for the notability of their members (criterion 6), one of which was in a notable band and the other won the John Lennon Songwriting Contest. The latter claim needs a citation. Hell, the whole thing needs citations, but it may be notable. §everal⇒|Times 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They get a few listings and brief mentions for their shows. Nothing in Amazon or last.fm, so I'm guessing that their one finished album is sold only at their shows. Third-place in one category in a minor music award. Have some Youtube videos, none quite managing 1,000 views. Could become notable group, but not there now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Seem to be sligtly notable and could become more notable. Needs references etc. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:33, 16 October 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} 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rights Zone[edit]

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

Article for this non-notable organization is little more than a directional organization and a list of links, besides a bunch of namedropping on famous guests they've had. The puffery of "has not been afraid of controversy" is not borne out by independent resources (this particular claim is sourced to Facebook). Delete. Please. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is produced. The neutral point of view and this article have never met each other, let alone shaken hands. A lengthy mission statement is always a tipoff to a promotional tract and the long list of notables they've interviewed seems to attempt to see if notability rubs off. It doesn't. The lengthy list of references is larded up with blogs and social network sites. Those don't show notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient third party sources exist for the article. TFD (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they have a lot of ghits, but no reliable source appears to care about them. Not one. Delete per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 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 consensus will also protect this from recreation. Davewild (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carnism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose that this article be deleted. The term "carnism" occurs only in works by Melanie Joy and the sparse reporting on those works. They seem not to have gained traction, as is suggested by the references to our article, most of which are related to...well, Melanie Joy.

You'll see from the history that I did some pruning. What was cut was a list of radio interviews (I haven't listened to them, but I can guess who was being interviewed) and a list of works by, yes, Melany Joy. In other words, I also believe this article to be little more than a plug. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I didn't know that the article had been nominated (and deleted!) before, which prompted a slew of SPIs, COI editors, and possibly socks to weigh in. I hope that won't happen this time around. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consume it, marinated in deletion sauce and grilled over a verifiability fire (to borrow from the previous deletion discussion). Neologism which failed to list spam among its ingredients, ironically enough. Don't forget to add some salt (my own secret ingredient). Decades from now if it gains any real currency, it's easily de-salted. EEng (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete any good reason this hasn't been G4ed yet? Yunshui (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also favour salting given that Melanie Joy's article is still protected after several recreations. This is a wholly non-notable neologism devised by a wholly non-notable individual. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also point out that this article is totally biased with its assertions and with the implications of said assertions (subtext of article is "a strict vegetarian diet is healthy for humans therefore anyone who chooses to eat an animal is wicked"). As the term is non-notable, there are no counter-arguments to the "theory". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't heard of carnism before, and don't really have any expertise in diet issues, though I breezed thru parts of The Omnivore's Dilemma a few years ago. If the concept/term is not independently notable, is there some article where it can be mentioned as a concept/theory propounded by Joy? There are numerous references to its existence, e.g., [24] (Spartansburg Herald, Oct 24, 2010 recommending a Joy book, "This groundbreaking work explores the psychology of carnism"); [25] (Boston Globe, January 26, 2010," To explain this widely ignored phenomenon she came up with the term "carnism,"); [26], ny times vocab blog discussing term January 2010. This makes me think the existence of it should not be wholly obliterated from wikipedia. Maybe Meatatarian, another made-up-sounding word, is the place.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could go in Wictionary, perhaps. Not here. Yunshui (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that the term, and Joy's work, can be mentioned in some meat-related article, sure. Part of the problem in Wikipedia (this is where you want to look for your trout to slap me around with) is that it is relatively easy to create new articles and our guidelines are relatively lax, which encourages broad coverage in the sense of creating multiple small articles rather than chunking information in larger articles, and I think that applies here. Not notable as a term/subject in its own right does not mean, in my opinion, that the term and the author should not show up anywhere in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Not notable, no independent sources, not Verifiable, not Encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there are independent sources noting the existence of Joy's "carnism" concept, thus verifying the concept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough, Milowent, to know better than to argue WP:ITEXISTS. I notice, btw, that the Globe review you cited above explicitly states that Joy "came up with the term carnism" -- this was 2010, so there's no way around this being a neologism. EEng (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted !keep, you'll notice. The term appears to have been coined by Joy in 2001 (not 2010), so there have been references to it in other sources, in the context of discussing joy's theory.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did you mean I haven't voted !keep, or did you mean I haven't !voted keep? Because it actually seemed you were arguing for keep, not !keep, though I'm puzzled by your reference to voted not !voted. Actually, you've not only not neither voted keep nor !keep, nor have you !voted neither of them nohow. EEng (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—carnism is also a minor movement in poetics, and possibly encyclopedic, e.g. here and here and a few other places. there aren't enough sources on gbooks to write an article about this, but it at least seems like something that there might be a genuine place for at some point. i agree that the current article's got to go, per above, but and if it keeps getting recreated, i see the rationale for salting. i'm just curious about how this would affect someone who wanted to write an article on the poetic movement?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They'd get a message like this and would need to ask an admin to unsalt. EEng (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my worry is that there's no easy way to tell from that message that the deleted content had been about something else entirely, supposing someone wanted to write on poetics. i suppose that this isn't really the place for this discussion. thanks for your answer.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have a good point. If you click on deletion log, then from there click to the deletion discussion, you could figure out what the old topic was, but most people wouldn't know to do that. Perhaps the "protected against recreation" message can be clarified. I think it would be useful for you to raise this at WP:Pump. EEng (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think i will, thanks for the good advice!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone involved in this discussion has an opinion on this issue, i've opened a discussion at the village pump here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#protected_from_creation_template_proposed_modification.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I was going to say: "Shoot it, gut it, drain it, skin it, slice it, marinate in ..." etc., but really, someone else has already gone there.) A neologism previously deleted in good form, despite a nice SPAfest and sock-a-polooza. No notability outside of the creator's attempts to make it notable. Add some salt to improve the flavor (and decrease the likelihood of one of the sockspas recreating. (I'm totally going to start using "sockspa" in every context possible and create Sockspa. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought this was a Sock Spa. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a sock whirlpool. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:58, 15 October 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schechter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Only sources provided are self-published or trivial. Google News turned up only a few passing mentions of this person. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination in light of the sources provided by Cazort. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the grounds I argued to keep in the first discussion, and the grounds have grown stronger since the first discussion:

