< 16 October	18 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 redirect to Ashanti discography#DVDs. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti: The Making of a Star[edit]

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

The only content in this article is the extensive track listing and an infobox. After a web search I found only an amazon sale page. No reviews, no sales/chart info. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 22:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that is the only notabilty I would suggest merging it into the artiste's article rather than deleting it. Stephen! ^Coming... 07:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a good option, but the article "Beyoncé Karaoke Hits, Vol. I" is similar to this article, that was eliminated by discussion. Other albums of singer Beyoncé was eliminated so too, but can be a solution. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Lucas Brígido ^Msg 16:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not enough information or chart info. Novice7 (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashanti_discography#DVDs. I can't find anything in searches to satisfy GNG or NALBUM. Most hits are advertisements. No review on Rotten Tomatoes. Non-notable for a stand-alone article.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashanti_discography#DVDs, as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:05, 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 keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Donnelly[edit]

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

Contested Prod - Not notable as a singer or actor. Larkspurs (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, I agree a minor regional celebrity but well above the bar of notability. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT paper - we have fairly liberal standards for inclusion. Google news returns multiple hits, subject is on TV multiple times a year and in multiple charity spots, and by comparison, we have articles for most reality tv show contestants, Donnelly regionally is far more notable than most reality tv show contestants nationally. -- Tawker (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably GNews returns one hit for me; there is another Mark Donnelly, a playwright, who generates other hits. Every hit I get about this guy is a passing reference to his singing O Canada at hockey games; other than that he has apparently no history whatsoever. This seems too small a foundation on which to erect a biography. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles in the Vancouver Sun[1][2], Toronto Star[3], an editorial (no less) in the Vancouver Province[4], his own entry on the Canucks site[5], and appearances on TV[6] all indicate that we should stand on guard for he. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clarityfiend has convinced me. Yes, he just sings O Canada...at hockey games...in Canada! The Steve 09:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient coverage to establish notability based on the coverage presented above. It would appear that Canadians think singing the national anthem at hockey games is notable, as odd as thay may seem to the rest of the world, cf. Roger Doucet. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An uncharacteristic quirk, I must admit, from an otherwise overtly non-nationalistic people, but at least he's not Roseanne Barr. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 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 keep. Cleanup and and addtional sourcing appears to have addressed the deletion concerns. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in American television[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)

Violation of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL filled with unsourced and speculated informations. An article of a total mess. Definately not compatible with Wikipedia's mission of verifiability. Also we, at Wikipedia, aren't fortunetellers and we do not predict the future. Farine (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Delete per nom. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it. We can find sources for this info. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a question of finding a source for it my friend. It's a question that such article should had never been created in the first place, because its creation does not follow the principles of Wikipedia.

Farine (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. Just because it's future information doesn't mean it can't be created. Try listing 2012 Summer Olympics for deletion and see how far you get. This article, while horrifically undersourced, is something that will happen. It needs cleaning up, not deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not compare oranges and apples here. The 2012 Summer Olympics will happen. The article 2012 in American television in itself will happen, but not necessarily the shows that are listed on it and which make up its entire content. All of the shows announcements on this page are subject to cancellation at any time until the dates actually happens. For example, an announcement can come up in the mean time saying that the return of the Ricki Lake Show that is currently scheduled for September 2012 has been postponed or cancelled. That's why we avoid these types of pages and edits as much as possible because they are not reliable. I would suggest that you take a look at the WP:CRYSTALBALL guideline. Thank you. Farine (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should re-read WP:CRYSTAL too. The opening line from point 1 states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Notable. Check almost certain to take place. Double check. Lugnuts (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that we keep track of the votes here, that makes 2 votes in favor of to keep (68.44.179.54 and Lugnuts) and 2 votes in favor of to delete (Farine and ClaretAsh) Farine (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. See also WP:NOTAVOTE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—This article should be userfied by the primary editor(s). It's only a couple of months away. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts raises a good point, but I think the article should be deleted unless we can find more sources that prove that these events are almost certain to take place (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). Chris (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the 2012 US TV will occur unless TV ends in America because of some apocalypse, why not just move this to the Article Incubator for the next two months? 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL Stuartyeates (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So which bit of CRYSTAL applies? Have you actually read the policy you're citing? Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 15 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, Courcelles 21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To say this violates WP:CRYSTALBALL is to say that there is nothing verifiably scheduled in American television for the year 2012. Which is so incorrect as to be absurd to assert. First, the American TV season lasts from fall of one year to spring of the next. So everything that has not yet been canceled that has been picked up for a full season qualifies as verifiably scheduled for 2012. Yes, a show could get canceled in the meantime, but that would simply be a change in what is verifiably scheduled to occur, that does not mean that nothing is currently verifiably scheduled to occur. Even apart from the extension of the current TV season into next year, there are also many verifiable examples of television series scheduled to return in 2012, or that have been renewed for 2012, had anyone !voting "delete" actually bothered to research it: Mad Men, Game of Thrones, The Simpsons, American Dad, How I Met Your Mother... We do not delete what is verifiable just because it isn't verified within the article at present, nor do we delete entire articles just because portions might be flawed. I see this kind of crap in AFD after AFD. Sometimes it's from a good faith misunderstanding of guidelines, as I'm going to attribute to Farine here, but often it strikes me as laziness, a mere WP:VAGUEWAVE in service of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Too many deletion noms and !voters are not following WP:BEFORE, they are not following WP:PRESERVE, and they are not following WP:ATD. And it all creates wasted effort in these AFDs, time that could be better spent improving articles that are improvable, such as this one. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point the entire article smacks of crystal balling, even the few verified events (which are always subject to change). There will be no harm creating this again in December (when there will be actual cites and "look-ahead" articles) and perhaps a user incubation is in order for the larger list portions so they don't have to be redone later. But for now we cannot use it in its current form, and in some form, the TV project has to create guidelines on timing when a yearly schedule or events article should be created; it's embarrassing to me and the hard-working part of our project when articles like 2012–13 United States network television schedule (sucessful AfD) are created when nothing is known at all and tenuous sourcing is used. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL. There's plenty of information already in the article that deletion is not a viable option. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inexplicably, User:Crw21 removed my comments from a week ago (see here. Copying again as I wrote it then:

Keep but get rid of the "continuing shows" section. There are events that are likely to happen in American television in 2012, but there is no guarantee that any of these shows will continue into next year. It would need to be sourced that it has been renewed for a full season or enough episodes that take it into next year; easier yet just add them back in when an episode of the show actually airs in 2012. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from userfying, is there any way this article could be put on ice until we reach 2012? Claret Ash 12:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point? It's not OK at 23:59:59 on 31st December, and then 1 second later, it is? Lugnuts (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep per WP:HEY. I added 24 reliable sources so the nominator's claim of "unsourced and speculated informations" is no longer true. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the date is fast approaching, will not fall under WP:CRYSTAL after January comes around, now has reliable sources, no reason to delete. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you have sources that say the shows will continue next year, so be it. If not, just remove them from the list. The media gives ample coverage to the next seasons television shows, as others have demonstrated, finding coverage of certain shows that are renewed for next year, and who is going to be quitting a popular show, etc. Dream Focus 21:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A page such as this is justified as soon as there is reliable information to put in it, as there now is. The relevant policy is NOT TV GUIDE -- thee's no point publishing a TV guide before the programs are available, but we're an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many, if not most shows, are already contracted, scheduled, and written; some are even being filmed for early 2012 as of late October 2011. The reality is that today, TV shows take many months to produce, write, direct, and film; and they are justified by their huge budgets in a weird, only-in-Hollywood circular reasoning ("You can't cancel Two and a Half Men, we've already dumped millions of dollars into it!"). It's not like the halcyon days of the 1950s, when TV shows were written and filmed in a week's time. The vast majority of TV shows are renewed each year. The article has been fixed per WP:HEY, so claims of crystal are false; if anything, snow is falling now. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 25 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} 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sylvester (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Not a notable sportscaster. Larkspurs (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because he just got in the booth 20 days ago. Sourced as a basic stub; that's all we need for now until he begins to establish further notability. Nate • (chatter) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Mrschimpf's commentary. In addition, this user believes that the article meets all five points for determining notability in WP:GNG. I do have a vested interest in this article, as it is the second one, I think, that I created. Having said that, It most certainly could be improved, but that will doubtless come in time, as the subject of this article gains notoriety. Joefridayquaker (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)joefridayquaker 2:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sabres Hockey Network. Despite Mrschimpf's ironic use of WP:TOOSOON, I am not finding non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Given that the only thing the article says about him is that he is the alternate PBP announcer for the Sabres, there is no reason for a separate article from that of the Sabres' broadcast network. Reso lute 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I was able to find and add several additional articles from reliable third-party sources. The subject now easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. (Bonus: I also found this "Buffalo Foodies" interview that doesn't fit into the article but may be of interest to some following this discussion.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 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 redirect to Toddler. No evidence of notability. Reverted to redirect. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddle[edit]

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

This page has no information about this band. If you do a Google search, there is only about 5 or 6 results for this band. I don't even think this band is famous around Japan. There are no reliable sources on the page. Bruv takesover 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect - This was a valid redirect to Toddler before it was converted to a stub about a non-notable band. Neelix (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The band is nowhere near notable enough for Wikipedia; the redirect to toddler was useful, so we should keep that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to toddler Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Reinstate the redirect to Toddler, as this band appears totally non-notable. --DAJF (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to toddler - No evidence of notability for the band and this is the primary use and gets plenty of hits. In the event that the band becomes notable I would prefer its page to be titled Toddle (band). Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:19, 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 Speedy Deleted A7 and G11 by Admin DGG. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CupOfTeam[edit]

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

Delete — Subject does not meet notability criteria; in particular WP:ENT (note that YouTube cannot be used to verify claims of notability). — Fly by Night (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy delete as non-notable person/web-content. YouTube users are not notable just based on the number of hits they have on a video. They need to meet the WP:GNG, which this group does not do. None of the sources are reliable (except for the BBC, which has no mention of them). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 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 redirect to Street hockey. and merge any relevant content. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosom hockey[edit]

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

Not a notable sport. Larkspurs (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found the following sources - 1, 2 & 3 - but my French is not good enough to tell if they are relevant, reliable and establish notability. I'd like the opinion of someone who can translate these before I make a decision. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to ~~floor hockey~~ Street hockey, of which it appears to be a minor variant. I didn't see any more information in this article than appears in the summary given there. There appears to be some sort of league in Quebec, and the style seems to take its name from a particular manufacturer, but I didn't see enough material to base much of a separate article on. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Street hockey. "Cosom hockey" is absolutely notable in Quebec, but is merely the local name for "street and ball hockey". Floor hockey is not appropriate because the equipment is quite different. --Valmi ✒ 08:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, floor hockey is normally played with rounded sticks as in field hockey, whereas street and ball (and cosom) hockey sticks normally have a blade quite like ice hockey sticks. --Valmi ✒ 19:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the above comments, it seems sensible to merge with street hockey. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:35, 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. Consensus among experienced Wikipedians is that this is an attempt at advocacy for something that is not, in our terms, notable. Sandstein 18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Movement Assembly[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)

Not seeing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The long list of references is composed nearly exclusively of primary sources or non-RS sources that do not attest notability; of the three reliable secondary sources, two (Michigan Citizen and The Guardian) don't discuss the topic, instead covering individual meetings or projects; the Guardian mention, like the Affinities mention, is also trivial –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few book hits and no news hits, and of the few references I checked, none of them claim to be a PMA. This appears to be a neologism which hasn't caught on (yet). Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changes have been made to the article content and references such that there are now a greater number of book and news references. Septima2011 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Septima2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Two of the three books are not independent sources (ie. the authors are affiliated, they use the term "we"), and the other references continue to be trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to concerns re:

References cover individual meetings or projects

As demonstrated in the change in the first paragraph, “Peoples Movement Assemblies are community meetings have been used across the United States”. These meetings (or assemblies) have connections and common underlying approaches but are built upon issues connected to specific geographic areas or themes. While individual Peoples Movement Assemblies have a common framework, they are also unique. As such, examining the individual assemblies provides an opportunity to understand specific examples of the assembly in action.

The following coverage, which focuses on specific assemblies, offers significant contribution to an understanding of Peoples Movement Assemblies as a whole through illustrating specific examples of how they are enacted. (1) The Michigan Citizen, April 17 2011, Patrick Geans, "The People's Movement: Community response to Detroit Works Project", retrieved October 11 2011 from http://michigancitizen.com/the-peoples-movement-community-response-to-detroit-works-project-p9708-1.htm (http://michigancitizen.com/the-peoples-movement-community-response-to-detroit-works-project-p9708-1.htm) This Michigan Citizen article outlines a specific Peoples Movement Assembly. It provides insight into the way in which a Peoples Movement Assembly is being used through focusing on the specific issues around discussed at the assembly and the approach that is being used through the Peoples Movement Assembly.

(4) Inter Press Service News Agency, January 28 2009, M Cardinale, "Evictions High on Atlanta Agenda", retrieved October 19 2011 from http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40950

This article outlines a specific Peoples Movement Assembly. It specifically describes the ways in which Peoples Movement Assemblies fit into other political actions. In doing so, this article provides concrete examples, and, in doing so, deeper understanding of the use of the Peoples Movement Assembly.

Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources

The following coverage in reliable secondary sources focuses entirely on a Peoples Movement Assembly and/or the Peoples Movement Assembly process.

(1) The Michigan Citizen, April 17 2011, Patrick Geans, "The People's Movement: Community response to Detroit Works Project", retrieved October 11 2011 from http://michigancitizen.com/the-peoples-movement-community-response-to-detroit-works-project-p9708-1.htm

See explanation above regarding coverage of a specific Peoples Movement Assembly in this article.

The Michigan Citizen has been published every Sunday on a weekly basis since November of 1978 (http://michigancitizen.com/index86.htm). It can be purchased at 343 locations (http://michigancitizen.com/index107.htm).

(4) Inter Press Service News Agency, January 28 2009, M Cardinale, "Evictions High on Atlanta Agenda", retrieved October 19 2011 from http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40950

See explanation above regarding coverage of a specific Peoples Movement Assembly in this article.

Inter Press Service News Agency has been operating since 1964 (http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-mission/). It has regional centers in Latin America, African, Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America and headquarters in Rome (http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-history/). “. Stories produced by the IPS News Service and Columnist Service are reproduced by more than 5,000 print and online media all over the world, in 138 countries. In addition, IPS radio news is sent directly to over 2,000 radio stations, networks and individual listeners.” (http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-audiences/). IPS-managed web sites collectively generate over 50 million page views per month

(13) ZNet, July 8 2007, J. Rebick, "U.S. Social Forum: The view from Canada", http://www.zcommunications.org/u-s-social-forum-the-view-from-canada-by-judy-rebick

This article is authored by Judy Rebick, who is a Canadian journalist. She was the publisher of rabble.ca from 2001-2005. She was a regular commentator on CBC TV's Sunday Report and CBC Radio. She was the co-host of a prime time debate show called Face Off on CBC Newsworld from 1994–1998. She was also a columnist with Elm Street Magazine, London Free Press, and on CBC Online. (Wikipedia_

(15) The Richmond Register has been a local news source since 1917.

(23) Michigan Messenger is published by The American Independent News Network From the launch of our first site in July 2006 through June 2011, AINN has tallied:

39.7 million unique visitors on sites.
1,728 direct citations of our reporters in newspapers and periodicals.
930 appearances by our reporters on TV and radio.
All told, our reporters generated over 960.4 million impressions on TV, radio, and newspapers. (http://michiganmessenger.com/about)

(29) A very well known newspaper, The Guardian was founded in 1821 and by March 2001 GU had over 2.4 million unique users, making it the most popular UK newspaper website. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gnm-archive/2002/jun/06/1) Septima2011 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your vote as you may not vote more than once. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was not aware of that limitation.

Septima2011 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a distinct term. Apparently any group wishing to use the term may do so. Almost all the references are just to specific meetings of various sorts. The only reference I would consider acceptable is the Guardian, and it uses the term only with respect to one particular group, in the last paragraph. The books seem to be not 3rd party, and the general tone of the Wikipedia article seems to be advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to have significantly more references than many other facilitation or strategy technique articles already on Wikipedia such as "Unconference" , "Open Space meeting" , "Dotmocracy" "Future Search Conference" etc... I think the methodology of the Peoples Movement Assembly needs to be further explained, but the entire article should certainly not be deleted! It seems that recent changes made today have started to shift the tone of the article away from advocacy. Septima2011 could you add more content related to the methodology of Peoples Movement Assemblies?COCoFacilitation (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — COCoFacilitation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No links to any other articles on Wikipedia, and the text reads like a bad promotional speech.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a principal organizer and facilitator of the Peoples Movement Assembly process in the US, I am pleased to see this article up on Wikipedia. I disagree that this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

As outlined in the content of this article, the Peoples Movement Assembly process and methodology has been used by hundreds of groups nationally and internationally.
While the content of the article focuses on contributions of the Peoples Movement Assembly process, I disagree that it can be labeled as advocacy. Rather, I believe that the author is seeking to describe the basic nature of the process and where and how it has been used. The description in this article matches that of my experience being involved in many Peoples Movement Assemblies over the past four years.
I am concerned with the speed at which this article has been proposed for deletion. I would encourage editors to propose suggestions or constructive criticism such that other editors could contribute to the content in the spirit of Wikipedia articles. Because Peoples Movement Assemblies are specifically facilitated by communities that have been marginalized from traditional academia, it is going to get less coverage in academic, as well as mainstream media, sources. This factor does not make it less credible, and indeed strengthens the argument to include political actions and methodologies like the assembly process on an open source format like Wikipedia.
Regarding the links to other articles on Wikipedia, the primary link would be 2003 Global Day of Action, a political action which resulted from a decision made by thousands of people at the first Social Movement Assemblies at the World Social Forum in 2003, which was created in direct relationship to the World Economic Forum. While the World Social Forum and 2005 and 2007 Global Days of Actin can be found on Wikipedia. The article for the 2003 Global Day of Action has not yet been created. You will also find reference to Peoples Movement Assembly on the United States Social Forum Wikipedia page.

