< 17 October	19 October >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by admin Fastily. (non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Valdez[edit]

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

References fail to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Article is written like a promotional piece and, even if notable, would require a substantial re-write to have an encyclopedic tone. Of the 13 references, 6 are backed up by generic or dead links vs active specific links, 6 are press releases, and the other is Spoke (website). There is suspicion that the article is written by a COI editor as the article was written & photo uploaded by a seemingly single-purpose account, User:CrownP, whose user page redirects to the article. Article was previously speedy deleted at least twice before. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 23:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to be a hard-working guy, with a good P.R. flair, but certainly not Notable as WP thinks of Notability. I checked the L.A. Times files on him, and there are two stories from 2006 and 2007 quoting him as "a senior vice president for Wellpoint's western region." Also somebody by that name was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2004. Some other stories quoted non- Notable people by the same name, a couple of them just kids. As for his photo on Wiki Commons, yes, it is odd that the uploader claims to have taken the photo himself, but it is a photo OF himself. Very strange, but that has nothing to do with Notability, so ignore it for the purposes of this discussion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Normally I'll say something like GeorgeLouis did ("He seems to be a hard-working guy" etc.) but when people spam WP for their personal promotion, I take off the gloves. This is blatant spam by a non-notable nobody, and I've tagged it for speedy. EEng (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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 result was delete all. Consensus is weak on the main article, with many participants not giving an opinion on it. I'm happy to userfy the main article on request. lifebaka++ 00:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Challenge MMA[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)

This appears to be a non-notable MMA organization. It lacks top ranked fighters and the article has no reliable independent sources to support notability. A query on the MMA talk page produced no support for notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these events are not notable. They fail WP:EVENT. In fact, many of them haven't even happened yet.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion on main article, merge/delete the events I don't know enough about MMA to be able to judge the notability of the organization, but the events ought to simply be listed in the main article if it survives. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This company has been active since late 2008, it followed up after the Cage Rage promotion stopped promoting events under its name, where the part owners of Cage Rage created UCMMA to keep running MMA. there are many sources out on the internet that can prove UCMMA is fully active, their website - http://www.cagerageuk.com/ can prove all of the events that have articles on this page have happened and the ones that haven't are to be all shown by December 3, 2011. The UFC has way more events that haven't happen yet on Wikipedia than any other MMA company has right now. Besides, this page has existed way before I decided to update it frequently, and back then all it said was what events are coming up, what events have happened, who is the champion in each division and notable fighters from the company. For it to be removed now would slow down the progress made already. If deleted, I will simply put them back online within hours of them being removed. Just because there are not as many references about each topic on this page as, say, BAMMA or the UFC doesn't mean to say it is not reliable. If completely necessary, I will take it upon myself to add a few more article references to all pages in question to prove that what is being said on each page is true and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The events are clearly not notable (see WP:MMANOT and WP:EVENT). If some independent sources giving significant coverage can be found for the organization, that would be fine. Right now the organization appears less significant than BAMMA and that's considered a second tier organization. Most importantly, UCMMA lacks top fighters. The fact that a fighter (Nick Chapman) with a grand total of 2 MMA fights is fighting for their light heavyweight title underscores that. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BigzMMA stripped the AfD notices off of these pages, which I have restored. Editors should watch to make sure that those changes do not get reverted. I'll assume good faith and reason that the editor was only trying to "save" favored pages and did not know that this disruptive maneuver would not halt this AfD discussion. That doesn't mean that editors shouldn't be vigilant of any future actions taken by this editor. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Do Not Delete~~ First of all, I do not understand why you are so interested as to why you want these pages removed, in the end of the day it is like I said, the main UCMMA Wikipedia page has already existed prior to me making updates for them, and if you were to look more closely at the references you will see that there are independant sources that have covered UCMMA related topic, I just chose to use the most reliable source as the major reference point, the same system used for BAMMA and the UFC. It is also worth pointing out that there are stars in the making in UCMMA, with the likes of Jimi Manuwa who famously rejected a UFC contract because he felt that in this point of his career that he isn't on the same level as the talent with the UFC and wants to grow his skills before accepting an offer. Also up and comers such as champions Cory Tait, John Maguire (who is UFC bound as we speak) and Oli Thompson (again going into the UFC) are part of this organisation. The question about these pages is not about is it even relevant to stay on Wikipedia but is it accurate enough to be consider a real organisation? The answer for that question is yes. Why you ask? Well because this company's every existence is as relevant as Cage Rage's relevance, fighters who have fought in both Cage Rage and UCMMA, such as Alex Reid, Michael Bisping, Anderson Silva, Vitor Belfort, and Ian Freeman, all major names in the world of MMA, and all involved with either or both Cage Rage and UCMMA. For these reasons I question your true motives for wanting this page removed, as it answers all the criteria, for if it didn't I would most likely never of been as interested in UCMMA as I have been, and that your words saying that you lack knowledge of MMA suggest you may not know more than the UFC is the biggest MMA company and you may not even know what the sport is about, what is allowed to be done in a bout etc. I urge the people behind Wikipedia to NOT remove these pages due to baseless motives for this. Beside, the UCMMA page already existed before I began regularly updating it, which means it never has been a problem before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigzMMA. The norm for discussion with other editors on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. You have questioned the motives of the nominator and left a less than cordial message on my talk page. I have nothing against the UCMMA organization, and it may very well people a notable organization in time, but right now it does not appear to be a major player in the global marketplace of mixed martial arts contests. Lots of promotions have signed fighters that are notable enough to have their own pages. The question isn't whether the org employs a few notable fighters, it is whether the organization itself receive coverage by independent sources and passes the other criteria outlined at WP:MMANOT. Drawing comparisons to Cage Rage is more likely to cause other editors to nominate Cage Rage events for deletion next. It doesn't help your case any because people will simply point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Finding independent sources is the best way to make a case in a AfD debate if you feel the nomination of these articles was not appropriate. Removing the AfD notices from pages does not help your case any, and could very get get you blocked by admins for interfering with the AfD process. I have nothing against you and see your motivations as well intentioned, so I hope you continue to contribute to wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this AfD debate. Cheers. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Do Not Delete~~ UCMMA is completely the opposite to what you have just described it, it is just as on the front line in the MMA world as is BAMMA today. The people behind Cage Rage/UCMMA holds a talk show once a week, aired on Sky Sports 4, called Cage Fighter. No other MMA company across the country is or has ever done that, and even if they have, it definitely doesn't show/n it on as big of a sports channel as Sky Sports (not including ESPN MMA Live, due to not representing a single MMA organisation). For Cage Rage to be nominated for deletion would also to be questionable, Cage Rage was the most recognised MMA organisation in Europe, with M-1 tailing behind it. The people behind both Cage Rage and UCMMA probably have more recognised fighters fight their promotions than other companies that are no longer trading, such as EliteXC, Palance Fighting Championships, and even Affliction, as well as many current day promotions that are considered notable MMA organisations on Wikipedia. I have now added more references for UCMMA, with as many of them being independant sources as there are from the CageRageUK website. This means that now the organisation does meet criteria supporting notability -