Per WP:AUTH point 3. I think his work Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations alone makes him notable. This book has generated glowing reviews, but more importantly, has generated sustained attention. It showed 71 cites during the first discussion and now google scholar shows 147, mostly novel research in peer-reviewed math journals: [27]. This is significant because the book is primarily a pedagogical book, intended for intro-level grad students, yet the work has been heavily cited in peer-reviewed journal articles publishing novel research. This sort of phenomenon is highly unusual for this sort of mathematical work, demonstrating that this work is highly influential. On a personal note, when I've seen it on professors shelves, it has been beaten up from heavy use. His book is far more well-used than the google scholar citations suggest, because those don't reflect the primary audience / use of the book.

He has generated a small amount of coverage in reliable sources through his political activism too, which describes him as an "organizer": [28] He ran unsuccessfully against Jim Cooper; this is unsourced in the article but here's a reliable source for the race, pre-election: [29]. I do not think these things alone would make him notable, but I think that if the case is at all marginal on the basis of his academic work, this would push him over the edge. There's enough material in WP:RS for a small, well-sourced article and this man and his work, and that's the essence of WP:N.

Cazort (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if someone puts a claim of notability in the article, as well as the reliable sources for the reviews of the textbook. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SIAM review is multiple pages long and is very detailed and makes very strong claims about this book: "Every once in a while a book comes along that so effectively redefines an educational enterprise -- in this case, graduate mathematical training -- and so effectively reexamines the hegemony of ideas prevailing in a discipline -- in this case, mathematical analysis -- that it deserves our careful attention". It's not public access but there's a copy of it with a citation to the original on Schechter's webpage: [30]. I just added this to the article and cleaned up a bit. The article does need cleanup and I would agree that the notability isn't clearly evident from the article alone. But I don't think that the state of the article warrants deletion, it's whether the article's subject is notable or not. The influence of this book and the accuracy of this claim in the review is further evidenced by the numerous citations that keep rolling in to this book, in peer-reviewed journals publishing novel research. Cazort (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also here's a very detailed review in Topology Atlas: [31]. I also want to point out how highly unusual / significant it is for SIAM to have reviewed this book at all because it is essentially a pure math text. Also, on Amazon.com: [32] there are two brief reviews; one, being from Robert G. Bartle, although brief, seems significant due to Bartle's stature in the topic of Mathematical analysis, the topic that Schechter's book primarily focuses on. I also noticed that Bartle continued to recommend the book in print publications after writing this review. "Schechter [Sch] and Lee and Výborný [L-V] have been published; we strongly recommend these books" in the preface of A modern theory of integration (2003). Cazort (talk) 17:12, 16 October 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of homopolar generator patents[edit]

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

Contested prod, no relevant rationale given. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no stated criteria for belonging to this list other than apparently using the words "homopolar" and "generator" in the patent text. There's no significance given for inclusion of any entry, (many patents never get practiced), no explanation of the importance of any particular patent, and no encyclopediac value in retaining this product of an automated database search. The article to talk about the development of homopolar generators exists, it's called Homopolar generator. Wtshymanski (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in that all it really does is list people who have patented something. As Wtshymanski said, there's nothing that shows why these people are listed or even why this is particularly notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep This is hardly a random list of "people" who have patented "something". The something in question here is a homopolar generator, a pretty obscure piece of electrical engineering. It's one form of electrical generator, a hugely common device, yet of a form that's today almost unknown. Now there's a peculiarity that warrants explanation. Mentions of this device are not implicitly notable, but they're certainly unusual and worth a further look. Nor are these anonymous inventors quite so anonymous: half-a-dozen of them are already notable engineers with linked WP articles.

Of course this article is a bare list and pretty unintelligible as it stands. It needs commentary added, and some sense of historical context. If only there was an electrical engineer available with time on his hands to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator Homopolar generator is a worthwhile and notable topic and would be the logical place to explain the development and limitations of homopolar generators. A list of patents doesn't explain that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very encyclopedic topic. Some of the inventors have blue links to their own articles. Anyone curious about how many patents are associated with this, and who invented them, would benefit from this. Listing the years each patent was issued, would be useful as well. Dream Focus 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator Again, the topic is notable, but a list of patents is not the way to explain the topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is not "inherent notability" for random homopolar generators. A patent is not evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What nerve for editor Edison to comment on electrical patents. Blatant COI! EEng (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Patently unencylopedic. EEng (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How so? Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply having a patent is not grounds for notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which of the eight points in WP:NOTDIRECTORY is being referred to here? Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator - how about points 1,4, 7 and possibly 8 ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a WP:SETINDEX article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator No, it's a list of patent numbers which are distinct. They do share the attribute of using the words "homopolar" and "generator" in ther text, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This exact same incorrect argument was used by this same editor at the just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of electrostatic generator patents, where it was obviously rejected by the closing administrator.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:21, 22 October 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. Consensus is that this is a viable and notable topic. No prejudice to a consensus being reached on the talk page to move the article to a new title. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in the Bible[edit]