StephGuilloud (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — StephGuilloud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In response to above comments regarding secondary sources: As documented widely (Van Dijk, TA, 1992)(Gitlin, T., 2003)(Barker, M., 2008), including on Wikipedia (Propaganda model)(Agenda-setting theory), certain issues are more likely to receive mainstream media attention, while others are not. The likelihood of not receiving mainstream coverage is often related to marginalization. This is demonstrated through the coverage of a wide spread of issues, from the Missing White Women Syndrome, to social movements (see Gitlin, 2003; Barker, 2007).

This is one of the reasons that alternative media exists, whereby, as outlined in the Wikipedia article about Alternative Media, the aim is often “to challenge existing powers and allow for the creation of new, alternative communities that can provide a voice for those normally marginalized by the mainstream media". Although Wikipedia is not an alternative media source, in order to address this issues of marginalization, it is important that Wikipedia recognize other sources of verifiability in addition to commonly recognized sources, such as The New York Times.

This Peoples Movement Assembly article has clearly demonstrated that there are many communities and groups that are using the methodology of the Peoples Movement Assembly (note: further references that demonstrate the use of the Peoples Movement Assembly by many groups were removed to ensure that there wasn’t a tone of advocacy, these could be put back if considered important). While it has not yet received wide coverage from mainstream media sources, the Peoples Movement Assembly has received significant media coverage from important local secondary sources. Peoples Movement Assemblies are, for the most part, lead by communities who have been marginalized from mainstream media coverage. As such, it is not surprising that there has, to date, been limited mainstream coverage of this process. This does not diminish its credibility; rather it demonstrates the importance of ensuring ongoing coverage of such events lead by people and communities impacted by marginalization by venues such as Wikipedia.

REFERENCES

Barker, M., 2007, "Conform or Reform? Social Movements and the Mass Media", retrieved October 24 2011 from http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/criticsm/conformorreformsocialmovements.html</ref>.
Barker, M., "A Critical Examination of the Relation Between the Mainstream Media and Social Movements", Global Research, 2008, Retrieved October 24 2011 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=87610,
Gitlin, T. "The Whole World is Watching". University of California Press. 2003. Retrieved October 24 2011 from [7].
Van Dijk, TA,. “Power and the news media”, 1992. Retrieved October 24 from http://www.discourses.org/download/articles/

Septima2011 (talk) 17:14, 25 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. Does not appear to be a hoax, after all. Jafeluv (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary military security department, No.2 (P.M.S.2)[edit]

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

Somewhat tentatively, I am nominating this as hoax because of the paucity of Google hits. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless supported with sources. Hoax or not, this is unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I draw your attention to WP:GOOGLEHITS: A paucity of Google hits does not make the article a hoax. I did some searches myself, and came up with this article, which confirms what the article says (and is almost certainly its major source). All the facts in the article seem to check out. The article just needs a little wiki-love. And an editor to add some references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's confirmed (broadly) in Christopher Andrew's Defence of the Realm (2010 pb. ed, pp. 96-97) - "Macassey's reports [of saboteurs] prompted the Ministry of Munitions to found an intelligence service of its own, later known as PMS2. In February 1916 Kell provided the Ministry with a nucleus of MI5 officers [...] In April 1917, the administrative staff of the out-of-favour PMS2 were formally 'reabsorbed' by MI5." I can't confirm the accuracy of the specific details, though! Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - department seems real. Google hits should not be used to decide whether an article's subject is real or not; otherwise half the subjects of knowledge unrecorded on the net would have to be unwarrantedly deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does appear to have existed. Given the nature of the organisation, it is therefore worthy of an article. Not having Googlehits is irrelevant. Print sources are just as good. Needs to be renamed Parliamentary Military Security Department No.2 (with the capitalisation and without the parenthetical abbreviation and presumably the comma) however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to neutral. Difficult to tell without the rest of the book to look at, but the front page on view does enough to drag it out of the unverified area. Chris Neville-Smith (talk)

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. CallawayRox (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landing flare[edit]

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

Article was proded with the reason Not really a subject worth a stand alone article just one minor part of Landing prod was removed. Most of the article has been cobbled together and filled with sources as a response to the proposed deletion but in reality a landing flare is one small non-notable part of the landing phase, having a shed full of sources doesnt make a minor term notable it just proves it is a phase of landing. The addition of a different use of the term related to Flare (pyrotechnic) is also not notable and dubious, not a common or notable term. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Landing. Not worth a standalone article but would produce a useful section in the suggested target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge into Landing#Aircraft. When you remove the unrelated info on pyrotechnic flares and other puffery, there's really not any logical reason for this to stand alone as an entry. That being said, information from here should be incorporated into the landing article, and it's certainly a sensible redirect. That being said, a merge discussion could probably be done on the talk page. --Yaksar (let's chat) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Accurately and concisely covered in landing with these words: Progressive movement of the control column back will allow the aircraft to settle onto the runway at minimum speed, landing on its main wheels first in the case of a tricycle gear aircraft or on all three wheels simultaneously in the case of a conventional landing gear-equipped aircraft, commonly referred to as a "taildragger". This is known as flaring. Not much else to be said about this simple (but important!) manoeuvre. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge - The flare is one tiny part of landing an aircraft and as such belongs in the Landing article, not in a stand alone article. If this were to survive then logically we should have articles on pre-landing checks, lowering the landing gear, approach, round out, flare, hold-off, touch down, braking and taxiing clear of the runway, which are the other parts of landing an aircraft. The existing articles Final approach (aviation) and Touch-and-go landing should probably also be combined into Landing, but that is another issue. The inclusion of descriptions of pyrotechnic flares used for night landings as "landing flares" in the same article, means this article is about two subjects, an aircraft maneuver and a pyrotechnic device. This is like combining the writing instrument Pen with Pig pens, on the basis that they are related subjects. The confusion of adding two subjects to the same article seems to have come about because the aircraft maneuver is too brief a subject to warrant a stand alone article in the first place without going into WP:NOTMANUAL territory and parts of the current article are already doing that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is not making any sense. Having a shed full of sources is exactly what makes a topic notable per the WP:GNG. Here are some more substantial sources to add to the shed:

Warden (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the number of sources say that phrase exists still doesnt make it notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources don't just use the phrase, they include it in their title and discuss the matter in detail. They seem to satisfy WP:SIGCOV by a wide margin and, being from establishments like the RAE and NASA, seem quite reliable and reputable. So how do these sources not satisfy the general notability guideline? Please explain what sourcing would be required to satisfy you or explain your personal understanding of notability, if it is different from the guideline. Warden (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden; well-attested in secondary sources and popular culture. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably didn't even read the article. This isn't about flare (pyrotechnics), and there's nothing in this article on popular culture. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the following quotes of statements above:

"minor part of landing"
"one small...part of the landing phase"
"Not much else to be said about this simple (but important!) manoeuvre."
"tiny part of landing an aircraft"

here is a quote from "Understanding the Flare":

The following is only a partial listing of variables. Pages could be, and have been written about each variable...we have pilot, airplane, surface and climatic variations of:

--airspeed,
--approach angles,
--aircraft attitudes,
--aircraft configuration,
--power settings,
--power changes,
--density altitudes,
--height of flare,
--smoothness of flares,
--ground effects both high and low,
--wing lengths,
--wing positions on aircraft,
--landing gears,
--wind velocities,
--wind variations,
--wind angles,
--flap configurations,
--flare altitude,
--pilot anticipation,
--pilot reaction,
--pilot seating
--pilot perspective,
--control effect,
--timing,
--patience,
--runway alignment
--runway length
--runway width
--runway surface
--runway obstacles
--more.

(numbering added) Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry we have to assume good faith here but I have not the foggiest idea what all that means, you need to explain the relevance to landing flare notability and why it is not just a minor phase of landing that can or is covered in Landing. Are you saying that we need articles on every tiny bit of the landing sequence like How to put the landing gear down while landing, How to look out of the window to make sure you dont hit anything, How to flare out from the approach just before you touchdown, oops the last is the article under discussion. The how to bit is a clue that leads us to NOTMANUAL. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the reference to WP:NOTAMANUAL, here is what the policy states,

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.<ref>...in the main namespace, describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not.</ref>

Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's a necessary and integral part of landing an airplane (or at least any one I've ever seen). It'd be like having a separate article on Lincoln's nose. Yes, certainly things have been said about Lincoln's nose and it might pass WP:GNG, but there's no reason to cover it outside of the context of the main article. If the main article were really long this might be a reasonable subarticle, but as it is there's no reason to split it out. SDY (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles about Lincoln's bible, birthday, early life, mental health &c. And for aircraft we have numerous articles about the phases of flight including a entire category for different types of approach. When we consider the similar process of takeoff, we find that there is a separate article for the analagous transition of rotation. Your suggestion that separate articles are not used in such cases is therefore a falsehood, being contrary to actual evidence. As for the issue of length, the article is new and was barely 2 days old before the nominator started to disrupt its development by trying to delete it. Per our editing policy, a reasonable time should be allowed for expansion. Warden (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can quote policies at each other all day, but why should a reader dealing with the landing article have to follow through another link to get information about this particular phase of it? It's patently obvious that it's a part of a broader topic. If that article requires a split, so be it, but don't split before adding content: 16 stub articles on every nitpicking piece that might pass GNG might be compliant with policy, but a reader would rather have the 16 pieces put together into one coherent article rather than having to follow links all over the place. SDY (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should readers have to download a wall of text to read a particular section? The trend is currently for people to read Wikipedia on the small screens of smartphones rather than the large screens of PCs. This form factor makes it sensible to divide large topics into small pieces rather than one large one. By the way, please note that a flare is not actually a necessary part of landing - that's another falsehood. For example, Concorde was routinely landed without a flare. This is the sort of factual expansion that we should be working on currently - not this absurdly disruptive deletion nomination. Warden (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Absurdly disruptive deletion nomination"? I'm just going to take this off my watchlist, it's clear that this isn't going to be a real discussion. SDY (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Colonel Warden has a long history of trying to disrupt AfDs by any method possible, going to so far as to move articles in the middle of AfD to new titles and rewriting the text so they are on new subjects to prevent deletion. To see what lengths he will go to "rescue" an article it may be worth reviewing the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design. He has also been cited at ANI before for being disruptive. I only mention this so that participants in this AfD are aware of what to expect now that this user is involved in this AfD. To let this be a surprise would be unfair to those participating here in good faith. So his labeling this AfD nomination made by an admin who is a WikiProject Aircraft participant of long standing a "absurdly disruptive deletion nomination" is well within the bounds of User:Colonel Warden's past record. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case of aircraft design is indeed similar. There too we had an aviation topic of outstanding notability but the Aviation project took against it in a dog in the manger way - not doing anything with this massive topic but throwing a conniption fit when another editor dared to. The project seems to have a proprietorial attitude to these articles, contrary to WP:OWN, and Ahunt seems to be one of the ringleaders in this. Editors who do not have a stake in the matter should please judge by results. I have cited multiple good sources for this topic above which demonstrate the importance and depth of the topic. The landing flare is the most difficult and dangerous part of flying and so it has received considerable attention owing to its implication in accidents or avoidance of same. Why would a good faith aviation editor not wish to see this topic developed? The issue here is clearly one of editorial personalities. I've seen it said that much of what goes on at Wikipedia is about asserting personal control of articles and here we see the process in operation. This is not a deletion debate - nobody, not even Ahunt, agrees that the topic should deleted. It's just a struggle for control of the topic and so should be speedily closed per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Warden (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know that you plan to disrupt this AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the personal attack and lack of good faith in others. Interested to know how I want to end an editing dispute when I have not added any content! I should also assume good faith but clearly a look at the article history would show no editing dispute so that claim is clearly bogus. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't seem like this is a subject for a deletion discussion, but a merger discussion, notwithstanding the joy of some in questioning Warden's often legitimate question as to why people want to delete sourceable verifiable content even if its obscure.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought it was worth merging I would not have proposed it for deletion, please assume good faith, three sentences, a quote and non relevant pyro stuff to landing are not really merge material. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger, redirect, whatever. Assume good faith both ways! My point is that you aren't saying the flare move shouldn't be covered, just where.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is already covered in Landing. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Landing article was started with the comment "a start". But now, 8 years later, it is still graded by the Aviation project as "start class". It does not seem that this project is delivering the goods. My view is that there's too much bitey behaviour like this AFD and so we have strife rather than collaboration. It is a sad waste of effort. Warden (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately with 43,000 articles in the project scope and a dedicated core of perhaps 10 editors some articles are not going to be visited often. That is off-topic but so are your comments which I read as highly negative toward the members of the aviation project. I've already given my suggestion of a redirect and don't feel the need to comment further. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per article size and common sense. See SDY's comments for details. If someone manages to write, say 5-6 paragraphs on this, I can see a reason to split it to a new article, but not as it is now. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ahunt. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this material is kept or merged, one thing that's sure is that the outcome won't involve the use of the "delete" button. Might as well close the AfD now.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with closing it early, let's get a firm decision here from a full AfD consultation. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to continue a disruptive discussion? Two editors here have a record of contributions such that if this goes to a notice board the record will show that they have an agenda. Two editors have announced that they don't want to participate in the discussion. Not a single editor has supported the pretense of the nomination that this is a deletion discussion, this means that this AfD can now be speedy closed under WP:Speedy keep reason #1, "nomination does not advance an argument for deletion". Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SK ground 1 doesn't strictly apply. I was proposing a WP:SNOW closure, but it's not good practice to press that when there are good faith objections, so I'll withdraw my suggestion and await the end of this discussion in due course. I see I haven't added my own word in bold yet, so for the record it's obviously keep or merge.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is a speedy close using SK reason #1 anything less than strict? Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your alternative-allowing-merge !vote, is it the intention of such a !vote to prevent development on the "landing flare" topic and removing well-sourced material from the encyclopedia? Or do you see all the material currently in the Landing flare article being moved to Landing and the continuation of adding material to Landing the same as would be the adding of material right now to Landing flare? Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My position is as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare (2nd nomination), i.e. that we really ought to have an article on Landing flare. Having said that, I would not object to the topic being covered within the landing article if that's what editors want.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see that a merge will have that effect. At least with the existing "landing flare" article it is clear where new material should be added. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that no admins or non-admins have taken the leadership to shut down this disruptive discussion. The problem of substandard nominations is not a problem unique to this AfD, I think that we need a new process in place like the New Page Patrol, perhaps called the New AfD Patrol, to tag and close substandard nominations, giving a nominator the chance to correct the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With only two weeks in existence, the Landing flare article has grown to be larger than the Landing article. The political talking points have it that "Landing flare" is a small part of landing. Let's assume for the purpose of discussion that this is true. Meanwhile, Landing flare is a large topic, listed above are more than 31 variables involved in effecting a landing flare, each of which applies to "pilot, airplane, surface and climatic variations", and each of which has had "pages" written about it. Research psychologists since World War II have been studying the cues used by pilots in deciding when to begin the flare maneuver. Studies exist associating landing flare issues and accidents. Google reports that there are more than 1000 books that include the phrase "landing flare". Closely related terms include "flare path", "flare-out", and "flare cut-off point". The landing flare is a non-trivial function/algorithm whose execution remains a challenge both for pilots, and for computer engineers designing Autoland. So calls to merge a large topic into another topic in which it is only a small part is destined to result in conflict, not only because of the practical difficulty, but in part because there is a hidden agenda in these talking points to not allow all of the material to be merged. In contrast with the analysis of Lincoln's nose on Mount Rushmore, a healthier comparison is Heart and Ventricle. IMO, Landing flare should not be deleted or merged any more than Ventricle should be deleted or merged. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We know that in 1922 the term "landing flare" in the context of aviation was an aerial candle on a parachute, also known as a type of "bomb". A 1932 reference exists for the phrase "landing 'flare' maneuver". Thus we know, that in 1932, the landing flare maneuver could be accomplished in the dark with the use of landing flares. So both usages of the term are closely associated with aviation, both are closely associated with the function of landing, and both have their origin within 20 years of each other in the early 20th century. Yet we can also anticipate that merging the material from the Landing flare article will lead to pressure to remove encyclopedic material. The alternative is to leave this issue at the Landing flare article, instead of "merging" conflict to the Landing article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are the options for a merge? Currently there is literally no mention of "landing flare" in the Landing article, except for the "See also" link to the Landing flare article. The Wikiproject can and should add any appropriate material to the Landing article. While they are about it, they could work on the theory that comes from the definition in the lede of the article that parachutists are "animals". After that cleanup, I expect that they would discover that they didn't want to merge all of the material from Landing flare. Given that the "Landing" article is not structured to support an integrated merge, it seems that the only option with an administrative order that the material be merged, is to drop the entire existing article at the end of the Landing article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep reason #1, see WP:Speedy keep#1. The nomination does not advance an argument for deletion. The only phrase that comes close is the use of the word "non-notable" in the clause "landing flare is one small non-notable part of the landing phase". What is a "non-notable part"? Is it material that it is ok to mention in the landing article but shouldn't have a stand-alone article because it doesn't satisfy WP:N? But material suitable for the Landing article is encyclopedic material, a deletion argument must explain both why the material and the topic are objectionable such that they need to be deleted, so this does not stand as a coherent deletion argument, and making an incoherent argument is not advancing an argument. This interpretation is consistent with the statement of the nominator here that the material in the Landing flare article is "nothing that cant <be> or is already in the Landing article."

Regarding the technical requirements for the speedy keep, no editors have agreed with the premise of the nomination for deletion, so a speedy keep remains in order (and please review WP:Speedy keep#1 if there is any question about this statement). And in this case it remains appropriate given the crossover considerations from the "speedy keep" guideline given at WP:Deletion process#Early closure, "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (this includes editor harrassment)." After I above documented a list of 31 variables that are a part of landing flare analysis to refute the idea that landing flare is a small topic; nominator responded, "sorry we have to assume good faith". It doesn't take much analysis to know that this response was not a product of the force of reason. Unscintillating (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it indisputable enough for a speedy keep. regardless of my own opinion on the article, and I think further suggestions in that direction would impede the actual purpose here, which is a discussion on what to do with the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word in the above analysis is whether the nomination was "solely" to provide a forum for disruption. Yet look at the recent ruling at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_20#UTC+01:30, which says, "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed", which is a relaxed guideline that applies. As for your suggestion to proceed as if we are still discussing articles for deletion, your opinion carries weight, and I'm not trying to prevent that path, but it leaves open the question as to if or when we are going to put more corrective feedback into the AfD nomination process. Unscintillating (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have you any evidence for the nomination was "solely" to provide a forum for disruption or is that a personal attack that needs to be withdrawn? MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some evidence. Earlier this year, there was another attempt at an article about this topic: Flare (aviation). You participated in discussion about it and agreed that redirection to Landing was appropriate. But in this new case, you tried prodding the article while it was being developed. When multiple editors objected to the proposed deletion, demonstrating that there was no consensus, you then made another attempt to delete it - this AFD. Warring over deletion rather than seeking the sort of compromise which you had agreed to earlier does not seem constructive. Warden (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not agree with your comments, I am happy to be consistent and suggest that this is redirected to Landing rather than be deleted or merged. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 24 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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akhun Khel Miangan Syed[edit]

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

Already deleted as as an expired prod with: incomprehensible - pure original research. Redundant fork of Akhun Khel. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, no sources are cited and this does look like original research of some kind. It's hard to source articles on Pakistani clans. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly there is some OR at work here. It's not clear, but should this redirect to the Akhun Khel article? I'm not sold on that idea either, but it would be an option if this had been a proper fork. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THe fork is the key; I would speedy delete it, except I'm already involved. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 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. Clearly a borderline case in terms of notability, but there's no consensus that it fails to meet the notability requirements. Sandstein 18:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazos Belle[edit]

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

I don't believe this article meets the GNG. It's a local restaurant that can be rented for parties. It received limited local coverage for being flooded in 2007; the articles I found are primarily focused on the flooding, using the restaurant as one example. There's not significant coverage of the restaurant/boat. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while it may not be notable as a restauraunt, it might well be notable as a riverboat - local sources should be consulted, I'll see if I can dig up anything and perhaps our Texan Wikipedians can help? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is well referenced for a stub article like this, and might have some signifigant notability as a riverboat. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All coverage for this business seems to be hyper-local. Indeed, it only seems to be covered at all because it was damaged by a flood; there's no greater extent of coverage evident. Yes, it may potentially be significant as a riverboat, sure. But we can't just go and assume that, especially without an inkling of a reason.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ "Might have some signifigant notability as a riverboat?" Let me quote from the GNG, for those unclear on the guidelines: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity ..." Neither WP:V, WP:N or any other such policy or guideline operates off of wishful thinking. Either reliable, independent sources discuss a subject in significant detail, and such sources not only can be, but are produced, or they are not. Ravenswing 16:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Bushranger's references sold me; they are over a couple of years, taking ONEEVENT out of play, and they're from Waco and Dallas and Houston, thus drawing from more than the one metro area. I'd say that satisfies the GNG. Ravenswing 19:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weak local coverage that is ultimately about the flooding event and not about the riverboat per se. Ultimately this appears to be just an example of a business affected by the flooding event, and I find nothing that shows notability as a restaurant or as a riverboat before said event. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - No notability as a restaurant and the coverage is simply routine local news coverage about the flood. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The improvements in sourcing are sufficient for this to (barely) clear the notability bar. -- 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I've added a good number of references, and this appears to be more than just "coverage about the flooding event" - while virtually all coverage was about the flooding and its aftermath, there appears to have been continuing coverage, as well as a small mystery when the boat's owner was unable to be found for a time. (As a note, it appears that very recently, the Brazos Queen II riverboat has been renamed Brazos Belle, confusing things slightly.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I analyzed the sources - I disagree that this is significant coverage about the riverboat itself:

1 - article primarily about the flooding, Belle an example
2 - article is focused on the Belle, but it's about flood damage consequences
3 is a university newspaper article about a different riverboat with only 2 sentences on the Brazos Belle (trivial coverage)
4 is a school newspaper article about the city asking for the ship to be removed
5 - Belle is one of several examples of businesses in trouble be low river levels (trivial coverage)
6 - Belle used as an example of businesses that closes (trivial coverage)
7 - dead link
8 - I don't have access to this, but seems more focused on the owner - is there significant coverage of the boat itself?
9 - reprint of 12 - tv stations often post articles from their sister stations even if they don't cover the info
10 - 283 words, about flooding
11 - 303 words, about flooding
12 - 93 words, about flooding

I don't see ANY coverage of the ship or of the business - solely about the flooding and the difficulties in getting the carcass removed (flood consequences). That's a one-time event, and the consequences of that event. So essentially the subject is notable because it partially sunk and was an eyesore? Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Karanacs' analysis of the sources, this fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the coverage added by The Bushranger to the article is sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Karanacs' analysis of the sources indicates there is no notability. Neutrality^talk 08:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources from multiple reliable third-party sources from several different media markets covering the subject in depth over a span of years is sufficient to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 17:24, 25 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. Sources confirm the notability. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Fernandez (hockey player)[edit]

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

Claim that he played in 1975 Hockey World Cup is not verified by reliable sources. Not notable. Larkspurs (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are enough reliable sources to prove that he was a member of India's national hockey squad. And that is notable enough.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 19:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources confirm he played on India's 1975 team at the Hockey World Cup which, along with the Olympics, is the highest level of competition in field hockey. Ravendrop 21:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources confirm statements. Playing on national team in Olympics is definitely notable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's verified that he played on India's 1975 World Cup team (in fact, he's still getting coverage in The Hindu about it [8]). But even playing a single international hockey match for India would prove notability. Jenks24 (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played on the world cup team that far and away meets nsports. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infegy[edit]

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

I was asked to restore this highly promotional article that I CSD G11'd. I trimmed the most obvious of the promotional material. There is nothing unique or important about this company. "Predicted" a superbowl win. What are the odds of that? (Ohh yeah, 50/50). Sources (were) primary including a PR. v/r - T P 19:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a social media analytics company. All sources in the article are press releases, and I'm not seeing anything better on Google News. (Hint; if it says the preeminent source for sentiment-driven web and social analytics, that ain't an independent source.) The Super Bowl story got picked up by The Atlantic[9] but that's still only one event. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:B2B and the complete lack of independent third party references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:13, 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American News Project[edit]

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

Non-notable organization and Web site; fails WP:ORG and WP:WEB due to absence of coverage in reliable sources. The dead links suggest it's shut down now, but I haven't been able confirm that because, well, see above. Lagrange 613 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found a reliable source that Nick Penniman ran it. Redirecting to Nick Penniman. Withdrawing nom and requesting speedy keep. Lagrange 613 17:01, 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 no consensus. Head-count leans to Keep, but a number of argument are not policy-based or convincing. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Series starting pitchers[edit]

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

There is nothing to suggest that being a starting pitcher in a World Series game is notable to the point that it merits its own Wikipedia list, making this a violation of WP:NOTDIR due to the loose association and non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can tell this list meets the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists, specifically the section on lists about people. The individuals on the list are clearly notable. The membership of the list can be established through reliable sources though this needs to be done. I don't believe WP:NOTDIR applies in this case, since there is a well-defined and reasonable definition for membership of the list. I don't see how is could be described as "loosely associated". Sparthorse (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think it's absurd to call a list of baseball pitchers grouped by their starting pitcher status in a baseball championship series a "loose association and non-encyclopedic cross-categorization." Baseball personnel x baseball fact x baseball fact... We're not listing baseball pitchers who owned three cars and had large shoes, which is what I would consider a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, because the three things have no relation to each other and don't represent any reasonable way of subdividing the topic. In practice, unfortunately, "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" is such an indeterminate and meaningless phrase that it just means "a list I don't like" and doesn't help further discussion at all.
Second, I don't know what it means for a fact (who was the starting pitcher in a World Series game) to be "notable" or "not notable," as that's a standard we use for article subjects. The World Series is notable, and all of the pitchers listed here are notable. Starting pitcher is even a notable concept. And presumably, there are multiple reliable sources that have reported the starting pitchers for every world series. It might be the case that no single source has ever published this list before, but I doubt it, and that's not necessarily conclusive anyway. So "not notable" isn't a helpful analysis here at all.
So let's try again and ask some meaningful questions. The basic question is, does it make sense to separately index the pitchers by their status as World Series starting pitchers? Or looked at another way, does it make sense in furtherance of the coverage of the World Series to group together those who were starting pitchers? I took a look at the first ten pitchers listed (discounting duplicate listings), and only five articles stated that they were starting pitchers in a World Series, which may or may not be meaningful. There might be a reason to only list the starting pitchers for game 1 of a World Series, there might be a reason to list all of them. Is it considered an honor, as with (apparently) Opening Day pitchers, or indicative of that pitcher being viewed as the best on the team? Or as a team has several starting pitchers on rotation, is it more a matter of which one happens to be best prepared at a given time? Is this really just an arbitrary and trivial sliver of the broader group of List of World Series pitchers (note the redlink), in which case deletion might be appropriate? postdlf (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a random list. This is not random criteria. Being the starting pitcher of an MLB World Series game is a notable feat. Having all of them listed on one page in chronological order is of historic interest. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Kingturtle (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of an extreemly notable subject, very well organized, sorted in an easy to find order. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The starting pitcher is one of the most important elements of baseball games. A last-minute change in the starting pitcher will invalidate most bets on the game. The Steve 09:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By far the worst rationale I have seen for article retention. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Thesteve's observation demonstrates that the identity of the starting pitcher is a significant element in how the game is likely to develop, and thus speaks to the notability of the topic under discussion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTATS here, there is nothing to be gained and nothing of value to offer the reader in a simple list of starting pitchers in the WS. It is a trivial bit of baseball facts & figures, nothing more. We're not a statistical repository for pro sports leagues. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Addressing the arguments made so far: This topic is more notable than Opening Day pitchers (I realize that borders on WP:WAX) because all the best pitchers available will start in at least one of the several WS games, while your team's best pitcher might not start on Opening Day for strategic reasons. It's also better than List of World Series pitchers, as this is a more elite group. User:Muboshgu's argument is essentially a value judgment; certainly it is a notable accomplishment to be the starting pitcher in a WS game, but is it notable enough? User:Tarc's assertion that this topic is indiscriminate and trivial is pretty harsh, and I disagree. This page could be more interesting if you made the list sortable and added text highlighting some records and patterns. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To go at this "Opening Day starting pitcher" argument, it is far more notable to start on Opening Day than a World Series game. For starters, only one pitcher per staff starts on Opening Day. Hence, it's expected that it's the team's ace who is making that start (just don't remind me about Carl Pavano in 2007.) However, starting in a World Series game simply means being a starter for the team that happens to make it to the World Series. It's far more random and not established by any particular skill, outside of making the starting rotation, that is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been the guest who has kept track of the pitchers in this World Series, and believe that this list is a good source of keeping track of the history of who actually started in one of these games. I wasn't the creator of this page on any other previous accounts, so there must have been issues about sources before this issue came up. After this World Series is over, I will look into sorting out the list into decades to make the page easier to navigate. A source of any kind would be another issue to address in this page as well, and I am open to that. Otherwise, there will still be updates after every game for innings pitched and decisions. --SportsFan23 (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, but your response falls under WP:ILIKEIT. If you can find some sort of notability for the topic, you can userfy the page and bring it back with a better presentation when it's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN without sources that refer to this grouping as a whole.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Ward (ice hockey player)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/River Ward (ice hockey player)

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

Contested Prod - Non-notable hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Larkspurs (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be re-created if they ever meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Patken4 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, fails NHOCKEY--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 13:35, 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 speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Esposito[edit]

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

Withdrawn ~~Non-notable hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY.~~ Larkspurs (talk) 18:39, 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 delete. Nothing sourced to merge. Can eb editorially redirected. Sandstein 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Drones[edit]

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

A non notable article which is essential reguritation of the plot without third person sources therefore it should be deleted. It fails under WP:PLOT Dwanyewest (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Duck Dodgers article, although I'm not sure that people will really be looking for the specific episode this way. There's no reason for this episode (or any of the episodes up for deletion) to have its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

If this stuff must be redirected at all I suggest List of Duck Dodgers episodes would be more appropriate and I hope if the decision is made that is what is done. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as completely failing WP:GNG due to lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:15, 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. Nothing sourced to merge. Can be editorially redirected, though i doubt that this is a likely search term. Sandstein 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Gonna Get You, Fat Sucka / Detained Duck[edit]

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

A non notable article which is essential reguritation of the plot without third person sources therefore it should be deleted. It fails under WP:PLOT Dwanyewest (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Duck Dodgers article, although I'm not sure that people will really be looking for the specific episode this way. There's no reason for this episode (or any of the episodes up for deletion) to have its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

If this stuff must be redirected at all I suggest List of Duck Dodgers episodes would be more appropriate and I hope if the decision is made that is what is done. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as completely failing WP:GNG due to lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:15, 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. Nothing sourced to merge. Can be editorially redirected, though i doubt that this is a likely search term. Sandstein 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Deception / The Spy Who Didn't Love Me[edit]

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

A non notable article which is essential reguritation of the plot without third person sources therefore it should be deleted. It fails under WP:PLOT Dwanyewest (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Duck Dodgers article, although I'm not sure that people will really be looking for the specific episode this way. There's no reason for this episode (or any of the episodes up for deletion) to have its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
If this stuff must be redirected at all I suggest List of Duck Dodgers episodes would be more appropriate and I hope if the decision is made that is what is done. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as completely failing WP:GNG due to lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:15, 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 redirect to List of Duck Dodgers episodes. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Menace of Maninsuit / K-9 Quarry[edit]

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

A non notable article which is essential reguritation of the plot without third person sources therefore it should be deleted. It fails under WP:PLOT Dwanyewest (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Duck Dodgers article, although I'm not sure that people will really be looking for the specific episode this way. There's no reason for this episode (or any of the episodes up for deletion) to have its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
If this stuff must be redirected at all I suggest List of Duck Dodgers episodes would be more appropriate and I hope if the decision is made that is what is done. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as completely failing WP:GNG due to lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 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 keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional anarchists[edit]

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

WP:IINFO ,no inclusion criteria apart from is an fictional anarchist. Gnevin (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Keep In what way does this invoke the guideline set by WP:IINFO? Reading the list of excluded material, 1) Summary-only descriptions of works, 2) Lyrics databases, and 3) Excessive listings of statistics, this list does not conform to them. The charge that this list's only inclusion criteria is being a fictional anarchist is not reason for deletion. It prevents vague details and indiscriminate inclusion. Being a fictional anarchist is a specific point of interest in studying anarchist fiction (which does not have its own article entry at present, but should, given examinations of it in Mythmakers and Lawbreakers and Film and The Anarchist Imagination. Mythmakers and Lawbreakers includes a specific section on the topic of anarchist fictional characters. I was involved in attempting to revamp this list a few years ago when I was still a Wiki-novice, and have moved on, but as a veterin editor, I can see a lot of room for improvement to tighten up this list for readability and research aid. That's all this article needs, but AfD is not clean up. This should not have been nominated. --Cast (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this a joke? "no inclusion criteria apart from is an fictional anarchist." Well, of course that's the criterion for being in a list of fictional anarchists, just as being a fictional actuary is the only requirement for being in ~~List of fictional actuaries~~ Fictional actuaries. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that every character no matter how minor, no matter how not notable the subject appears in can be added to this list Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you suggesting that NYPD Blue recurring character, Dr. Jennifer Devlin (character John Clark's blond bipolar love interest), stated that her father is an actuary is of particular relevance to its source media? And have you not noticed that the direct-to-video, critically panned and forgotten 1996 thriller film Escape Clause also has no article and seems non-notable? This is a poor example. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The included characters are of interest to the study of literary and cultural depictions of anarch(y/ism/ists) even if they are not large parts of the source media or of widespread public awareness. Even if the inclusion criteria need to be refined, that is no reason for deletion. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm relisting this because it was never transcluded in the AFD log for the day. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list with inclusion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—satisfies WP:LISTN because the subject of fictional anarchists is discussed in reliable sources, e.g. this, to give one of many possible examples, but really, if this is a non-notable grouping, you have your work cut out for you, here. a few personal favorites: List of fictional books and List of fictional Antichrists and List of fictional raccoons. cheers!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources, and the fame -- not mere notability -- of some of the works, the list is fully justified. The use of notable topics or themes in notable works is an appropriate subject for an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 24 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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Kaitz[edit]