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

The reasons are best summarized on the talk page, lacks reputable sources and has zero clarity. LutherVinci (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamic view of the Bible#Biblical prophecy of Muhammad#Biblical prophecy of Muhammad. Which is not actually much better sourced (there is one possibly-RS secondary source and a bunch of primary sources), but at least the problem can be confined to one article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sourcing is poor, but topic is notable ([33], [34], [35], [36], etc. etc.) This availability of sourcing means that the article should be improved, not deleted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per availability of tertiary book sources. I added these to the article:

(2006.) "Essentials of the Islamic faith." The Light, Inc. ISBN 9757388327
Benjamin Keldani, David B. ('Abdul Ahad Dawud) (2006.) "Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible." The Other Press. ISBN 9839154656
Ünal, Ali (2006.) "The Qurʼan with annotated interpretation in modern English." The Light, Inc. ISBN 978-1-59784-000-2

Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found. Dream Focus 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have added a link to Gospel of Barnabas and added a ref I found there. Seems to help, but I'm no expert on this Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still has zero clarity. The biblical references make no sense and do not describe what's being presented. Example: "Isaiah arrested in Isaiah 11, 28 and 42 will learn from it." Isaiah was never arrested, nor did he arrest anyone. Chapters 11 describes a decedent of Jesse (not Qeder, as the article states). Chapter 28 makes prophesies concerning Mount Zion, not some future prophet. This is just an example. I simply don't care how many modern scholars say Muhammad was in the Bible, there is little logical argument for it.LutherVinci (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified that statement. Muslim scholars claim that Isaiah 42 foretells Muhammad, as he is the only person who fits the passages description, which they claim is of the Kedar people (based on evidence from Isaiah 11), and from whom Muhammad is decedent. Ravendrop 17:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely a notable subject. Entire books have been written about the subject and a quick google scholar search shows a vast number of references to the subject (though unfortunately most are behind paywalls/paper references). It needs the attention of an expert in the field, as well as someone who is familiar with the Arabic sources, as most of the material (especially commentary) has yet to be translated. (Additionally, someone fluent in German should be able to find some info as well). Unfortunately this is a topic that is not easy to research via the internet. Yet go to any large university library and you will find a lot of sources covering the topic. Ravendrop 17:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no affiliation with islam, I am saying that to clarify it is not my reasoning for defending this article. I know at least 450 million people who would find this topic useful. I will admit This article desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. The only reason this isn't well sourced with internet references is because because the Koran (a source more accurate than any website could possibly provide) is most likely there source. This is an extreemly notable subject not just in the Middle East and North Africa, but for muslims around the world, this is deffinatly salvagible, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move. Enough sources are present to cover this topic properly, but Muhammad's name does not appear in the Bible, and there's definitely nothing that is widely agreed to be a description of him — the current title is of a style that better fits topics such as "Assyrian Empire in the Bible", which clearly and undisputably appears in it. We need a name such as "Islamic proposal of Muhammad in the Bible". Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Islamic interpretation of Muhammad in the Bible? Proposal sounds as if its a fringe theory among Islam, where as its core belief. Proposal also suggests that there is a right or wrong answer, which can be 100% proven. Which, academically, there isn't (spiritually/faithfully/etc. there is, but its different per faith/belief/religion, etc.) Ravendrop 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that title; thanks. I'm somewhat confused by "where as..." and your parenthetical comment; could you please clarify? Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially my point is that the word proposal is likely to be much more controversial, and prone to POV, than interpretation because proposal, at least in my mind, implies that there is one true answer that can be determined. My parenthetical comment is simply stating that there is an one answer for Muslims (he is in the Bible) and one answer for Christians (he isn't), which are opposing from an academic point of view that does not use any presuppositions when answering the question. That there is only answer for Muslims/Christians relies purely on faith and is not something that can be "proved" using the standards of academic inquiry. Ravendrop 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a wikilinked example of a Muslim scholar involved in the debate, taken out a statement I couldn't source and removed a couple of tags as a consequence. Hope this helps. Article still has obvious issues, but worth keeping. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic view of the Bible. No reason why it can't go in that article. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 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 Elections in Denmark. v/r - T P 01:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Danish parliamentary election[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Premature - there's no information here (the projected next date can be mentioned in Folketing). Article can be created (though preferably under a title that does not include "next") when there is information about who is running, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Elections in Denmark. A slightly more precise statement of what is there at present. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the related redirect Next election in Denmark is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 21#Next election in Denmark, where it has been suggested to retarget that title to Next Danish parliamentary election, the subject of this AfD. The administrator closing this discussion should note the outcome of that discussion and act accordingly (e.g. deleting the redirect per WP:CSD#G8 if this article is deleted or retargetting if this article is merged). Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now referenced. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen many such articles at Wikipedia. As a matter of fact Candada has a whole category dedicated to future elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Future_elections_in_Canada. I see no harm in letting Wikipedians be prepared ahead of time. If we don't allow for this preparation the quality of the coverage will surely drop. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:52, 27 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they have just finished the last election, so the "Next Danish parliamentary election" is a useful article to keep and grow. Zickel (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a joke. Nothing here that can't be covered in Elections in Denmark. And if you compare it to Canada, then the article title should reflect the actual year. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:02, 12 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, WP:HAMMER. Article is nothing more than "the next election will be on X". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 21 October 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 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitez helix[edit]

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

No claim of notability made. A search reveals no sources for this concept except Wikipedia.