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

I declined a Prod that remained for 7 days because there is some significant coverage, but is it enough to establish notability? At this point I am not sure, this is a procedural nomination only. Original Prod rationale was: lacks notability. GB fan 17:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has only 5 fights and non of them were for a top tier organization. He clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put this article up for PROD for the same reasons mentioned by Astudent0. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't pass the criteria at WP:MMANOT and I found nothing else that shows he's notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:48, 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) 17:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enapay (band)[edit]

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

A nine-month-old band which has made a grand total of one public appearance. It's hard to see how this could possibly be seen as notable. Prioryman (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsigned newly formed band lacks Notability per WP:BAND. Only has self-published music on YouTube. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and also lacks WP:BAND. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:56, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adriiana[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Only claim to fame is doing not very well on the Canadian talent show The Next Star. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 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 merge to List of Digimon Adventure characters. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabumon[edit]

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

I think it should be a redirect to this page; List of Digimon Adventure characters Just like Agumon.Digigi123 (talk) 12:43, 20 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 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD was not listed in the log, nor was the article tagged. I've done that now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - Sounds reasonable to me, but an AfD should not be the first way to go about this. Was the article ever tagged with a suggested merge tag? Was this ever discussed in the article talk page? My brief look says "no." I suggest these steps be taken before this AfD is allowed to go through. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as failing WP:GNG due to complete lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - "Gabumon" is a valid search term, and anything useable should be merged to the list of characters, as the nominator suggested. --Malkinann (talk) 23:03, 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 speedy delete. as a blatant hoax. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange places[edit]

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

Looks like a essay. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:OR. Also, remember to consider WP:PRODding an article before taking it to AfD. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay or WP:OR. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly OR. Prioryman (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently, something made up in school one day. Chris the speller ^yack 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOLDelete I think pre-school might be more accurate. First Light (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 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 Speedy delete, A10, recent duplicate of List of animal names. - Nabla (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific names of animals[edit]

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

Might be useful on Wikiversity, but not here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—This topic is more or less already covered in more detail by List of animal names. Perhaps the entries can be merged there, if they don't already exist? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate and questionably accurate list. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A10, recently created article that duplicates an existing one (List of animal names, possibly others) without expanding on it or improving it. Or, snow delete for the same reasons and as an indiscriminate list; there is no obvious or meaningful inclusion criteria other than "here are some animals I thought of." It also indiscriminately groups individual species with families, lists order and family names together as one term as if they were scientific names, miscapitalizes species names, misspells many names, and gets others just plain wrong. Hmm...maybe even speedy delete as a test. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Vague and impossible scope. Complete nonsense. Author incorrectly wrote scientific names bolded and with both generic and specific names capitalized. And it seems he actually uses higher taxonomic ranks in place of the genus and species, or else treats entire groups of animals as a single species. Rabbits for example are supposedly "Leporidae Cuniculas" while Rhinoceroses are apparently bestowed with the name of the order they belong to and the family. All pseudolatinized to resemble binomina, which makes no sense.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:58, 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German Fest[edit]

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

Non-notable local festival which has received only routine local coverage per Google News search. Unreferenced since 2005 (tagged since 2009). MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a series of non-local references. As you noted, there are many local references but I avoided them to prove notability. This is a major festival in the region if not the largest of the Midwestern United States and I disagree with the assertion that it's a strictly-local event. Royal broil 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: one of the references you added was from the Chicago Sun-Times, which certainly argues that its reach is more than local. Got any more? --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A regional ethnic festival celebrating the city's largest ethnic group. --Baron Larf 13:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination after several more additions of references to the article. The Toledo Blade article repeats the claim that this is the largest German festival in the country. The Los Angeles Times item convinces me (even though it is a simple event announcement) that this festival is notable well beyond its local area. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 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 keep. the arguments and evidence provided after the relisting justify a keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maija Isola[edit]

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

Article has very little, almost no information. Designer has no eminence and has left no legacy or effect. KaneRyles (talk) 18:55, 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tagged the article as an AFD and listed it in today's log. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see lots of hits including several capsule bios, looking in books alone; it's clear that she was important. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources available, both scholarly and general. The article needs expansion but Isola's notability and influence in textile design is without question. freshacconci talktalk 18:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - highly notable, a great artist. Many good sources on web, numerous Museum records and exhibitions, serious newspaper articles, with examples of her work, e.g.

http://www.finnishdesign.com/finnish-designers/maija-isola Finnish Design
http://www.scandinaviandesigncenter.com/Designers/gbp1/8010&currencychanged=1 Scandinavian Design Center
http://belovedlinens.net/textdesign/Maija_isola.html Beloved Linens
http://www.scandinaviandesign.com/designmuseo/0505/index.htm DesignMuseet (museum exhibition on Isola)
http://www.finnstyle.com/marimekko-maija-isola.html Finn Style ("unquestionably the most famous textile designer to have existed at Marimekko, Maija Isola created over 500 prints during her long and colorful employment.")
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/artist/1178 The Art Institute of Chicago
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2001/may/20/features.magazine7?INTCMP=SRCH The Observer, "Marimekko", Interiors, Tamsin Blanchard 20 May 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2005/sep/05/shopping.fashion?INTCMP=SRCH "Flower Power", The Guardian, Life & Style, Hannah Booth

Guess that ought to be more than enough. Snow keep. Should I update the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apart the above she has articles in 5 languages, which would have made a sensible nominator pause. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have expanded the article with the above references, added Bibliography and Exhibitions sections, and hope that someone with more knowledge of Isola's fine textiles will do the article justice soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 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 speedy deleted' (has been G11'd). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Marketing Lists[edit]

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

Meets Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement, no source that would confirm notability (except advertisements), I cannot find any of them in Google Search neither. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Included sources from digitalmarketinglists.com, and facebook, linkedin. I don't want it to be considered as an advert, just a descripiton about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorczi (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unreferenced article is unambiguous advertising for a business that makes no minimal claim to significance. So tagging. Digital Marketing Lists (DML) is a company... It is part of the organisation called Sales Solutions Media. DML was set up to provide a quick and efficient outlet to market and sell some of the many lists they hold. In the modern business world B2B data is rather important, thus the company is located in a flourishing sector of the market. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unambiguous advertising, no attempt at Verifiable sources, no attempt at Notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Web Platform for the Language Industry[edit]

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

Absolutely no independent sources, external links are to homepage, EU-sites, EU press releases, etc. Perhaps it will become notable in the future (it only exists since 1 year), but at this point, there's no way to know. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources are EU-related, such as Gala, Tekom. They should be considered independent 12:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)vihonin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vihonin (talk • contribs)

The "references" given are (in order of appearance): 1/ A dead link to TCworld; 2/ A short note on a website of unknown reliability (and possibly not independent); 3/ An interview with someone from the EU directorate in a newsletter of unclear reliability and independence; 4/ An EU press release; 5/ An abstract of a conference presentation by some project participants; 6/ A link to TCworld (but that page does not mention the title mentioned, nor does it turn up in a search). --Crusio (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 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 speedy delete. As a copyvio. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Creole people[edit]

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

Unencyclopedical, no sources... Alex^{discussion ★} 13:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) There is no need for a seperate page for New Orleans creoles because there is some discussion of New Orleans Creoles in the page Louisiana Creoles. Instead I have added an external link to Louisiana Creoles. Franksplace2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranksPlace2 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete as copyvio from here. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 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 delete. Salted due to offsite declaration to recreate. Note to other admins: keep an eye out for variant spellings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Yanjun[edit]

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

Article on a "pro-gamer" with but one source and no real lasting claim to notability - perhaps I'm misreading, however, so opinion is welcomed. — Joseph Fox 12:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This gamer is really a recognized one idolized by gamers all over the world. I will try to add more sources. Redefining history (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winner of the World DotA Championships should be in-line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and i would like to request this article to stay. Although i acknowledge that much are needed to be improved in the article. Redefining history (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Only one of the "references" given actually mentions him, and that is insubstantial coverage on a non-reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Joseph Fox and JamesBWatson. Insufficient sources. --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 17 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) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly-sourced. Also seems to not be written as per WP:NPOV, for two reasons: was created with a slew of other "pro DOTA players BLPs" (denoting the author is likely a big fan of the subject(s), lessening the likeliness of a "disinterested tone"), as well as choice of words ("Bu 'YaphetS' Yanjun is a retired Chinese professional DotA player worshiped by many for his great reflexes in game."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT :　Added more sources, more information and changed the tone of the article. Hope it gets to be kept :D Redefining history (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources look reliable, they're mostly seemingly from fansites or youtube. Fails to establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK PROPERLY. The sites are official gaming media sites (mymym.com, gosugamers.net, sgamer.com, 178.com), and baidu baike. how are they fansites? Redefining history (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean like a fansite for the particular person, I meant like a fansite that documents competitive video gaming or whatevers going on here. These are small, obscure websites that still don't really qualify as a reliable sources. If Gamespot or IGN or someone well known was providing coverage, then that would be a different story. But I'm not sure "mymymy.com" is comparable to such a source... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i put in reliable sources and etc. etc. what else is still lacking in the article? i could further improve it to meet the wikipedia criteria. Redefining history (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just asking here : Jang Jae Ho is allowed to stand with practically the same sources (mymym.com , gosugamers.net) how is this article not allowed to stand? Redefining history (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument. Just because one article exists doesn't mean another one should automatically. Quite the opposite, if that article is indeed comparable to this one, it probably means that one is in danger of being deleted as well... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with this guideline. Salvidrim (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about notability brought up to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_gaming_media_partners Redefining history (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC) discussion on WP:BIO brought up on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Professional_eSports Redefining history (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to the first, the second doesn't need much more than what's said already -- needs to pass WP:GNG. Salvidrim (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : in progress of replacing sources such as mymym.com and gosugamers.net with INDEPENDENT and DISINTERESTED sources, such as chinese gaming media sites which reports on gaming in general (pchome.net counts as one rite?). Redefining history (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pchome.net looks possible at first sight, would need some experienced source-checkers to analyze it a bit more. It has no outright apparent bias or anything of the sort, which is already something Salvidrim (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also brought up the discussion here : Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Notability_of_professional_eSports_players. I wish to settle this once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside of the world of professional gaming. At this point in time simply being a gamer and having coverage on gaming sites is not enough. Would need to see some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i realized, pchome.net IS NOT A GAMING SITE, and instead is a digital technology lifestyle website. Is that enough? Redefining history (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule it should not be this hard to establish notability. So no to me it's not enough. The simple fact that you have have to search and search for sources if anything shows a lack of notability. Ridernyc (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you search "PIS DOTA" or "YAPHETS DOTA" on google, most of the sources will be from gosugamers and mymym (or even sgamer), but since it is argued that these are unreliable sources, i have to search for sources that are neutral, thats why its so hard to establish this notability. Redefining history (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no it is hard to establish notability because they are not notable. If someone is notable it is not hard to establish and you do not need to dig for sources. Ridernyc (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, im trying to claim to wikipedia that gosugamers and mymym are reliable sources. Redefining history (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you were already told that they are not. How many different places are you going to go to try to bend the rules to allow these articles. You got a no at Reliable Sources, you got a no at notability(people), you got a no at notability(athletes), am I missing any? Even though you were told WP:Athlete has nothing to do with these players you still have tried to use it in multiple AFD's. Either provide sources or have the articles userfied and try to to change consensus on notability for gamers. Stop trying to find loopholes. Ridernyc (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to find loopholes, instead, i am trying a way to change people's opinion on esports based on what have already been done for esports. Redefining history (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note These debates are being discussed off wiki here [10] I now know why so many SPA's have been active on these pages. Ridernyc (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the stated intention on that site to re-create these articles after the debate has ended... --Crusio (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If such is the case, I believe admins can block the creation of a page and/or prevent certain users from creating articles. Salvidrim (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I put in this note for the closing admin's attention. --Crusio (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I have been one of the biggest proponents for the development of high quality DotA-related articles, such as Defense of the Ancients and Dota 2, (hell, I created the latter), we cannot have these articles about individual players. As a team, for a high-priced, well-sponsored, well-sourced organization, such as SK Gaming, then sure, but that even doesn't concentrate upon individual players. Be warned, drawing in anonymous and new users for an argument is against Wikipedia's policies and it may produce negative consequences if you continue this. DarthBotto_talk•cont 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment one of the above delete arguments: "no notability outside of the world of professional gaming." is actually an argument for keep. If the person is notable in the world of professional gaming, as shown by sources appropriate to that field, then they are notable. Wrestlers are notable in the world or wrestling, biologists in biology, legislators in politics. The equiavlent of notable to everybody is fame. Notability is much less than that. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that we should an article on X who participates in Y just because X has "no notability outside the world of Y" is not a keep argument, as it all depends on actually what "Y" is. If Y is a broadly covered subject by many reliable sources, then yes, that's a fair assumption. If Y is a very narrow field with few or no reliable sources, that argument breaks down. That's the issue with professional gaming: it is a field that exists, but the sources that cover it to any degree are not reliable, and the activities of professional gaming aren't really picked up by the general video game area. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was about to write a similar argument, but I think you probably covered better than I would have... Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I continue to disagree. Everything is notable or not within its subject field. Masem, you're saying all the available sources are not reliable, which is a reasonable argument (that i cannot judge). That the sources are limited to the field is not a reasonable argument. Most good sources are limited to the field they cover. When we say, for example, we prefer academic journal articles for scientific subjects, these are almost always limited to their specific field, which is often quite narrow, The narrowness of the field or the number of the journals is irrelevant; if it has one or two journals which are reliable sources, they're reliable sources. If it has none, that's a problem. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that not only are they limited to the field, they are limited to a very small subset of the field. So far no one has shown any reliable independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Using the example given, a "legislator being notable in politics" would be akin to a pro gamer being notable throughout the "gaming" world. This article, while no doubt notable within its own sub-community of a specific set of 3-4 games, would be akin to a legislator being notable only amongst the citizens of his borough in his city, and not in politics at large. Salvidrim (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The 3-4 games are all we have for e-sports ... Redefining history (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That is 100% false. Ridernyc (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        redefining history edited this article yesterday [11] I'm not going to count but you can see there is clearly way more then 3-4 games listed. How he can edit this article yesterday and then make this statement here today is beyond me. Ridernyc (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, there are more than 3-4 games in esports. But the coverage rankings is - 1.Starcraft 2.DotA If he is notable in the dota world, and dota is notable in the esports world, he is notable. Redefining history (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:ITSA. This is the same as a politician notable only in his borough in his city -- even if the borough or city is notable by Wikipedia's standard, the politician is not. Salvidrim (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To DGG: I don't disagree that when you start to get into a narrower field, that the level of what we consider as reliable sources starts to become lower than for broad topics. But there is a minimum requirement for reliable sources that we can't go past, that being evidence of fact checking and editorialship and with sufficient independence. That's the problem here with esports is that as a narrower field of video games, the unique websites covering them fail the basic notability facets and so while the field and some of the leagues are covered in normally reliable VG sources, the individual players rarely get that. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm really not seeing the significant coverage in reliable third party sources that make me feel that it should be kept. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 24 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) 17:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case of Arakcheev and Khudyakov[edit]

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

Note: The article has now been mnoved to Case of Arakcheev and Khudyakov. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was originally opened when the article was at Case of arakcheev and khudyakov - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be in Wikinews,not in Wikipedia,as this is not a encyclopedic content.Moreover a google search for this gives nothing.Or this might be a complete hoax.Dipankan001 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it should be deleted from Wikipedia.Dipankan001 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, it is not a hoax, just google it on a Russian or look at Russian wikipage. Secondly, it is a long-standing case with a great interest in Russian society (most people compare it with well-known Dreyfus affair). Thirdly, this case now in the European Court of Human Rights, so English version of this page has a good reasons. So, I ask to not delete this page, because I plan to expand it with links and materials.--Alexmarkov (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article be kept, you should start by adding references citing reliable sources. It does not matter if they are in Russian as long as they are reliable sources, such as Novye Izvestia. --Lambiam 19:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands now, it should be deleted per WP:BLP. There are no references at all, while the article makes serious allegations. It also should be seriously edited by a someone with a sufficient level of English, otherwise it might as well be deleted for WP:NONSENSE. - DonCalo (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable, plenty of reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage. Next to the Russian-language results of the Google search mentioned above, here is a search giving English-language sources. --Lambiam 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources. see no reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say this appears to meet WP:N/CA. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good article, don't see why it should be deleted. mixer (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs to be rewritten, should be renamed Arakcheev and Khudyakov case, otherwise a perfectly acceptable subject for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. WP:BEFORE may be relevant here, as the notability (and actual existence) of the subject is clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The footnotes have been given,and when it was nominated,it wasn't there.So now it could be improved by simple editing.Dipankan001 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can you say you didn't found anything on Google? Do you think that English is the same language as Russian? Note that this is not the first case that a nominator doesn't search on Russian Google, yandex or rambler. Calling it a "hoax" is ridiculous; if you think it is a hoax, why you didn't speedied under WP:G3? It was reported on many newspapers; references are reliable; case is notable; snow keep?.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest paid Fire Department in the United States[edit]

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

Random list of uncited cities purporting to have the "Oldest paid Fire Department in the United States". Not really a viable topic for a stand-alone article, should be incorporated into the general article on firefighting. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what this is supposed to be telling us. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is bad. This is a list of early fire departments listed by date founded. Obviously only the first is the oldest. However there is no way to prove that since some town could have started paying its firefighters without the record of that being preserved. The info in the article (which is good and useful) could be included in an article called "History of firefighting in the United States" as well as in the article on each city's fire department. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of oldest Fire Departments in the United States and expand. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider my suggestion: History of firefighting in the United States. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only 1 can be the 'Oldest' so a Redirect is possible to one that might have a Cite to prove it. To bad there isn't a Cite in sight, and I cant seem to find a Reliable one. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is also no evidence that the oldest paid fire department in the United States has ever been a topic of interest, outside of this article.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, confusing list. Secret ^account 04:47, 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 closed as moot, article was speedily deleted by User:Fastily as copyvio. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's Luncheonette[edit]

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

Non-notable diner. Article is a complete copyvio of its only source, which is self-published. I couldn't find any other references which weren't Wikipedia mirrors. ~T P W 12:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As a copyvio (which it seems to be, per True Pagan Warrior), this should be speedied under WP:G12. I have tagged it accordingly. Yunshui (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "source" looks like a mirror of the Wikipedia article, rather than the other way around. This probably is also a speedy candidate for making no minimal claim of significance, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy for notability, it claims to be have significance in racial history. Whether it's speedy for copyvio or (per Smerdis) not I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Luncheonette. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 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 delete. A redirect can be editorially created if deemed necessary. Sandstein 18:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazz Kumar[edit]

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

A Singer. She has not released any music herself on a label. Unable to find any significant, reliable sources about her. I can't find reliable sources about the Sona Family either. Unable to confirm Sona Family released an album with Sony BMG. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sona Family. I can't find any significant coverage about her as an indpendent artist although she was nominated for a Brit Asia Music Award. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 15 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, Rcsprinter (gas) 11:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a reason why those editors advocating deletion are against a redirect? We commonly redirect musicians to band articles when they are not indepdendently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sirianni[edit]

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

This is a biographical article of which the primary claim of notability is the fact that the subject is a lawyer. The article has plenty of sources, but they consist of business related social networking profiles, self-written pieces, bare mentions of commission appointments and bar membership. None of them establish notability and I couldn't find any proper sources myself. The article is primarily written by accounts with names of the subject's mother and wife, so I get the impression this article was meant as a vanity piece to enhance the subject's public profile. Atlan (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Atlan (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article suggests no real notability, and GNews searches mostly turn up an Italian hockey player. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 17:46, 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. After two relistings, i see no move towards consensus. (Myself, I have no opinion or I 'd have given one in the discussion.) DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XtreemOS[edit]

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

Non-notable project. No independent sources. Some of the scientists involved in the project participated at meetings or produced articles: this is what academics do and is nothing out of the ordinary. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting yet, but I have several questions which may result in improving the article. First, I would like to understand on what ground it is stated that the project is non-notable.

This non-notable project has produced software that is still maintained by two Linux distributions one year after it has ended, that means there are users around there. A few sources are cited as it would be not appropriate to describe the full extent of the project here, that would be self advertising.

Please state what is your definition of "primary source" here, that is ambiguous IMHO.

Given that the project has ended, and the consortium no longer exists, if you define primary as "originated within the project" then any publication after the project end will not be primary sources. Shall I provide some? Besides, notice that at least a release of the software has been published (actually one more was out in June, I still have to update the page).

WP:GNG is not relevant: peer-reviewed sources meet wikipedia criterias of significant coverage, reliability, independency of the subject; if the need for secondary sources is the point, we have to decide what is a secondary source in this context.

On a more fundamental plan, your statements applies to any Research project. This means that according to this interpretation, wikipedia should not allow any form of documentation of research projects (unless we define a common criteria of notability for them, which I'd like to discuss).

A large research project (there are many that are been deleted these days, but I'll talk about XtreemOS for now) involves several research organizations and countless people. Shall we provide more peer-reviewed scientific publications?

However, getting more to the point, although partially sponsored by the research bodies, publication are responsibility of their authors. If you rule out any source that has been even remotely at some time connected with the project, or with any of the member institutions, then by the same criteria we should also rule out from the sources of the page "Star Wars" any magazine article based on the statements of George Lucas. That's not how wikipedia works, in my understanding. --Max-CCC (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand several things, IMO. First of all, WP:GNG applies to each and every WP article. Second, some research projects (and obvious example being the Manhattan Project) generate lots of independent coverage in secondary or even tertiary sources. Third, publications from project participants are not independent sources, not even after the project has ended. Fourth, magazine articles containing statements of George Lucas are not primary sources, because they were not written by Lucas, but by somebody else who, presumably, did some fact checking and such. Fifth, publishing is what academics do and as such, scientific publications are nothing out of the ordinary and producing them does not make somebody or something notable. What does show notability is if others write about such persons or projects. Finally, the word "notable" as used on WP has nothing whatsoever to do with quality, being useful, good, or bad. It only concerns whether some subject has been "noted" by others that are not directly related to it. As evidence for that, we take the existence of non-trivial independent reliable sources. I hope this clarifies the nomination for you. --Crusio (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree, which requires a little it of mutual respect to avoid the discussion becomes a quarrel. I see as quite offensive from you to tell me again and again that I don't understand several things, especially for those I did not say. Let's both try not to fill up our lists with things the other did not say.

It is rather obvious that WP policies apply to all pages. I was stating that I believe that you mentioning WP:GNG was not relevant for this page. You may still disagree, but please avoid writing tangential replies. Your point one is non-sequitur.
Point two is the relevant one, also in my opinion. The fact that the projects has spurred activity outside (e.g. Linux distribution) and after its end is IMO a proof of impact, hence of notability. Is there a definition, a standard you are using in pruning EU project pages? Adoption of tools by companies, other institutes, breakthrough technologies? Can we make it explicit?
Point three, the definition of "independent" that shall apply, is the one issue I raised before. Are you stating that there is no way for someone, or some entities involved in a project to be an independent source? I am challenging this criteria, as EU projects involve Research organizations of tens of thousands of people, so your criteria cannot work. On the same ground, any article on the EU could not have as source a document from EU itself. The fallacy of it is, criteria that apply to people do not apply to organizations, and your definitions of primary and independent source as applied to organizations will not. IMO you would not be able to differentiate between a primary and secondary source if it comes from the same huge, high level umbrella organization (e.g. INRIA, or ESA) so in the end you would treat all sources as primary.
Fourth: IMO you don't want to see the point: this is exactly the same for peer-reviewed articles; they are checked by other experts in the field, which shall have no conflict of interest with the authors (this is the standard for serious conferences and journals). Some may personally not trust the process, but that'd be their POV, not the position of wikipedia. They are primary, but reliable sources, which can be sometimes used in wikipedia for explanation purpose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
Fifth: again, in an encyclopedia you want to synthetically describe something explained elsewhere, so you put sources. Writing in magazines is what all journalist do, so we should disqualify all magazine articles as sources?
Finally I did never link the merit of the article to the quality of the project. I wrote about the impact (causing other things beside the EU-project-world to happen, a requirement for notability) and the self-advertising (forbidden in wikipedia). Non-sequitur IMO.

Can we all discuss about the criteria of points 2 and 3 ? IMO this is what is missing in the restructuring of the FP page, and what is causing the issue here. There is somewhat arbitrary set of projects summarized in the page, whose language TO ME seems rather self-proclaiming and that cannot convey useful information in two lines. How these projects were chosen? What was the evaluation performed? Needless to say, I am assuming that we all want to seriously discuss the topic and not just start edit-delete wars, or keep in the list each one's own preferred projects. --Max-CCC (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to reply to all this and part of your post does not really belong here (e.g., the discussion on improving the Framework article). Ad 1: I cannot see how WP:GNG does not apply here. Please explain to me why it doesn't. As 2: please point me to the WP policy that states that spurring activity outside contributes to the notability of a subject. As to your question: the criteria I apply in "pruning" EU project articles is strictly that of notability. Ad 3: a publication by a project participant is by definition not independent. With participant I mean a person, not a whole organization. A researcher who has no connection with a research project other than working for the same employer may be independent. However, an organization as a whole can never be an independent source for information about the organization as a whole (so EU sites are not independent info for EU-related topics). Ad 4: I'm not sure what you mean with this. I don't think anybody has ever argued that serious academic journals are not reliable sources. Ad 5: Again, I don't see what you mean here. Ad 6: In WP, "impact" is measured by coverage in independent' reliable sources. Hope this clarifies a bit. --Crusio (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find news coverage in several niche but apparently independent sources. --Kvng (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could tell us more exactly what you found (or, even better, add those sources to the article). Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Here's the first couple I teased out of the hundreds of thousands of Google hits: [12] [13]. --Kvng (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks: 1/ "Hundreds of thousands Ghits": if you click to the last page of Ghits, I get exactly 445. I don't see anything substantial in that. 2/ The first example of coverage you give is an announcement put put by the project of a meeting. The second is a report on an EU website (not independent). --Crusio (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something funny going on here. First page of results claims about 318,000 but it looks like you're right, there are only 100's of results. Perhaps this is one of those self-aggrandizing European research projects after all. Bing seems to find thousands of hits. Still too much uncertainty and too much to sift through for me to support deletion. --Kvng (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs independent third party references, not those produced by the project, their partners, staff, funders or hosts. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes references need to be improved and I've just added banners requesting such. Remeber, however, that an article doesn't qualify for deletion just for having no references establishing notability. It qualifies if there are no such reference in existence. It seems quite clear to me that there are qualifying references for this topic, they've just not been added to the article yet. --Kvng (talk) 21:02, 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, TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence has been presented of coverage from multiple independent sources, "niche" or otherwise. Europe does not lack for independent scientific and academic journals, and articles in them describing this project in "significant detail" would satisfy the GNG. Failing that, whatever buzz this project may have engendered amongst its participants or discussed at conferences is irrelevant. Simply asserting that such sources exist is not good enough; in order to keep the article, they must be produced and they must be verifiable.
That being said, at the risk of offending you by explaining something I claim you're not understanding, Max, you've drawn a parallel many inexperienced Wikipedia editors make. To use your example, George Lucas' interviews are indeed a valid source for information about Star Wars. But since he is not "independent," his interviews cannot be used to support the notability of Star Wars or any related topic. That is the distinction. Certainly, should the notability of XtreemOS be established, sources linked with the project can be considered for useful information. They cannot, of course, be used as evidence of its notability. Ravenswing 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors participating in AfD have an obligation to look beyond the contents of the article to determine if the topic is notable. We do not delete poorly written or poorly cited articles> So long as we believe the topic is notable, we improve them. Please click on some of the find sources links at the top of this AfD and see whats out there on the topic. --Kvng (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It is a longstanding part of policy that it is not the responsibility of editors advocating deletion to find multiple, reliable, independent sources which describe the subject in "significant detail," but that of editors advocating keeping articles to do so. If you have yourself found any sources which are not the work of people connected with this project, kindly supply them. So far the bare couple you have provided do not qualify, something readily obvious from a casual glance. Ravenswing 09:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my understanding. Is this policy documented somewhere? --Kvng (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. Ravenswing 18:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a few non-trivial steps between what you say above and WP:V. I found WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:RESCUE to be more helpful. It looks like you have a point. I still do not support deletion; I'm stubborn, I guess. --Kvng (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep. At least the web site implies that the technology might outlive the project (which was clearly ephemeral). Although the "crystal ball" argument would probably say delete or userify until there is evidence of that survival. In fact, it lokos like the 3.0 release did not happen when it was claimed. One place to merge might be European Grid Infrastructure since that is evolving into covering various grid-related projects in Europe. However, I see no evidence that EGI actually uses XtreemOS, or for that matter independent sources seem the real issue. Other places to merge might be XtreemFS (not clear the relation) or Virtual Organization (Grid computing) since it seems the main goal of XtreemOS was to support VOs on Linux? W Nowicki (talk) 20:03, 15 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} 08:57, 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. Concerns for deletion appear to have been resolved. Notability of the subject appears to have been established. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Estonia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

it's been 2 years since the last AfD of no consensus, and I notice there has been no article improvement. I checked to see if relations have grown http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/115 indeed they have not. The draft agreements are still draft. Neither country has resident ambassadors, level of trade is very small in terms of each country's economies. In 20 years of relations, neither leader has visited the other country, in fact the two leaders have never met. And arguing that a joint stamp issue adds to notable bilateral relations is really scraping the barrel. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete No notable relations at all going on here. Trade is absolutely minuscule (even if, according to an observation, but no source, by someone at a previous AfD Chilean wine "dominate" Estonian market). Its not even Estonia's largest trading partner in South America (that is Brazil) so that (very thin) notability is no longer relevant. The only notable treaty is the visa free travel (though that can be covered in other articles). The rest are standard poli-speak of we agree to work together on such-and-such that every country has and signs with any other country when a minor diplomatic or political figure visits. The fact that certain Chilean works have been translated into Estonian is also completely irrelevant here. Ravendrop 09:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lack of article improvement isn't a valid reason for deletion. A quick check of news sources see that relations have have grown, for example from a joint stamp issue to a chilean delegation visiting Estonia just last month to study the Estonian postal service[14][15]. The claim that Chilean wine dominated the Estonian market is sourced to this news article[16]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A single joint stamp issue does not mean that all Chile-Estonia relations are notable, nor does the fact that Estonians drink a lot of Chilean wine. These facts can be, at best, included on other pages, or, at worst, are simply trivial and not notable.Ravendrop 17:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is really no significant news here other than that the Estonians seem to like Chilean wine, and it's a safe bet that they drink a pretty small part of that output. The only substantive source is a page from the Estonian foreign ministry (one of set for every country in the world, it seems) which says nothing remarkable and which states that Estonian trade with Chile is pretty small (95th export and 45th import partner). All the rest of this stuff is routine; I think this article could only be justified if one thought that articles on relations between any pair of countries were notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that the article is sourced and bi-lateral international relations (though rarely exciting) have some level of inherent notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm making this !vote because the article has some information and it's sourced. If that wasn't the case then I'd !vote otherwise. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neutral, for now There appears to be a huge structure of "X-Y relations" articles including a lot of others as improbable as this one. I have yet to find another one put up for AFD. I therefore have to assume that people have in general found the mere fact of such relations notable no matter how routine they are. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well Referenced intersection of 2 notable topics. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable or trivial relations? LibStar (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Chile & Estonia are WP:notable. I am going to assume your refering to the 'Relations' between the two. the 'Relations' are Cited and can be assumed WP:Notable (especially to persons of the 2 nations). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Martin Tammsalu. Diego talk 00:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you really going to do wikilawyering in my face? Want a reason? Okay. Even though the Estonia-Chile relations have not been something extraordinary, personally I believe these "relations" articles are particularly helpful to find "historic coincidences" between two countries. Diego talk 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it would be better to state reasons in your own words in the first place. this is simple etiquette in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that what is in the article currently is sufficient to establish notability for relations between these 2 countries. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of improvement is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you have not provided a reason for keeping. lack of significant coverage of actual relations is a reason for deletion. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:Nug (Martin Tammsalu) for the wonderfully non-intuitive factual connections and sources he's found. This is truly one of those only-in-Wikipedia odd articles that's strange but true in the best way. I was ready to support deletion until I actually read the sources. Who knew? Bearian (talk) 00:42, 25 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 deletion reason appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Rodemeyer[edit]

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

This 14-year-old was WP:INTHENEWS after he committed suicide due to bullying over his sexual orientation. Lady Gaga dedicated a song to him at a concert, and actor Zachary Quinto reconfirmed for everybody that he too is gay, in Jamey's honor.