The article formerly contained a source, [37]. The article may be a copyvio from that page but I'm not sure. (There are links on the page which take you back to Wikipedia, so maybe they're including content from WP? But the text is from an old revision of the page, not the current one.) In any case, that source does not meet our standards of reliability. Ozob (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Nonexistent in the published mathematical literature. No hits in either Google scholar or MathSciNet. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be speediable (hoax or no assertion of notability). Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe the reference thetabletableau.webs.com is a mirror of the WP article. In any case, a search did not turn up any published sources and the mathematics itself is trivial and almost certainly OR.--RDBury (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching via Google Scholar for works written by M Vitez in engineering, computer science, and mathematics, I find "A novel wide-band audio transmission scheme over the Internet with a smooth quality degradation" by Marko Vitez et al., "V Thermal Microscopy" by Imre M. Vitez et al., and "Adoption without secrets" by M. Vitez. Searching articles in engineering, computer science, and mathematics that mention both the words "Vitez" and "helix", I find "Evaluation of machinability in the micro end milling of printed circuit boards" by JB Park, KH Wie, and JS Park, which cites something written by Z. Illyefalvi-Vitez, and "Laser beam machining—A review", by AK Dubey, which uses the phrase "helix removal", but I'm not sure where "Vitez" appears in it. Dropping the restriction to engineering, computer science, and mathematics, I find that Imre M.&nbspVitez has written about starches and starch derivatives in the Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology. Searching Google for "Mitchell Vitez" in quotes, I find a cross-coutnry athlete and a competitor in academic quiz tournaments. I haven't found any primary or secondary sources on the Vitez helix except what's in the Wikipedia article. That that name is used for this concept would require a secondary source. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.73.209 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, "no claim of notability" is not a speedy for "things", only persons, musical groups, corporations, and web sites. I don't know if it's a WP:HOAX, but it's not an obvious one, so not speediable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a hoax; I suspect it's just a case of someone not knowing that Wikipedia has a policy forbidding original research. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:05, 16 October 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. After 2 relists there is still no consensus over whether the movie is notable or not. Most of the discussion has been about the movie, rather than Glenn Berggoetz article so no prejudice to someone renominating the Glenn Berggoetz article sooner than would be normal. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Worst Movie Ever![edit]

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

This movie's main claim of notability is that it achieved the lowest opening weekend in box office history ($11). This stunt received a smattering of coverage, but not enough in my opinion to validate what is a fairly obvious publicity grab. No one associated with this film has done anything else of note, and apparently it has yet to even be reviewed by any professional reviewers. (Or even very many unprofessional reviewers, for that matter.) Because Glenn Berggoetz's only claim of notability is being director of this movie, I am nominating that article as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: Glenn Berggoetz was previously deleted as a result of this discussion. I do not consider the current version to be a CSD G4 candidate, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTE: With respects to the nominator, the article on Berggoetz asserts more than "just one thing", and though I opined a delete for him nine months ago at the last Glenn Berggoetz AFD, it seems now that his coverage has increased enough since that the Glenn Berggoetz is worth improving. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Glenn Berggoetz article asserts next to nothing, notability-wise. Directing a string of self-produced movies that no one has ever seen does not make a director notable. The four references currently being used in the Berggoetz article certainly don't convince me: one is the director's own website, one doesn't mention the director at all, and the other two contain fairly trivial mentions, focusing more on the movie itself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which might sensibly indicate that Berggoetzt, even if not meriting a separate article, might at least merit mention in the film article in a background section describing why this latest film was created and by whom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Transformers 3. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting one bomb to another? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per having theatrical release and having coverage. WP:NF also allows that the worst films ever might merit an article. What was nominated has now been expanded and sourced to show it being the recipient of coverage and critical commentary in reliable secondary sources. It benefits the encyclopdia if this one remains and is improved over time and through regular editing. And no... this one will likley never be as widely revered as Star Wars or Field of Dreams, but it has only been one month since its theatrical release and coverage for film and filmmaker is continuing. Let's revisit this article in 8 or 9 months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 29 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a publicity stunt. Why not have an article about the film which took zero dollars at the box office, or the film with the longest title, or a film shown entirely up-side-down? --ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 23:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice suggestions for new articles... and we DO have an article on a film with the longest title which, with its sequels, was done as much as a stunt as not. But reading the sources for THIS one, we can learn that its poor premiere was NOT intended as publicity stunt, just a film that for various reasons has a very poor initial screening. As it has only recently released and reecieved coverage, we can wait. I would be fine with WP:INCUBATION. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when I first made this page, I did so because it was fairly obvious to me, and members of our (BoxOfficeMojo) forums that this wasn't a publicity stunt. I think the gross record is notable enough for an article, we have a page for Zyzzyx Road after all, and as Xania pointed out we have a lot of similar articles with less important notability. The page hasn't been great at times but is well sourced now and shows there is clearly enough in the way of (viable) secondary sources to argue in favour of an article here. Sexyparty (talk) 10:09, 8 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:01, 14 October 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. There are three Keeps and five deletes here, but even one of the Keeps suggests that the article does not actually claim any notability, whilst another one does not provide any reason for keeping. On the deletion side, whilst WP:PROMOTION is a reason for deletion, the article appears to be written fairly neutrally; it is notability and sourcing that are the issues here. Given that, deletion is clearly indicated. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Riggins Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable participant in a non-notable league of motorsport. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. I am the articles creator. The sources given for the article seem to stand up to Wikipedia's Notability policy to me. On what grounds do you base your claim of non-notability? Alexiariggins (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, what is USCS? Is that even a notable division/league/whatever? Second, all but one of the references are from United Speed Contest Sanction press release--and that is not a reliable source, pure and simple, certainly not of the kind that would confer notability on the topics they treat. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:PROMOTION. - DonCalo (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs to be tagged for POV and refimprove, WP:ATD#Tagging then see if anything happens. Deletion at this stage seems a bit abruptTigerboy1966 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? what is USCS? How is this unlike being a participant in pinky wrestling? Drmies (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 03:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage on Riggins here [38] [39] [40]. USCS described as a popular series in this article. It's obviouly not Formula 1, but it's not pinky wrestling either. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful. At least those links look more reliable than what the article has to offer right now--but I cannot easily see that Race Week Illustrated would count as a reliable source. Can you confirm that, maybe with a question on the reliable sources noticeboard, or some opinion from the relevant WikiProject? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage on Riggins here.^[1]^[2]^[3] If you're concerned about what the United Speed Contest Sanction is, then research it and figure it out for yourself. It's been around for years, is sponsored by some of the top open wheel dirt racing manufactures, and travels all up and down the East coast. It's a legitimate touring series. Your personal ignorance on a subject/series shouldn't constitute immediate deletion. Alexiariggins (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you were unable to put that in a nice way. Maybe you should follow your own cue and write that article. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just straight forward. There doesn't have to be an article on the United Speed Contest Sanction in Wikipedia for the series to be legitimized. Alexiariggins (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are many arguments for a delete. The references in the article need to be improved -currently, notability is not asserted. There's not one wikilink in the article to another driver, team, event or the sport in general. This doesn't prove a lack of notability, but it does suggest it. The driver won a lot of titles - but they're in a non-notable karting series - he's a rookie in this series. Still, Tigerboy1966 persuades me somewhat re tagging. The article's not too bad for npov - what tags, if any, would be applied? ((refimprove)), I assume? I'd rather give this a little time to see if it can meet the standards comprehensively - it's not a clear delete re notability. Sorry for being so unhelpfully vague. Colon el Tom 10:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm all for as many motorsports series and their drivers being included as possible, but here...well, let's look at the facts. In general, when it comes to sports in Wikipedia, somebody who has competed at the highest level of their sport in their country is considered to be notable. Unfortunatly the USCS isn't the highest level of sprint car racing in the United States - that would be the World of Outlaws. Now, not having competed at the highest level doesn't automatically make you not notable - depending on what you've done at the lower levels of the sport. For motorsport, winning a championship in a lower series is notable - but the only championships here are in very low-level series, local series and go-karts. A national World Karting Association championship or three sounds good - but what series? A couple of Manufacturers' Cup championships might tip him over the edge, but the article doesn't say, and a Google for '"Eric Riggins" "World Karting Association" -wiki' turns up a grand total of 8 hits; I'd suspect it's the Speedway Pavement series the championships were run in, which is the racing equivilant of winning the summer baseball league at your local community park. I started out writing this as "weak delete", but now I've swung to a firm "delete" - without prejudice of recreation, of course, should he move up to WoO level and start winning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 13 October 2011