Other than that, there's really nothing to satisfy WP:BIO here. We're certainly not seeing anything approaching the significance of the Tyler Clementi case here. WP:VICTIM suggests a stand-alone article would be appropriate only if he had a "large role" in a "well-documented historical event" that has received "persistent coverage" -- not a Twitter-fed relative news blip or "another in a series of cases ...", which is what this is. And although BLP1E, tragically, does not apply, I still think we ought to be extremely hesitant about taking an otherwise completely unknown and private minor child and saying that he is permanently important to public history as a gay person who killed himself. Perhaps a bullet point in Gay bashing#Cases may be called for. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think there's a big difference between this case, suicide of Tyler Clementi and some others mentioned in the Category:Victims of cyber-bullying. The article describes an extreme case, the worst scenario resulting from a dangerous and disgusting social phenomenon, online bullying. Wikipedia should cover the most shocking cases and document the dangers and changes in human social behavior influenced by the Internet and related technologies. The content of our article is verifiable by multiple reliable sources, this event already is a part of public history and we can hardly talk about a "completely unknown and private minor child". --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable; extensive news coverage.[17] User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to Gay bashing#Cases – For me, "persistent coverage" is a key phrase here. It's too soon to say. The Tyler Clementi case has more coverage of legal arguments, comments and actions by schools and public figures. Jamey may yet generate such coverage, but we don't know yet. I agree this case is shocking, but that's an opinion of editors and therefore not in itself grounds for a Wikipedia article. By the way, once persistent coverage has been established, there is precedent for an article about the event rather than the person. Suicide of Tyler Clementi is an example. (Disclosure: minor contributor to the article, and I patrolled it. Originally I didn't see a strong case for deletion, but I have thought more about it now.) – Wdchk (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on keep vs delete, but it should at least be renamed. Kevin (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample coverage in many reliable sources. No objection to renaming to Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, which is the proper topic of the article, but I don't see an urgent need for it. --Lambiam 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect This article was originally a redirect to the high school the subject of the article attended and was bullied there. If this article fails the notability guidelines, then it should be reverted to the first revision where it was a redirect. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two weeks ago, I would have redirected this to his high school's article, because it was worth about two sentences. Since then, his death has become notable, with thousands of stories in the media and its ongoing impact. Perhaps a redirect to Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer may be in order, but AfD is not meant for move discussions. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the immediate future. The page view statistics would indicate to me that the page is seeing significant regular traffic (at least by my standards). If this drops off as time moves on then someone could make the argument for deletion or merging then. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article fully meets WP:GNG, This case has also generated very much media attention, the victim is now well know and talked about in the media and general public, supplying many opportunities for additional citations and expansion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments by User:Vejvančický, disagree with lede on deletion. -Mardus (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but at Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, which is currently a redirect). The coming-out of two notable people as a direct result of this event, as well as the ongoing coverage, demonstrate the continued impact necessary for a WP:EVENT pass. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This article is too soon to be nominated as AfD during the time of recent events like suicides of victims of homophobia. Just wait for two years and see if he will become notable in the future. --Gh87 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gets coverage in reliable sources mentioned in the article. Its good to cover things like this. Make people aware of the problem. Dream Focus 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 24 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 third party coverage is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 18:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Transfer Day[edit]

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

This article is an announcement and a call for action. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so there should be no place for this, despite sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't think that the description of this page as "an announcement and a call to action" is an accurate description, there is thus no rationale for deletion given so far. It is adequately sourced and written in a neutral tone. I am slightly dubious as to whether it will have lasting impact, it could be argued that the page should be deleted because of the on-off nature (thus the weak keep). On the other hand, I have already seen mentions of this in many sources, so think it is notable enough. Francis Bond (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Most of the references given are to items that, while related, aren't the "Day" itself. And I put "day" in quotes because: "Bank Transfer Day...by November 5, 2011."...not a "day" at all... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria in wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball: "appropriate to keep discussion of events and prospect of success ... if discussion is properly reinforced." That the event is political is irrelevant wrt deletion as political events are kept. This article will have been a victim of Overzealous Deletion. It may need some further editing, but certainly doesn't warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.70.63 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this sounds like an overzealous desire to keep the article, in contradiction with the rules... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two reliable sources that address the topic in detail, and likely more available and to occur in the near future.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the notability is there, just yet. But considering the sources available, I'd say this is a borderline case. Could we not cover this in a more concise manner as an aspect or offshoot of the OWS phenomenon? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources, participation worldwide, and widespread general knowledge. Is not a soapbox as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox but merely a statement of factual events. Is targeted for Overzealous Deletion Sngourd (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, in order to violate the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" policy, the article must be one of the four: (1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind; (2) Opinion piece; (3) Scandal mongering; and (4) Advertising. This article is neither of the four. Written from a neutral point of view; verifiable and independent third-party sources were used to back up virtually every sentence of the article. Disclosure: I am the main editor. --Fayerman (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will most likely cease to be notable on November 6th if not enough people respond. Since notability is permanent, it would therefore follow that it is not yet notable. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the numerous reliable sources, both available and in the article at this time, the article appears to pass WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NTEMP, once notability has been established for a topic, it doesn't have to be continuously reported upon. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already 1,600 stories in gnews. Dualus (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:BIGNUMBER. How many of those stories are "cut and paste" press releases? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Silly crystal ball gazing. Whatever. I feel as if Wikipedia is being used as a political platform. That's too bad. ShakerSJC (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is a well-referenced, informative article (and topic) "silly"? Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will not be WP:Crystal too much longer, its date is fast approaching, can it be moved into its creators userspace, until then. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOTSOAPBOX WP:NOTNEWSPAPER all apply. Appears to be little more than using WP to promote the event. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In addition to the many reliable sources presently in the article, I just added three more. Topic obviously surpasses WP:GNG:

Little, Lyneka (October 18, 2008). "'Bank Transfer Day' Gains Momentum on Facebook". ABC News. Retrieved October 19, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Digiovanni, Myriam (October 19, 2011). "Bank Transfer Day: A Good Time to Be a CU". Credit Union Times. Retrieved October 19, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"'Bank Transfer Day' Movement Goes Viral". Fox News (Boston). October 13, 2011. Retrieved October 19, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is already notable in the media. What happens in the future is irrelevant, because the threat itself is notable. USchick (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, not unless it is carried out and has a notable effect. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to policy, the subject itself has to be notable, not the effect it may have in the future. wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball According to Fox News it's already viral [18] USchick (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News is not the most reliable source. And secondly: saying that you are going to do something, is something different then doing it. I want to see prove first that the bank are bothered by the mass closing of accounts... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Wikipedia does not require reliable source to be "the most reliable". As to the proof, read this: Bank Transfer Day: Technologists Say Thousands Already Switching --Fayerman (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of an understatement? And still no proof that the banks are bothered. That the Credit Unions are happy, does not make the call to walk away a success... Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply — Please do not argue with me. My goal is to help you find answers to your questions. A "thank you" would be nice. If you have more questions, I will try addressing them. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Do I ask difficult questions? Then I repeat the questions in clear English:

Do you have proof that the bank are bothered by this action?
Do you have proof that the action will be a success (= having the bank to cut the fees etc.)?
Why do you regard this article not to be in conflict with WP:SOAPBOX?
Are there any clear criteria to call the action a success?
Is there a reliable number available of people who have closed their accounts? (Not the number of likes of a facebook-page)

Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a proposal. The proposal itself is significant and notable as a potential threat. See: Threat display. Similar articles exist about potential threats such as Nuclear holocaust and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth which may or may not ever happen. The threat does not have to be carried out to be relevant and significant. USchick (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fayerman. At this point I believe notability is established, and the article clearly does not violate WP:SOAPBOX. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does het not violate wp:soapbox? At present it is still a call for action! And if I look at the (?) Facebookpage is only see 21,856 supporters (or better, people who clicked on "like" without any obligation) Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This is off-topic, but I think you're looking at the wrong link. --Fayerman (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not off-topic, mr. author. Facts is what we need. Not a crystal ball. Even with the correct page (I had indeed a wrong one found), I don't come further then "59,587 attending". So, 60.000 people on 312 million Americans. I impressed (for you: an understatement). Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This nomination for article deletion isn't congruent with any of the criterion for deletion listed at WP:DEL#REASON. The nomination to erase this article from Wikipedia is based upon personal opinion, rather than Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the last line of the text you point at: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. I ask your attention to the link "not suitable". Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy, however after reading this page I believe that the article is appropriate for our encyclopeida. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for the reason of my nomination. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific? What exactly in this article falls under the "not"? USchick (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Northamerica1000 has found reliable sources. WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is satisfied, very comfortably.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:22, 25 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 Sarasvati River. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinaśana[edit]

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

Decided lack of context, although not enough for CSD A1. Sources given do not back up what is in the article. I cannot discern whether this is supposed to be a geographic location or a mythical location. Delete. Safiel (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lack of context: I have rewritten this article with definition, etymology, further details, related topics and categories.

Sources given do not back up what is in the article: provided new references from Mahabharata, Manusmṛti and Sanskrit dictionary.

I cannot discern whether this is supposed to be a geographic location or a mythical location: This point I have cleared in the definition of the article. Bhvintri (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiability of the statements made in the article. Of the references which are verifiable, only one mentions Vinaśana, and that one (a) does not give it substantial coverage, and (b) does not confirm the statements made in the article. The other verifiable reference is a dictionary entry which defines a word similar to "Vinaśana", and perhaps related to it, but does not mention the place which is the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that Ruśama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by the same editor) should be added to this AfD for the same reasons … in fact, it totally lacks any WP:RS references. Happy Editing! — 70.21.5.28 (talk · contribs) _{17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete? This seems to be simply a place mentioned in passing in the Mahabharata. I'd suggest a merger except that the latter is such a sprawling thing that our article is unlikely to mention something that minor. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ re-edited the article. removed unreferred content.

verifiability and reliability of the article: added new references from reliable and verifiable resources.

substantial coverage: this place is mentioned in Panchavimsha Brahmana- Later Vedic Age 500 BC to 150 BC; Mahabharata (400 BC to 400 AD); Manusmṛti (200 BC to 200 AD) and Bhagavata Purana (500 AD to 1000 AD). So this term covers period from 500 BC to 1000 AD.

merger with Mahabharata: Vinaśana is an independent term, apart from Mahabharata it occurs in Manusmṛti, Panchavimsha Brahmana and Bhagavata Purana as well. Bhvintri (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that once you have registered a "keep" you should not do so again. You are welcome to make further comments, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Sarasvati River as there seems to be nothing about this being said that doesn't relate to that mythological stream. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is really nothing to merge. Virtually the only thing the Vinaśana article tells us that relates to the Sarasvati River is that Mahabharata and other texts tell us that the river disappeared at a place called Vinaśana, but the article Sarasvati River already tells us that. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that. I would advocate redirect instead. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has a line: "As per Chapter 2, Verse 21 of Manusmṛti[3] it is described as the western most point of Madhyadeśa (Middle Country).", that has nothing to do with Sarasvati River. Also there are some other points in the article that relate this article with Kingdom of Nishadas and Abhiras not related to the River. So redirection of this article will remove all this information. Bhvintri (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarasvati River. No indication that this is notable, or of any significance except as relating to the river. Sandstein 18:32, 25 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel animated universe[edit]

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

As far as I am aware, there has been no official confirmation of a shared continuity between these series. In fact, it has been brought to my attention that the official Marvel handbooks list them as being in separate continuities (X-Men in Earth-92131; Iron Man in Earth-569386; Fantastic Four in Earth-534834; Spider-Man in Earth-194111; Incredible Hulk in Earth-400285; Silver Surfer in Earth-634962). Also, there are no citations throughout the article that confirm that there is a shared universe (plenty that state several crossovers, but that doesn't mean anything- there are heaps of crossovers in Marvel shows) ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delte - Not sure what to do with this, but it has info that should go somewhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is something other that fansites and other wikis that use ther term and lay out what it is, I would agree. But that doesn't seem to be the case. - J Greb (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe redirect it to Marvel or Marvel Animation. It has a lot of references that may be useful somewhere else. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think so. As I said below, all of the information that is referenced (mainly crossovers and special appearances, which occur in all Marvel shows, not just those from the 90s) is elsewhere in pages on wikipedia, where it makes more sense. Also, using such reference here to imply false continuity is incorrect, and all of the references lead to fan sites, meaning that the sources aren't even credible. This article should be deleted. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this was like DC Animated Universe, then I could understand keeping it but the opening statement even says "this is a fan term". We're not here to create articles on fan based creations unless there is some serious notability behind it and this page doesn't appear to have any notability. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be argued that the subject has gained notability just from being on wikipedia, allowing for readers to believe its existence... But really, as it is clearly stated as a fan term, and then provided with no citations towards official confirmation of the actual continuity (along with reliable sources saying there is no continuity), and other citations across the article sourcing fan sites, it is just original research, and should be deleted. As to content that should be kept, I believe the information on particular crossovers has potential, but is already used on each character's "In other media" section, and so is unnecessary. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MADEUP by the fans, not citeable through reliable sources. (Also, the statement "It could be argued that the subject has gained notability just from being on wikipedia, allowing for readers to believe its existence" has so many things wrong with it I don't even know where to start). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. But I could say, that the statement, "Also, the statement 'It could be argued that the subject has gained notability just from being on wikipedia, allowing for readers to believe its existence' has so many things wrong with it I don't even know where to start" has so many things wrong with it I don't even know where to start, but that would be a lie (making this statement as truthful as yours). I said that statement with a slightly sarcastic tone (which I'll let you off for not noticing, as there is no sarcastic font, but I did think that "... But really" following the statement would be a clue). Ultimately, the point of it was to point out that in the case of this article, wikipedia is spreading rumours, that are being believed by numerous readers. Also, a note: Wikipedia is a much nicer place if you're not so immediately harsh. It would have been more courteous to simply state that you didn't agree with the statement. I know this sounds hypocritical, but I'm just giving you an example not to follow... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what happens now? This is the first article I've put through AFD, and pretty much everyone seems to agree that it should be deleted. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The premise and reason for the article to exist is that it claims a separate storyline exists out of only the film medium. No reference for this has been provided. Do not be fooled by the references which do exist, as these are character synopses which make the article into a WP:SYN. (What is the essay for this kind of dishonsety?)Curb Chain (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bignole's reasoning above. This article is totally completely fancruft. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:38, 24 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. Speedy G3'd. Blatant hoax is blatant. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Leonard[edit]

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

Doing some searches of this person, I have found zero information on him or on any of his books. The sources given do not mention him at all - they just describe the various statutes and laws in which this person was involved. Complete lack of verifiability, possibly a hoax. –MuZemike 02:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~as hoax.~~ That's what I suspected when I first tagged the article. For a prominent lawyer, this person is absolutely invisible. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment Of course it's a hoax--the RICO Act was written long before this subject was born. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete This person is completely non-notable by Wikipedia standards, if he exists. The article does not says he is a lawyer, and he could just be a disgruntled guy with a gripe against the legal system who has written some unpublished texts that he calls "books". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTABILITY, and a number of aspects of WP:BLP (including WP:VERIFIABILITY). Rxlxm (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if everything claimed in the article was true, it wouldn't make him notable - nobody seems to have even noted his existence. BTW, try searching for the 'books' he supposedly published, and note their apparent invisibility too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I mentioned that at the author's talk page, which was blanked. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient (any?) independent refs to prove WP:BIO notability. I had tried to fix the article previously, by removing (with clear edit summaries) refs that did not support the facts stated (was using a ref to an act as WP:RS that subject had used the act to bring legal action). Some of the refs did support that he had petitioned SCOTUS (pointers to filings where he was counsel), but all petitions were denied. That means you ask to bring action and the court says "no, you may not"--pretty much any lawyer admitted to bar and able to practice in high state court can do that. Not "lost on merits of trial argument" (as article suggests), but had his filing rejected up front. That's not notable, that's normal. Without independent refs, we have nothing more than a list of non-successful activities there. "cases have been to and before SCOTUS" is pretty empty puffery for someone who only appears to get as far as getting rejected entry just after crossing the doorstep. All the coming-soon and uncritically analyzed books in the world only amount to "writes a lot" not "a notable writer" (see also, WP:CRYSTAL). Lots of bands have demo tapes and send them to every major record company, some may even get played on a local station. They're not notable until they get public acclamation with charts and media reports about them. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Davewild (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rashaun Freeman[edit]

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

~~No assertion of notability. Run of the mill college basketball player from a couple years ago. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw. Notability established. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He currently plays in the Israeli Ligat Ha'Al for Maccabi Habik'a, and has played in the French LNB Pro A and the German Bundesliga (though, for some reason, they list him as being born in 1983) before. These are the highest tiers of basketball competitions in their respective countries, and fully professional leagues. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plays in fully pro national top-level leagues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 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. There is clearly a consensus here that we should cover this topic. As events progress and the impact of this movement becomes more clear there will probably come a time when we discuss merging some of the "occupy" articles (they even had one where I live), but that was not the focus of this debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy San Jose[edit]