(UTC)

Comment In response to the USCS not being the highest level of sprint car racing in the US, you're correct. However, he competes with a 360 cubic inch motor, not a 410, which is the motor run in WoO. 360's are a class all their own. There are several 360 touring series in the US, but USCS is arguably the largest 360 touring series in the southeast. That said, as stated in the article, He was Rookie of the Year in 2010, and has won a couple races so far in 2011. Whether these things void his notability in the sport of 360 sprint cars or not...I'm not sure. Which, I suppose is why we're having this discussion. In regards to your question about WKA national championships, there were two. Each came from the World Karting Association's Speedway Dirt Series which was always widely recognized as their largest national series in terms of kart counts and entries in the karting community (until the past few years, when kart counts began to drop drastically due to economy and mishandling of the series). Only the best of the best in dirt oval karting hold Speedway Dirt national championships. This can be verified by looking thru the season archives in the WKA's Online Awards Room. While the WKA does a stellar job of keeping record of past national championships, they do an extremely poor job of preserving WKA state championships, Grand National wins, and Daytona wins...all of which are also considered crown jewels in the sport. He has the jackets, rings, eagles, and cups to back up his dominance as a Jr. driver in dirt oval go karting, but they're almost impossible to cite. Hence m1any of the specific championships/wins being excluded from the karting portion of the article. As I've already stated, I'm the articles author. I'm new to article writing/editing on wikipedia, and of course my wish is to adhere to the guidelines uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia. I'm working to improve it by adding additional information, and better citations. If this article violates any of those guidelines, I'll be the first to move to remove it. But as of right now, it seems like one giant grey area. Alexiariggins (talk) 17:46, 14 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Press releases are not independent reliable sources. Awards are minor, league is minor. Lacks the appropriate coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Core issue is that the series not not appear to be notable as per our guidelines. Sources and media coverage that discussed the series itself (and that were not press releases) would go a long way to showing the series to be notable. Once there, an article on Eric Riggins Jr., if properly sourced, would be a simple exercise - an award-winning driver in a notable series. But first things first. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been two weeks to do something to the article to make claims to notability based on actual independent reliable sources. I don't think the sources mentioned in this AfD are sufficiently reliable to confer notability on the subject anyway. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 22 October 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 withdrawn by me. (non-administration closure)) --Gh87 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George and Mildred (film)[edit]