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

Disclaimer: I have been working to try and improve this article, but after some consideration I really don't think it's ready for prime time yet. The Occupy SJ effort has yet to really take hold (it's less than 100 people) and not really a "movement" quite yet. Many of the references point to Occupy Wallstreet articles which make no reference to Occupy San Jose at all. Earlier today I removed a bunch of flickr/twitter links and "unofficial" blogs that were not up to snuff for an encyclopedia. So while I have invested some time in it, I just don't think there is enough significance here yet to warrant an article, unlike the recent protests in Rome or some of the other locations which actually have received noteworthy coverage. Delete for now, but without prejudice. ShakerSJC (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of "Occupy" protest locations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of RS: [19]. Qworty (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uh, plenty? Eight isn't enough, especially when said sources are mostly local and trivial in nature. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 08:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic's notability is congruent with WP:GNG— [20], [21], and [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For same reasons stated by Northamerica1000. Topic is notable on its own, even apart from other related protests. There are plenty of independently sourced references. Sngourd (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. There may be WP:LOCAL and WP:NEWS arguments to be made here; I question whether a protest of a few hundred people (if that) truly has long-term notability. However, I believe there needs to be a larger discussion about the many "Occupy X City" articles that have the exact same problems, which could result in a merge or other treatment of these articles. I don't think it would be helpful to delete this article before that larger discussion takes place. Oren0 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per Oren0. In all likelihood there will be a shakedown in which a handful of major "Occupy" articles are retained, a batch of minor "Occupy" articles are merged, and a slug of trivial "Occupy" stubs are deleted or transformed into redirects. There will be time enough for that. Obviously this is a case of currentism, but trying to hold back the tide at this moment is not only likely fruitless, but also probably counterproductive as a good way to lose information and links. So keep, for now... Carrite (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As "notability is not temporary," a very satisfactory resolution to this deletion nomination from my perspective would be "No Consensus," which would have the practical effect of keeping the information without ruling the article fully notable. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly merge per above). Nothing here speaks of lasting notability. All references are either WP:LOCAL, pretty Routine (per the on-going activities of the parent group, which is notable) or fail WP:NOTNEWS. Ravendrop 18:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several media stories, other sources, seems notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC) revised vote, see below[reply]
Keep - it's at least as big as the "Occupy" protests in Philadelphia. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you go by the sources in this article, the protest lasted 8 days and was roughly ~100 people. Saying that this is least as big as some other non-important event isn't really a strong argument in my opinion. But you know what they say about opinions... ShakerSJC (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Omit Well, perhaps, small is, if not beautiful, worth mention. Over the hill here in Santa cruz there are many folks camped and protesting at the county courthouse near San Lorenzo Park. Not sure what I think of it all, but this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyocoyote (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Sources already demonstrate notability and there are a ton more which could be added. The article is capable of considerable expansion and a merge to the main "Occupy" protests article is impractical.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect at best. This is not notable, and we are not the news. A couple of stories don't make for an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually astounds me that with a mere 12 hits on Google [23] there is even one single keep vote. I challenge those who suggest this page be kept to cite which articles demonstrate notability. Almost every single article that mentions Occupy San Jose does so in passing. The single WP:LOCAL article which actually covers OSJ beyond that states that there is a grand total of five people in nylon tents. [24] Five. ShakerSJC (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Places of local interest is an essay, not even a guideline let alone a policy. And it covers places, not events. Leaving aside the issues of how one would define 'local'. San Jose on its own has a population of around 1 million, and forms part of metropolitan area with a population of 7.5 million. This is not a little village. Plus it is far too soon to measure the lasting impact of Occupy San Jose. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ShakerSJC has a point. Five. Five. Two plus three or one plus four. Only that? How does this article meet WP:N? It's miniscule, has few participants, no arrests, etc. The Frisco-Jose-Oakland metro area may be big, but with only five tents, do you think this is really notable? HurricaneFan 25 12:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets also delete Occupy London, because there's only been 8 arrests made so far.RiseRobotRise (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot more than five people involved in Occupy San Jose, as is clear from reading the cited sources, many hundreds in fact. The number of people is in any case irrelevant and is not part of the notability policy. An event done by one person can be notable if it has adequate third party coverage, and we have tens of thousands of just such articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes than hundreds of protesters. But that's nothing compared to the other protests, with tens of thousands, like Boston, and this one has had no arrests. HurricaneFan 25 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent City, California is rather smaller than Los Angeles but they are both notable. Los Angeles also has a vast number of features which Crescent City does not. The notability policy does not require that arrests occurred, that is an arbitrary requirement which you are proposing.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the article isn't establishing notability. Hundreds of people out of millions. Boston = 10,000, Portland = 10,000. Here? Hundreds. In this case, arrests are an essential part of any "Occupy" article. Boston had 141. This one has none. Compared to other "Occupy" articles, there's really little useful content. Period. HurricaneFan 25 13:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely unencyclopedic. I could not say it more eloquently than Rangoon11: "it is far too soon to measure the lasting impact of Occupy San Jose". WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try but my point is that current notability is more than established by sources. Lasting notability of any new topic will require time to establish - and can only, in fact, be established through the passage of time - but that does not mean that articles on new topics should not be created. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try? Indeed--there is notability, there is no current as opposed to lasting notability. It is not notable now. Maybe it will be notable in the future. I doubt it, but it's possible. Articles on new topics should be created if those topics are notable, and way too many of these Occupy articles reduce Wikipedia to either a source for news or a billboard. This is an encyclopedia, it's not Facebook. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to encyclopedic nature of the article as confirmed by multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability of a protest in a major city. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that it isn't encyclopedic, it is about the notability. There's so many different "Occupy" protests at the moment, though compared to others, this one has hundreds of participants while the other protests have tens of thousands. This one has no arrests, while the others have over a hundred arrests. HurricaneFan 25 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one has sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources to meet the GNG. For all sorts of reasons some numerically larger protests may not. In time there may well be scope to merge together some or even many of the 'Occupy' articles but deletion of this article is to deny readers information on events which have achieved notability.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'd like to ask how many of you have actually been to Occupy San Jose? At the last General Assembly, Sunday Nov 16th we had over 250 community members attending. The previous General Assembly, Sunday Nov 9th saw over 350 people. As someone who is helping to organize this group, and the person who created the OSJ article it may seem I am heavily biased. My request to keep the article is based on the fact that over 5000 hours of time have already been put into this movement, it's legitimacy is crystal clear in my opinion. Organizers are meeting daily, new groups are forming daily. There are many articles which support it. There are now over 10 tents, and regularly 15-25 people sleeping there every night. The Facebook group has over 350 members, and the Facebook Community Page has over 4800 people and is growing daily. There have been citations and several arrests, the issue was that it was done in the middle of the night and the media, although alerted did not respond. Burleyc1 (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that this isn't notable—compared to other "Occupy" protests. Yes, yes, there's lots of people. I just did a Google search, no arrests yet, but Occupy San Jose was facing a possible "arrest". Facebook is not an indicator of the notability of this event, really. Occupy Phoenix faced 46 arrests. San Jose? None. Participants in Occupy Boston? 10,000. This one? 350. HurricaneFan 25 17:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Few "delete" !votes above make a stronger argument for deletion than Burleyc1's "keep" !vote does in an eloquent way. --Crusio (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occupy Wall Street per my reasons outlined below that I feel is necessary for a "notable" Occupy article:

Note: This page was created as a result of several AfD's and an ANI thread involving the notability of individual Occupy protests, and is only retained for historical reference for the user.

My views on the notability of individual Occupy Wall Street protests

Arrests — I consider Boston notable as it had 141 arrests, and I also consider Phoenix, with 46 arrests (which has yet to get an article), notable. A good number arrests, more than 30, in my opinion makes an "Occupy" protest require an article.
Violence — If there is any moderate (shooting, rock-throwing, etc.) violence in the protest, and has a considerable number of arrests or a police reaction, the protest deserves an article.
Participants — If the protest has enough combined media coverage and participants, the protest is worthy of an article. However, if there are no arrests, little media coverage, while there are many participants, the protest does not deserve an article.
Media coverage — Ample media coverage should be required for an article for any of the protests; however, I wouldn't see this as a requirement, rather as a preferred option. A lot of media coverage most likely means a major protest.
Article content — if the article has a considerable amount of individual content, as in an attempted speech by a Congressman — not just the usual "...protest against corporate greed and ____ in ___".
Verifiability — All "Occupy" articles should contain verifiable information. All. No exceptions.
Social networking sites do not count — At the AfD for Occupy San Jose, a "keep" vote was posted, on several basis, including the number of participants and the number of Facebook group members and likes/fans on a Facebook community page. Facebook doesn't necessarily indicate the participation or support — during the 2010 Congressional elections, several candidates had tons of "likes" but compared to their opponent, with only a few "likes," was far behind in the election.

HurricaneFan 25 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hurricanfan, I love you like a brother and I agree with you, but PLEASE don't be shouting from the rooftops with these boxes... Regular font and good arguments are enough, thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the short period of time that these "Occupy" articles have existed, there is no way to determine the broader future significance of these events. At this point in time, the are all significant. If somebody has taken the time to articulate the unique character of any of these individual locations, keep it. Let it develop and grow. If, after a significant time, when our clearer eyes of historical judgement can show that a particular location was insignificant, then nominate it for deletion. At this point in time, you can't pass such a negative, dismissive judgement as all are now getting significant coverage. In wikipedia terms, that establishes notability. Trackinfo (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is so jumbled that I don't know where to start. Of course, there is a way to determine if they're significant, and no, they're not all significant. Why should they be? "Unique character" and all that stuff is not found anywhere in our guidelines, and that's a good thing. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to "let it develop and grow"--since the closest antecedent of "it" is "the unique character of any of these individual locations". You can do that via Facebook. As for the future significance, you could consider waiting for the future to see what that significance is--if there is any for any of these individual locations. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo's rationale is another eloquent plea for deletion. Newspapers have to report about this and have to do that now. But WP i snot a newspaper. We don't need to creat articles now and then see whether, in fact, the subject turns out to be notable enough to keep the article. We do things the other way around: we don't create an article until it is clear that the subject is notable. And, as stated by Trackinfo, "there is no way to determine the broader future significance of these events", i.e., WP:CRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is wholly irrelevant as this article does not concern a future event or any future speculation. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, once a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, ongoing coverage isn't required to establish notability. Also, the general notability guideline makes no mention regarding occurrences at events, the number of arrests at events, etc. as consideration for article inclusion or exclusion. Importantly, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not sourcing or content in the articles themselves. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - dubious sourcing/lasting notability. Merge into OWS article, maybe give a small section. - Haymaker (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are several reliable sources already in the article. AfD is about the availability of reliable sources for a topic, not sources within an article itself. The policy WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM (Try to fix problems) is clearly superior to an outright deletion of this article. This topic easily passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could those !voting "keep" please read WP:EVENTS? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have, thanks, and see nothing there which determines definitively that this event, which easily satisfies the GNG, should not have an article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's about this, "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance." Drmies (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I see nothing there which determines definitively that this event, which easily satisfies the GNG, should not have an article. Whether this event is of lasting importance requires subjective judgement, yours and mine can be different for all manner of reasons. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opponents here, including myself, disagree with your claim that the topic satisfies WP:GNG (let alone easily). Key here is item 5, on "presumed," which links directly to WP:NOT, where we find WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Relevant in WP:EVENT, in my opinion, is WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE. In a nutshell, these events, it is maintained, are not of lasting effect and of sufficiently broad scope to warrant inclusion. In another nutshell, coverage in newspapers alone is not a guarantee that a topic should be deemed notable. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seeing plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. —SW— ^gab 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Most of WP:EVENT does not seem to apply - not business as usual, not a short event, not a scandal, not a crime. The Steve 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. 8 arrests were made at 3:00am on October 21st, therefore reversing some of the claims made earlier by HurricaneFan 25. Burleyc1 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True. I'm not going to argue; but eight isn't much compared to the 141 in another protest. HurricaneFan 25 20:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some media coverage, but will there ever be enough content to destub the article? If I could think of a valid merge target... till then, reluctant keep. Something happened there, and seems marginally notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Keep"" WP:GNG requirements met.RiseRobotRise (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Northamerica1000. CallawayRox (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000 has found coverage providing this is notable to anyone that might have doubts. Dream Focus 21:17, 24 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} 01:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day New York[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient notability outside NYC. Seems like a regular newscast. For precedent, see this. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WNYW if this isn't found to be notable in its own right. What's the guideline for establishing notability of TV news programs anyway? §everal⇒|Times 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, also no claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:16, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A reasonable fork from the channel station. Though its an NYC-based show, it does have some independent notability due to its age and prominence. This show gets media coverage in non-NYC markets, e.g., [25]. Typical morning shows in small cities like Tampa Bay, yes, I agree they would not be notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One reliable source was found by user:Milowent above to refute the nomination. Nomination rationale of the topic being insufficiently notable outside of NYC (a metropolitan area) as a reason to delete the article entirely isn't based upon WP:BEFORE, nor is the rationale of being a "regular" newscast, "regular" being a weasel word in the context of the statement, as no definition of "regular" is provided by the nominator. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I needed to define "regular" but lets try this: every day, normal, run of the mill newscast. Also, how does one article about one event 20 years ago establish notability? CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very signifigant news show, in one of Americas most signifigant cities, watched daily by millions of people, very valuable to wikipedia in my opinion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show gets coverage not just in the New York Times as was already found in the last AFD, but other places as well. http://www.eonline.com/news/the_soup/learning_news_you_report_it_on_good_day/195624 for instance. The show has been on since 1988, so surely a lot of people watch it. Dream Focus 00:23, 24 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eldad Eilam[edit]

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

Author of a textbook on reverse engineering. That is it according to the article. Article is three years old and text book is six. In the meantime, other reverse engineering books are on the market and Mr. Eilam is now CTO at GraphOn. I'm unable to find anything to pass WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only source given is the subject's blog, which is not a WP:RS as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 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) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above, and fails WP:OR and WP:V. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only coverage I could find was the article linked above about GraphOn. The name comes up in a fair number of items that comment on the book, but even the book seems to be borderline notable, and while his name tags along, nothing is said about himself, professionally or otherwise, which provides very little content to justify the existence of a BLP — frankie (talk) 21:00, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Online[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since July, I am putting this article up for discussion. There are no reliable sources cited, or even references, just five external links (two of which fail WP:RS anyway). ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that 3 of the 5 ELs are RS'es? That would mean it met the GNG, since RS'es existing is sufficient (ideal if they're included, and better as references than ELs). I'm not sure that's what you meant, though. Have you tried to find any sources? Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 3 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) 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't what I am saying. I'm saying that two for sure are unreliable sources. I am unsure about Kongregate or GameFaqs. The official website is not independent of the subject, which is the definition of a RS. It's fine as a primary source. And I did try to find sources and didn't see a whole lot in my searching. ArcAngel (talk) ) 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 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} 00:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator's rationale. Regarding the two sources ArcAngel was unsure of, I judge neither to be acceptable - Kongregate appears to be a commercial site with collected links to "free" games and GameFAQs has been discussed here --> Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GameFAQs_and_Gamespot_shared_database with one of their contributors stating the site is not suitable as a Wikipedia source. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I found only two sources, one trivial: MMOHuts.com (click review), MMORPG.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:15, 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 to Aakash Institute. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANTHE[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Nominating for deletion because the article does not appear notable enough for its own article. Searching online provided nothing, and the sources that are currently in the article are of questionable reliability, being blogs and other WP:SPS. Sudo Ghost 05:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANTHE Reference Added[edit]

I have added another reference to clarify the ANTHE article reliability and notability issue which was published on 03-October-2011 at Education Times (a weekly supplement of Times of India newspaper) of Delhi-Edition.

One more reference has added for the same which is published today in Hindustan Times front page.

Please review these added references and do the needful to resolve the issue with this article.

I will be very thankful to Wikipedia editors and administrators. Thanks. (Satya563 (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "reference" you added is an ad in a newspaper. This is not a reliable source. - Sudo Ghost 05:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To inform the students about test schedules and features, almost every top level institute/ college/ university go for print media.

The reference websites which I added are already part of the wikipedia from many years and well known worldwide. The text published on the same is reliable but the image is not.

I am not able to understand the difference. It is only a different way to inform the same prospects/ group of people in a better way. (Satya563 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Because anyone can pay to have an advertisement placed in a newspaper. This does not make it a reliable source simply because the advertisement is in a well-known newspaper. If the newspaper were to write an article about ANTHE, that would be different than someone paying to have an advertisement placed in the newspaper. - Sudo Ghost 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, I have added 2 more references of ANTHE after deep research on web published on www.earlytimes.in (28-Nov-2010) and www.iitportal.com (14-Dec-2010). Thanks.(Satya563 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which requires WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one more reference is added published on statetimes.in (29-11-2010) in J&K State of India. I am not able to understand that how much more references needed for the same and why these resources are not notable. Please clarify it. I am really confused here now.Satya563 (talk) 06:00, 15 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) 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more citation [26] added as per WP:RS for ANTHE which was published at IndiaSummary.com (13-Dec-2010).(Satya563 (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Keep - Per the sources: [27], [28], [29]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Renaming the article to Aakash National Talent Hunt Exam would be an improvement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging it with Aakash Institute would be more of an improvement, as both are little more than stubs and ANTHE is only notable in the context of the Aakash Institute, if at all. - Sudo Ghost 05:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ANTHE is the year based scholarship program started in 2010, so searching ANTHE 2010 or ANTHE 2011 produces more accurate results than ANTHE. Renaming the ANTHE article to Aakash National Talent Hunt Exam would be an improvement as well as acceptable too as it produces even more better notable web presence. (Satya563 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not about having an even more better notable web presence, and is not intended to be used as advertisement. - Sudo Ghost 07:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor knows that Wikipedia is not intended to be used as advertisement but a notable and reliable article definitely takes place on Wikipedia. The point raised is already considered and related reference links are deleted. (Satya563 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep References in the article already and what has been found during this AFD, convince me of its notability. Dream Focus 17:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides sufficiant references, and is broken various organized sections, It may require a complete rewrite, but it has enough sources to back it up, no reason to delete. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aakash Institute, together they have enough sources to be notable, but I'm not clear that ANTHE does by itself. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Either keeping the ANTHE article or Renaming it to Aakash National Talent Hunt Exam looks much feasible and reasonable step.(Satya563 (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC))— Satya563 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wrong attitude totally. By this way, whenever a new user will start contributing to Wikipedia then you can raise finger. And tell me how a user can start contributing or editing if you raise question like this. Please do not try to create monopoly. And a user is not bound to edit on Wikipedia on daily basis as every editor is independent to edit or contribute only when he feels free to do so. I am not a paid employee and so this type of obligation is not fare at all. Please take back your applied SPA-TAG.(Satya563 (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Neither article has enough content to justify separate articles, given that the article subjects are so similar and both are stubs. No reference mentions this article's subject without also mentioning the other, as this article is dependent on the other. - Sudo Ghost 12:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into the article on the institute. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Need feasible explanation in support.(Satya563 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Two more citations [30][31] added in support to keep the ANTHE article.(Satya563 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Neither of which are reliable sources. - Sudo Ghost 12:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reliable? Feasible reason required here. Webdunia.com, MywebDunia.com and 24Dunia.com are MSN based Hindi News portals and the ANTHE article published by both MyWebDunia.com and 24Dunia.com 0n 13-Dec-2010 and everyone can verify it as it was cached by Google too. All the 3 websites are registered by single person and Webdunia.com & In.com are already accepted in Wikipedia article.(Satya563 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The Webdunia one is an advertisement, not an article. The in.com one is a link to a blog, which is a WP:SPS, not a reliable source. - Sudo Ghost 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In.com itself is not a blog, but an online venture from Web18, a Network 18 group company. That is why the published news used as a reference source.(Satya563 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Editors, I request suggestions on few things.

An article Dated: 14-Dec-2010 [32] was posted on Zimbio.com, an USA based online magazine publisher company. And this article was posted by "aatif" who has been a member since 08-Oct-2010 when ANTHE was not in the picture and posted approx. 1750 articles till date.

May be it is not a reliable source but how can we deny its notability while there are lots of articles available on Wikipedia without having any reference links.

For supporting ANTHE notability and reliability, there has already been supplied many reference links. I am not able to understand why this article is still struggling to get approval.