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

Previously PRODded but was contested with improper reasoning, such as: "fairly obviously notable". ~~The article has a lot of problems, despite its status as a film of the British series George and Mildred: no citations, no real perspectives, and no notability established as the film itself.~~ Merging into the article of the series is possible, but that should be after the AfD will have been closed: doing so during the AfD span is against policy. If deleted and then re-created with same content without proper reasoning, that would become a subject to ((db-g4)). Even the cast list, even if it helps "pass" the WP:NFILM, won't help the article stand on its own. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Now I have seen a lot of improvements, such as the newer "Reception" section. Therefore, the film is well-known as the critically-panned adaptation of sitcom George and Mildred, and its status is well-covered enough. However, there should be legitimate arguments and votes to motivate me into withdrawing; unfortunately, I won't do it right now at the current state of AfD and the nominated article, but at least the room for improvement is packing up densely. --Gh87 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The attempts of a struggling UK film industry during 1971-80 to salvage its position by porting TV sitcoms is itself notable (see Sarah Street's "British national cinema", Routledge, 2008, ISBN 0415384214, pages 110-112); "George and Mildred" is one of the bookends (and low-points) of that phenomenon. It also continues to be referenced in that context and in itself: see for example this 2006 article and this 2010 article, both from The Guardian. Not positive references, but notability does not need to be complimentary. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a substantial (if often-reviled) film, and while there are fewer reviews easily found on-web than one might have expected, some coverage is out there. Here's an article from Bright Lights Film Journal that describes it as "one of the worst films ever made in Britain. . . . so strikingly bad, it seems to have been assembled with a genuine contempt for its audience."[41] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a spin off of a very popular sitcom, it is certainly notable. It would have undoubtedly received plenty of coverage on its release - we can't judge notability of films from this era based on a Google search.--Michig (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no valid rationale for deletion provided. The nominator apparently did not follow WP:BEFORE, but rather purely based his criticism on the state of the article at the time. His comment that he won't withdraw his nomination until the article has improved more suggests that he is trying to use this AFD purely to force changes to the article, not because he actually has a good reason for its deletion, and it's not even clear that he ever even thought it should be deleted. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 15 October 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 00:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Busking for a Beatdown[edit]

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

Article has been deproded by the original author without addressing the underlying concern. Appears to fail WP:NFILMS. I am unable to locate any significant reliable source coverage to establish notability for this newly released film. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the article on the director (speedied A7 under the title Kc Okolo):
- Kenechi Okolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both A 9 minute short film. Nothing special about it. Unable to find reliable sources about him or the film. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kenechi Okolo as well - I originated this AfD, and also agree with the addition of Kenechi Okolo to be deleted for the same reasons. I had originally speedied it, but the speedy was contested. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently this AfD had never been logged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If there were additional sources, showing increased coverage, then this might go differently. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Dodgeball[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources in the article because there are no independent sources about the show. ~T P W 11:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is poor, sources definitely exist. "Extreme Dodgeball" gets 310 GNews results, including significant coverage from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Beaver County Times - and that's just from the first page! Definitely meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs references urgently but seems to be a good article. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Alzarian16 which show the article can meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 20 October 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. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The School Safety And Law Enforcement Improvement Act[edit]

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

Article is about proposed US legislation that was never enacted into law. This indicates it never even made it to a vote. Whpq (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable failed legislation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a repository of inconsequential failed law proposals. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. By analogy to criterion 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) on grounds that the Congress of the United States of America "is so historically significant that any of [its Bills] may be considered notable". I am not suggesting that that policy is directly applicable, rather that it explains my thinking on this, which may be a completely new departure. James500 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Also I think that bits of this Bill might have been included in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010. James500 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well that is a novel (it had to be said) take on the notability of failed legislation. I understand you are drawing an analogy, but when discussing books, the expectation is that any of the works of an historicalyl significant author would be the subject of (academic) study and thhus have coverage in reliable sources, perhaps not immediately accessible to the average Wikipedia editor. This is not the case with proposed US legislation. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have striken my remarks. I don't know enough about proposed US legislation to argue. James500 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not the repository etc. Laws passed by Congress are likely notable, but not every single bill — back in the early 1970s, the House of Representatives originated well over ten thousand bills in a single two-year period, and the Senate a few thousand more. There's not possibly time (on the part of reliable sources or on the part of Wikipedia editors) to cover all of them. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The number of Bills is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not paper. James500 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In general, I do not think that the test should be whether the legislation was passed, or even received a vote. As it stands here, I think the question is what type of media coverage the bill received, and whether that is enough to justify an article (as opposed to merging it into one of the articles about the shooting it was in response to, which, if done, would not require the same level of detail). Savidan 02:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree. I did do a cursory search prior to nomination and found nothing to indicate standalone notability or enough substance that a merge to the incident was justified. I may have missed something as there are all sorts of proposed legislation with similar names. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 19 October 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 List of minor DC Comics characters. Through the sources prove that the characters are in existence, they do not prove if the characters are notable enough to have their own article. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker (DC Comics)‎‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thinker (DC Comics)