Editors’ participation in this discussion and suggestion are most welcomed. Thanks.(Satya563 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would invite you to link to any articles you may be aware of without sources, I shall tag them immediately. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satya is one of that type of article which is not having any reference but it is approved and listed for more than 5-6 years. See here we are discussing on ANTHE. So, please do not try to divert discussion purpose.(Satya563 (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Satya and Sat (Sanskrit) are both tagged for WP:NOTABILITY. This makes them eminent candidates for nomination for deletion, by any editor willing to do WP:BEFORE. They are in no way exemplar wikipedia pages, just less bad. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange! None of the editors nominate this eminent candidate for AFD at once from the beginning. I know one thing which is fully Satya that when a person wants to oppose any thing then he can and that particular person wants to support the same thing then he can do too in a much better way. What he takes first step about that thing is most important and other things are irrelevant. Rest is alright. Thanks.(Satya563 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Due to following references: Times of India(TOI) [33], earlyTimes [34], AllVoices [35] and stateTimes [36], as per my opinion we should Keep this article. And if still not satisfied then at least we should wait until both ANTHE Stage-I and Stage-II Exam this year i.e. end of Dec-2011. Then we can decide about notability, verifiability and reliability in a much better way because if ANTHE is a notable exam then definitely its notability should increase year-by-year.(Satya563 (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete We have very rarely kept an article for a cramming program. And it isn't even that! It's a proprietary promotional device to offer a competition to prepare students for taking an exam to win a scholarship to pay their tuition at a coaching academy. At the very most, merge into [[Aakash Institute] DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not agreed with the fact which produced regarding ANTHE. In fact, it helps those hundreds of poor but intelligent student who can’t afford the preparation cost of national level competitive exams like IITJEE, AIPMT, AIEEE and AIIMS of India. By this way, ANTHE helps to improve life standard of common people who has intellectual ability but not able to compete in terms of money and fulfills its social responsibility too. (Satya563 (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per DGG above. The article reads like a brochure and has no encyclopedic value that couldn't be duplicated with a few sentences on the Aakash Institute article. Trusilver 13:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most selectively merge to Aakash Institute per DGG. Reads like an advertisement. Sandstein 18:29, 25 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 references in the article are reliable secondary sources, and has yet to star in any significant way in any notable productions. No prejuduce against recreation when she achieves notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mem Kennedy[edit]

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

WP:UPANDCOMING but not yet notable actress. Google reveals no sources except her own website and IMDB. Fails WP:NACTOR. ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that her current reason to be on Wikipedia is her success on you tube as an actress, this is a field i believe is commonly overlooked. she stared in 8 dates and the wonder full world of zoe which now has more than two million views and over 22,000 members subscribed. This coupled with her many appearances in film make her suitable to be on Wikipedia. She has been a part of may things that have there own Wikipedia pages and she has also worked with people who have there own Wikipedia page. The fact that she doesn't turn up many results on Google doesn't mean that she is "up and comeing". Repisme (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, her own website is not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO, which is the guideline for biographies. By all means find and cite some reliable sources if there are any. – ukexpat (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More references have been added to the article at your request Repisme (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The effort is appreciated, but please read WP:RS to see what kind of sources were being requested. No one doubts her existance, but having a short career and no media coverage is seen as WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:12, 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, 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} 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, Mem meets the requirements of an entertainer listed on the notably (people) Wikipedia article. She has been is several films and many you tube videos. She has a large fan base and has a unique contribution to the entertain industry by starting her Americana acting career by making you tube videos. Repisme (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of mutiple significant roles in notable productions. Parts in notable productions are minor, other productions are not notable. That many subscribers does not = a large fan base. Nothing unique about making youtube videos. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 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 redirect to Nightlosers. Anything of substance can be merged from the history, consensus permitting. Sandstein 18:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting on Top of the World (Nightlosers album)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be an article at all just seems to be a page with tracklisting no other information. There's not even a page for the artist. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 06:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The AFD was malformed as the nominator placed a PROD tag on the article rather than the AFD notice. I have corrected this by placing an AFD notice on the article page. --

Merge to Nightlosers#Discography. The band article was deleted via PROD, but I've had the deleting admin restore it as I found coverage in Romanian about the band, and some mentions in the NY Times indicating to me that they are notable, andf at the very least should go through AFD if there is any contention about notability. As for the albums, there may be reviews in Romanian, but relying on machine translation, I was unable to find significant coverage so merging to the discography section of the band article makes the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason that you oppose merging? -- Whpq (talk) 11:55, 15 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nightlosers. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not merge just delete it nobody should ever put album stuffs on the main article. Fails WP:NALBUMS. And if merged, the cover is a non-free file, and would therefore violate WP:NFCC.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 09:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue of non-free content is one of editting, and only requires the removal of the image, and nothing else. And I see no policy that prevents us from including discography information in band articles. In fact, discography sections are very very (and some more very here) common in band articles. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 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. Article badly needs a copyedit/rewrite as it's infested with WP:PEACOCKs The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (UK Asian Rapper)[edit]

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

Dubious notability, sources are incidental coverage. Deprodded because "it looks fine". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made, references have been removed that 'seem' to promote musician and replaced with an independant article and also added more information, such as Best Urban Act Award at Brit Asia Awards 2011. Bhimjisb 03:35, 4th Oct 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhimjisb (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable award. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that the award is very well respected in the asian music industry, and is very notable. just because it is not an english award show, doesnt make it un-worthy. what other problems are there that is making you want to delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhimjisb (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

under WP:BAND point 11: artist was placed on rotation by a major radio station. The Truth was placed on the BBC RADIO 1 PLAYLIST September 5th 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.104.118 (talk) 22:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He has featured on at least two BBC radio shows ([37], [38]), and there is this article from the Manchester Evening News website, which looks suspiciously like it was taken from a press release. Possibly bordering on having enough real world notability for inclusion, but unless more can be found we don't have enough on which to base an article.--Michig (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has also featured at Glastonbury 2011 on the BBC Introducing Stage ([39]) and BBC Introducing Stage at London Mela ([40]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.104.118 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also found he has played at BBC MAIDA VALE STUDIOS ([41]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.104.118 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another article from a radio station in canada ([42]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.104.118 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lucas from BBC has done an artical on The Truth ([43]). KEEP THIS PAGE. He deserves a wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.104.118 (talk) 22:11, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP per WP:BAND Point 11. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards won; songs played on major radios. Meets WP:BAND--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 09:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artist has been play listed on major radio stations, won awards, worked with other artists that have a wikipedia page. --Bhimjisb (talk) 18:23, 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 redirect to Nightlosers. Anything of substance can be merged from the history, consensus permitting. Sandstein 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plum Brandy Blues[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be an article at all just seems to be a page with tracklisting no other information. There's not even a page for the artist.JamesAlan1986 *^talk 06:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The AFD was malformed as the nominator placed a PROD tag on the article rather than the AFD notice. I have corrected this by placing an AFD notice on the article page. --

Merge to Nightlosers#Discography. The band article was deleted via PROD, but I've had the deleting admin restore it as I found coverage in Romanian about the band, and some mentions in the NY Times indicating to me that they are notable, andf at the very least should go through AFD if there is any contention about notability. As for the albums, there may be reviews in Romanian, but relying on machine translation, I was unable to find significant coverage so merging to the discography section of the band article makes the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason that you oppose merging? -- Whpq (talk) 11:55, 15 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as Sittin on the Top of the World above--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 09:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue of non-free content is one of editting, and only requires the removal of the image, and nothing else. And I see no policy that prevents us from including discography information in band articles. In fact, discography sections are very very (and some more very here) common in band articles. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Unger Bowditch[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only sources cited are a site selling her CD and a list of hundreds of books in which a book of hers is listed. (PROD was contested by the author of the article with no reason given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have known Eden since I was her math tutor when she was in high school. The broad outlines of the article are factual according to my personal knowledge. An email from her, however, indicated there are some factual errors which she did not specify. Frank Mullin. fpm@earthlink.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.168.132 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 15 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "It exists" ≠ "It is encyclopædic". Next door's dog exists; the little &%&( wakes me up with its yapping. I can supply photos of the dog. Nonetheless it doesn't merit an article on this or any other encyclopædia. The reference to "Tri-State Young Adult Review Committee Book of Note" looks as if it might be notable, but it seems that http://www.tristatereviews.com/ doesn't meet WP:RS as a public access review site. Best of luck with the books, however. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable historian. The only source I could find about Bowditch that isn't a passing one sentence interview mention is this, but that doesn't seem to be an "significant coverage". Also her books are by self-published history publishers. Fails WP:BIO Secret ^account 04:00, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left Right Think Tank[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable organization. No significant claims of notability, little significant coverage - a Google news search shows only 4 results. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Left Right Think Tank is an up and coming organisation and is becoming well known in public policy circles and as a youth organisation. It is notable on its own for being Australia's first independent youth think-tank. See [44] ABC profile on Founder Richard Newnham and LRTT; [45] The Age profile on CEO Will Emmett and LRTT; [46] Hon. Peter Lindsay MP adjournment speech to The House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament commending Left Right Think-Tank User:EntropicPonderer 12 October —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted, its a very small unknown group which has very few google list results. 45 followers... Ray-Rays 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 15 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this was previously deleted and is essentially a repost. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 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 no consensus. Apparently a borderline case in terms of notability, but there is no consensus to delete the article. Xxanthippe does not provide an argument for why the article should be deleted, and therefore their opinion is not taken into account when assessing consensus. Sandstein 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Critchley[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people). There appears to be no third-party source for parts of the article (a quick Internet search of some of the publications listed brought up nothing but the Wikipedia page itself, and the subject's own academic page at the university they're employed at). No findings to support assertion that the subject is a visual artist or musician.

Of equal concern, the article appears to have been authored by one of the subject's own small-press publishers, Pennedinthemargins - whose other created articles include Penned in the Margins and Tom Chivers its director! One must therefore conclude that the article may not be written from a neutral point of view, and represents a possible conflict of interest. CouldBeAnybody (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does not rate a single cite on GS so fails WP:Prof. What about poetry? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 15 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the coverage necessary to show notability, though it's always possible I'm missing something. COI doesn't doom an article like this, if you can find sources (independent of the subject), but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Usual Caveats apply, however; if she publishes something that gains significant coverage, an article might end up being appropriate. But not yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article reworked. I've added cites, quite easy to find on the internet. She has won two major poetry prizes, and so she is notable.Span (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for reworking the article, Span. I'd like to offer two points regarding notability, relating to the citations included, and to the poetry prizes.

1. Reference 2 (the source for most of the article, it appears) is the subject's own academic page, reference 5 is the subject's own biography provided for a reading, and references 8 and 9 also all stem from the subject herself. These form the bulk of the references for the article and are not independent sources. Reference 1 is an interview with the subject, so the notability of hosting site needs to be assessed. Reference 3 is apparently a reprinting of the subject's PhD (in only 20 pages?) in a small-press magazine 'not currently available', so again the notability of the magazine requires assessment.

2. The poetry prizes - The John Kinsella-Tracy Ryan prize is a Cambridge college prize, open only to Cambridge students in statu pupillari, so is neither an industry award, nor a national or international competition. The Jane Martin Prize for Poetry is also based at a Cambridge college, but is in its first year and so has been awarded only once (when it was shared by Critchley with another winner). Although the latter prize is nationally 'open', I can find little evidence to show that it was nationally advertised. I'm unsure whether either prize can be considered a 'major' poetry prize, which is important as Span's argument to keep the article rests on this. CouldBeAnybody (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reviewing the evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I think the national-level award, and in-depth reviews of her work in several publications including the Chicago Review, add up to notability in a subject (poetry) where notability can be very elusive. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Jane Girton Prize was advertised nationally there are five mentions at the National Poetry Library, not that that should change anything, it's a national prize, which is all that is required for an article to stay. Greenwich University is a solid third party source. Neither the notability of Hot Gun journal, nor the site Other Room need assessing for notability. They are not in question here. Critchley has had her Phd reviewed in many places including including the Cambridge Literary Review . It seems that CouldBeAnybody has a personal wish to see the article deleted, irrespective of merit. The guidelines here are clear.Span (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I do not have 'a personal wish to see the article deleted, irrespective of merit'. I have concerns that the subject does not have the requisite notability to have an article on Wikipedia, and that is why I nominated it for deletion. However, if you could show me a guideline that states that 'a national prize ... is all that is required for an article to stay' then fine, the article should remain. (And I'll even be the first to add a page for this year's winner of the national 'Write a poem about a donkey' prize currently advertised on the National Poetry Library website.) CouldBeAnybody (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on her great volume of published work. This individual fails WP:PROF, but I want to point out that it's fairly difficult for even highly published poets to achieve the notability guidelines and it might not be a bad idea to establish some specifically for this purpose. WP:POET anyone? Trusilver 11:51, 25 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Givensix[edit]

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

Musical group of questionable notability. Only appears to have local airplay and coverage, no significant claims of notability, although there are several attempts to infer it through associations with other groups - however, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Google search on "Givensix" shows mainly primary sources, user generated sites, and social media, or simple listings. A Google news search on the same shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider selection by Hot Topic to be included in the Shop Til You Rock Tour: http://www.shoptilyourock.com/bands/attachment/givensix_port-huron_august-14/

Online sources show selection for Race course entertainment for the Crim 2011 race and the 2011 Detroit Free Press Marathon, participation in Dirtfest 2011, Buzzfest 2011, and other notable achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan R. Noll (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Nathan R. Noll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:24, 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG due to nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons outlined by nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 09:18, 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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the Gray Ghost[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Myteriously kept at last AFD which had nothing but WP:ILIKEIT or other similar non-arguments. Fails notability for episodes as it has no secondary sources, is entirely in-universe and is brimming with trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 15 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and in-universe WP:TRIVIA. No notability (WP:N) established. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If there's an episode that had some notability, it'd be this one if only for the Adam West role. That said, we'd need more sourcing to show that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, this should be redirected to List of Batman animated episodes. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as noted, the Adam West role is unique. Should at the very leat be redirected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I agree that the Adam West appearance is slightly noteable, and as such should be mentioned... but with a sentence on the parent article, maybe. There is nothing here that warrant a full article. Trusilver 11:46, 25 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. tyhe arguments after the reslisting is sufficient for a keep. Myself, I do not kow the field well enough to judge the sources, so I can only go by the apparent consensus. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Credits[edit]

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

I've declined the A7 speedy on this article on the grounds of third-party sources added by the creator. However, those are blogs that accept user-generated content and do not establish notability. Delete unless more reliable sources can be found. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb contends that there are no "reliable sources," even though there are numerous sources of varying topics, locations, and interests shown - all unbiased and unrelated to the content creators in question - most of which are not blogs, but in fact legitimate .com and .org websites. All content is "user generated," including journalistic sources, and including Wikipedia entries - to suggest otherwise is just silly. Furthermore, two more excellent references are available, but they are blacklisted by Wikipedia. The writing of the article is obviously unbiased and well presented, offers links to many other Wikipedia pages, and meets all the standards that Wikipedia upholds. How could this article possibly be made better than it already is? --Cfox101 (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the very fact the content of these sources is user-generated tends to make them unreliable per our standards. To be considered reliable, a source must at the very least have some sort of editorial oversight system in place that checks postings for facts before making these postings publicly available. We're not talking about taking the Wall Street Journal and equally famous sources as the only ones we'll use, but what we don't want is notability that relies only on web posts that haven't been checked for factual accuracy - that is, if you take something from the web, it has to be from a site where knowledgeable humans will evaluate the contents of a posting before the general public sees it. That's to establish notability, that is, whether the article's topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Once that's done, that requirement becomes optional (though still recommended) for additional sources to include additional material. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the links presented are factual enough to denote notability (not to mention the amount of time people have gone through to make this article so far, which people wouldn't do if they didn't feel it was notable), and given the changing mood of people to be less strict with notability and allow more articles to be generated in a response to the flat-lining levels of article creation, editing and daily traffic counts as it is anyway, I'd say change the "Delete this" tag to an "Improve this" tag. JQF • Talk • Contribs 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added the proper cite tag. You can go ahead and remove the deletion request per Wikipedia procedure. JQF • Talk • Contribs 13:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All you added a maintenance tag, not an actual reference. That doesn't address the deletion rationale. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the sources, Blanchardb? Let me make things simple. Here are all the references already listed that have an editorial staff: GamePolitics, Login News, Gamedev, N4G, Nightmare Mode, Shh! Mom, Elder Geek, Gaming Irresponsibly. That's eight separate sources of information on this topic with an editorial oversight which, by your definition as well as by the standards of Wikipedia, qualify the notability of the sources, as well as the reliability of the article. They're all there, right in the reference section; you can double-check the links yourself. Are there primary sources in the reference section as well? Absolutely - what article on Wikipedia does NOT contain primary sources? But it is clearly evident that these third-party references with editorial staff, that have no affiliation with the primary source, give grounds to the reliability of this article. To argue otherwise would be an exercise in irrationality. --Cfox101 (talk) 07:34, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still eager to hear critique or meaningful suggestions on how to make this article's references, which seem exceptional to me, better. Please, by all means. --Cfox101 (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the "episodes" were listed, akin to a TV series, professors that show the episodes can now be cited as the site is in flux, changing sites. This is absolutely necessary for Wikipedia as a discussion series entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjlinnemann (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cfox101's rationale. If all that is required for notability is a verifiable third-party source with editorial oversight, then Extra Credits has that in spades. While it's a niche interest, Wikipedia is full of niche interests - all of which are as well sourced as Extra Credits is, for good or bad. I'd say keep as a small article, but research more sources to add more notability. Lithorien (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cfox101 establishes multiple reliable sources, and those sources establish notability. Treedel (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - Per above Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 10:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't already obvious per above, Snow Keep so we can stop wasting people's time. JQF • Talk • Contribs 15:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's been a week of this needless rigamarole. --Cfox101 (talk) 16:26, 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.