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

Contested PROD. There is no evidence that the fictional villains with the Thinker name, individually or in group, meet the general notability guideline because there is no signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. As it is, any article about them can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work as they do not have reception or significance in reliable sources, so the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia. All that can be added beyond plot are cameo appearances in other media, which does not represent notabilty, and it is in line with an indiscriminate collection of information. A search engine test only shows tertiary an primary sources with trivial mentions about some of the characters with that name, but no secondary sources that makes analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional characters by themselves. The article itself is only referenced with four primary sources, so it doesn't show how this topic is appropriate for a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: T. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferably merge to List of minor DC Comics characters; but I would wish not to delete this article: so Keep. Arussom (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Character has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Super Villians (p.343). There's also a color plate of character.SPNic (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Character is also in 500 Comic Book Villians by Mike Conroy (Barron's/Chrysalis, p. 118)SPNic (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being listed in these two books, among hundred of other characters means, for me, that there are sources that prove the character exists, not that the character meets the notability guideline. I believe the article should be merged either to List of DC Comics characters: T or List of minor DC Comics characters. Maddox (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 October 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} 16:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Lutz[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Never played, coached or managed at the major league level, meaning he fails WP:BASE/N. Scouts are not inherently notable and his case is especially weak as he did not receive any notable awards. The "Barney Lutz Memorial Award" is very minor, as there are exactly zero hits on Google News Archive and only three on regular Google (and they all are the prose found in the Lutz Wikipedia article). When you search "Barney Lutz Award," only four hits come up. It is just a WP:Run of the mill in-company piece of recognition, like an Employee of the Month award. Alex (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The award may have four hits on google, but there are also at least three writeups of the award on The Sporting News. They covered the establishment of the award on October 14, 1967 p.15, covered it again on October 5, 1968, once more on November 14, 1970, all in several paragraphs and not passing mentions, including a photo provided with he winner being presented the award in the 1970 article. Neutral on the article at this time but leaning toward keep if I find a few more references Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. not everyone has an award named after him... has some solid references.. and a fairly accomplished career. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has some hits on Google Books. Combined with an award named after him, maybe there are sufficient offline sources about him.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough to pass GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Muboshgu.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 14 October 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. Needs work but I'll believe the arguments that the notability is here. Tone 22:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadia Imam[edit]

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

Not notable. The only verifiable source is one interview in a magazine of doubtful significance. A PROD was contested with the edit summary "contest prod - subject appears to be a notable actress (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Sadia+Imam%22&cf=all for example) - flag article issues, will properly source ASAP". However, the google link given provides all of 11 hits, most of which make only incidental passing mentions of Sadia Imam, and none of them constitutes substantial coverage. The editor who contested the PROD never came back to "properly source", and my attempts to do so have failed to turn up anything suitable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this interview (also here), she won a Lux Best Actress Award, which is Pakistan's Oscar/Emmy. (This may be the same award or a different one?) That's a clear WP:ENTERTAINER pass. We should also consider systemic bias issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the user above. The list of telefilms in which she has played a role also suggests notability. Mar4d (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To politely disagree with the nominator, and while Mag4You does not seem reliable (though I do not believe they invented their interview of the actress), Daily Times, Dawn Media, and The Nation are not of "doubtful" reliability, and though their format is not exactly Western, we would certainly expect that The Pakistani would be a reasonable souce for at least verifying acting information about a Pakistani actress. Notable to Pakistan should be notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 21 October 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. v/r - T P 01:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Bacoor[edit]

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

A shopping mall in Philippines that fails WP:N. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as internet search turned up directory type listings and websites of shops within the mall. It was De-PRODed in 2008 with the claims that it was large. Michaela den (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Michaela den (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@nom, a google search for exact words "SM City Bacoor" produces 165,000 results, are you telling the community that you've checked them ALL and found none, or that you checked a few and then came to the conclusion there were none and nominated this for deletion based on your incomplete search? I find the former hard to believe and I find the latter disingenuous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy for you to prove me wrong. If independent reliable soures can be found please let the AfD know and add them to the article.--Michaela den (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom and WP:NOT DIRECTORY. All other SM Supermalls except the flagship ones should be deleted as well.Rxlxm (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we have a uniform policy on notability of shopping centers otherwise the US-bias, where nearly any shopping mall will have easily findable sufficient coverage in local media to establish notability quickly, whereas such notability-establishing sources no doubt exist for these places as well, it's just that they haven't been found (and are less likely to be easily found). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a uniform policy on shopping centers, it's found at WP:GNG. I think you mean English language-bias and developed world-bias, rather than US-bias, but that's not a card you can play in AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Hoyle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you too have checked the 165,000 references?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article needs a lot of work, though, but I dunno the notability criteria for shopping malls, but if SM Mall of Asia exists, so should this one. –H T D 14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: simply stating that it has lots of internet hits, per WP:GNUM, and there are other articles, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, does not provide an argument on how it passes the notability test, per WP:N, to decide whether a topic should be a standalone article. If there are no independent reliable soures on the topic, then it should not have a separate article.--Michaela den (talk) 09:13, 19 October 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. Davewild (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaal Zulfiqar[edit]

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

Not notable. The only sources are an interview in an online magazine of doubtful significance, and an article which essentially tells us that he was planning to move to India. He seems to have had a very little notice from one appearance in one film. A PROD was contested with the edit summary"contest prod - appears to be a notable actor (see: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Mikaal+Zulfikar%22&cf=all". However, none of the 24 hits given by that google link constitutes substantial coverage, and most of them make only passing mention. About the most significant news he seems to have been in that an Indian film he was in was banned in Pakistan when it was found that he was from Pakistan. The article has been tagged for notability and references since September 2009, but in that time not a single reference has been added. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:Notability.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this guy not notable? He's acted in an Indian Bollywood film and besides, he's appeared in many uFone commercials on television. Mar4d (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete even if the above were true he still fails WP:ENT LibStar (talk) 11:36, 18 October 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry (software)[edit]

Not clear how this open source software project meets notability guidelines. Provided references dont mention the project (one reference is to a how-to post in a linux forum and the other to a technical description of the protocol this software is based around), nothing to indicate its notability. RadioFan (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RadioFan, however I cannot find any information on syncing a Blackberry with a GNU/Linux (or similar) operating system without requiring Barry libraries or other Barry software components. I can find many external pages describing how to use Barry (and I am happy to add them if you think it will help), but nothing definitively saying "there is no other software that can do this" (despite it seemingly being the case), which I assume is the sort of thing you are saying we would ideally reference? Boltronics (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability here isn't determined by how unique something is but rather whether it meets notability guidelines. The specific problem here is a lack of reliable sources that cover this software in any depth. I can find a number of forum posts that mention it but those dont meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. If you had some newspaper or magazine articles (maybe in Linux Magazine or Linux Journal) that would help. Unfortunately the word "Barry" is very common making searching for sources here challenging.--RadioFan (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. I've got a Linux Journal subscription actually, and since they've gone digital I've got all the old issues. I'll try to find time tomorrow to see if I can dig something up. --Boltronics (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I grepped through my 1.3Gb PDF/epub collection of Linux Journal - every issue since 132 (where 210 is the latest). Was a bit time consuming since Paul Barry is the name of one of the editors. My searches didn't turn up anything though - even for "blackberry" (case insensitive) - however a lot of the text in those PDFs are not in an encoding that can be found by grep, so would need to look at them closer to be sure. Not easy. I might need to have a play with pdftk to see if that can make life easier, but I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow night for a week. Boltronics (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to move this article under your user area so that you may bring it up to notability standards without fear of it being removed. Once there are sufficient reliable sources in there, it could be moved back. Does that work for you?--RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Would appreciate that. Boltronics (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 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 Windows Media Player. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Media Player 12[edit]

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

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

An article fork of Windows Media Player. (It has not always been so, but now it is.) I advise redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this has not always been a fork then surely the solution is to revert to a version that is not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. It never had the potential to remain a standalone article. It was bound to happen. People just hoped that the situation would change and the article would gain notability and the potential to grow. (See Talk:Windows Media Player#Merger proposal: Windows Media Player 11 and Windows Media Player 12.) It did not go as they expected. Fleet Command (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have two separate articles is confusing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article is a little too small. Unless someone can do work on it they should delete it. Try merging it with Windows Media Player. It may have the ability to be a standalone article but I don't think so.Madeincat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Windows Media Player. Neutrality^talk 00:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Already the article Windows Media Player is too huge and does not make sense adding large sections to this page on each growing version of the software. This page has enough details to be kept as a separate article. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That reason has hardly anything to do with this nomination: This article is a fork; everything in this article is already in Windows Media Player. And if you are so worried for the size of Windows Media Player article, it is already full of stuff that violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, such as original researches, lists of indiscriminate items, etc. Delete them and reduce size; I will not contest you, thought the article is hardly 42 kilobytes (43,512 bytes). (It is not even large.) Fleet Command (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verifiable information to Windows Media Player. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE WITH Windows Media Player. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:25, 17 October 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. v/r - T P 00:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green party leaders in Canada[edit]

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

Separate pages do not exist listing all of the provincial NDP, Conservative or Liberal leaders in Canada. Therefore this article is not necessary. Aaaccc (talk), 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Clearly encyclopedic list. This is not TV show cruft, these are provincial party leaders. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST is a lousy rationale for deletion of this useful set of in-links. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aaaccc has not given a logical, policy based reason to delete this list. If this list is kept and similar lists are created for Canada's other political parties, and parties of other countries as well, this will be an improvement of the encyclopedia. Carrite is correct about the rationale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other political parties have the same information as part of their article not as a separate article because it is not necessary. Aaaccc (talk), 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete and/or redirect. This information doesn't require a separate page, it can be included in Green Party of Canada#Provincial & territorial parties. 117Avenue (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge and redirect to Green Party of Canada#Provincial & territorial parties. It's a good list, it just doesn't require a separate article, and merging it will enhance the Green Party of Canada article. PK T(alk) 14:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The article title suggests that all historical leaders of the party since its founding are to be included, regardless of whether they meet our notability guidelines as individuals, yet it only contains the current leaders. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the deletion rationale, let's make pages for those bigger parties, shall we? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST does not exist for a reason. Encyclopedias are expanded by the creation of 'new' articles. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of leaders of the Green Party of Canada. We don't want none of dem furrign Green Party honchos who just happen to be in Canada at some point. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that? That title implies a completely different topic. Also, that page already exists. Could you please also clarify that second sentence, you don't want some Canadian political party bosses for...? I am really confused by your comment, perhaps you don't understand the article that is up for discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Clearly notable information. Less important to me where it is kept, than that it be retained.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 15 October 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 - there were no arguments in opposition to deletion, the sources do not appear to be reliable, and there is no evidence the band is notable per WP:BAND. This has been listed on AfD for 2 weeks; it's time to move on. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agro (band)[edit]

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

Article was deproded with a request for discussion of the sources. It still appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. The 3 current sources in the article do not appear to be significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the editor who added the references to the article I would like to record my abstention from expressing an opinion. The sources are too far out of my areas of knowledge for me to be able to give a sensible opinion about their reliability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SA Guitars, Keys & Sound Magazine is the only one of the sources that looks reliable but it is just the band talking about themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One minute it is a band, the next it is one person. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Elam, Jack. "DOBMEIER, RIGGINS, AND TURPEN SCORE WINS FOR J&J".
^ Beck, Rhonda (September 29, 2011). "USCS returns to Carolina Speedway - Youth rules during USCS duels at Carolina Speedway Read more:". Gaston Gazette. Retrieved 6 October 2011.
^ Beck, Rhonda (October 4, 2011). "Youth rules during USCS duels at Carolina Speedway". Gaston Gazette. Retrieved 6 October 2011.