Criteria supporting notability Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

It also meets the Fighter's criteria supporting notability -

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations

so with all this, it means that it would be a mistake to remove all UCMMA related pages, and to ensure that any mistake made can be reversed, I have saved all pages on my computer, with all I need to do is simply copy and paste back in. So now whoever it is that controls whether or not to delete a page can now deny these people the privilege of taking away someone hard work to gain notability of a growing and already well known organisation. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete event pages Despite my contention in an above post that this is not a major organization in terms of global notoriety, it does seem like references exist that support keeping the main org page as others have suggested. With some work, this page could be on par with those for similarly sized promotions. The page currently depends too heavily on non-independent sources, but a few independent ones are already provided. I'm in no rush to see it go. The event pages, on the other hand, do not pass WP:EVENT. What what it's worth, this post was written before I read the one above. It is being posted below because I ran into an edit conflict when trying to save the page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ In the end of the day, it is like I said, all pages follow the MMA Notability requirements, and as for the events page, its just a excuse for you to push for any UCMMA related topics to be removed. Now I thought the idea of Wikipedia is for everyone to contribute towards making pages more accurate. Now simply put, if you don't think what I've written is accurate enough, then instead of calling for it to be deleted, help me keep these pages relevant, notable and reliable. I've been working hard on all of them and for you to get these pages deleted would be a slap across my face, thought I will keep to my word that I will simply put them back up if deleted. By the way, search Cage Rage UK, Ultimate Challenge or UCMMA if you want to find any pages relating to UCMMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 08:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the events, weak delete the company I don't see significant independent coverage of the organization. Lots of links to cagerage (not independent) and the rest seem to link to results or notices of upcoming cards. There are no highly ranked fighters. The events clearly do not pass WP:EVENT. Bigzmma, it's not about whether things exist, it's about whether they're notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. I see you've added another event since this discussion started. I've added it to the above list. This isn't personal, it's about following the guidelines and being part of a community. Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ Listen, if you want to find notable information, you really don't have to look very far to find it, I just rather leave them as they are for now, if you want to add them yourself, then simply type in something like 'UCMMA 23 results' on Google, I promise you, you can find many independent sources that will cover the same events results. Also, UCMMA has more notable fighters than, say, ProElite's first event, why don't you start hounding their pages instead?

Also, there is an UCMMA event tonight as some of you are aware, and that I will promise you now, that if you type in 'Cage Rage UK 24 results' tomorrow morning approx. 9:00am (London time) you will find results on the event from independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 12:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BigzMMA, please just vote once, not five times. However, you're welcome to make comments as long as this discussion is open. Thank you for the comment you left on my talk page about the value of my opinion. You might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. Among them are assuming good faith (WP:AGF), that routine sports/news coverage is not notable (WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT), and the need for significant coverage in independent sources (WP:V). Cagerage is not an independent source because it was run by the same people as UCMMA. I have nothing against UCMMA and I wish it luck, but when I came across the article I didn't see notability. I do agree with you that there are lots of non-notable MMA organizations (well over 100) and events on Wikipedia and that most of the them are not notable, but that falls under another Wikipedia guideline (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Papaursa (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case to keep on Wikipedia Well then that means UCMMA falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as it seems that even pages even more unreliable and un-notable can remain on Wikipedia so this means UCMMA can. And it is like I keep saying, I cannot be asked adding more notable articles for these page right now, but you are most welcome to do so for me if it means that this discussion can end and UCMMA related pages can remain on Wikpedia. Also, UCMMA 24 is on as we speak, if you wait till morning, you can find articles relating to the event tomorrow morning. Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA

Please don't remove the votes of other editors and vote just once yourself. I see you didn't actually bother to read those guidelines. Instead, you decided to create a bunch of pages on Cage Rage events and unilaterally added UCMMA to the notable MMA organization section at WP:MMANOT, although it says to only do that after gaining consensus at WT:MMA. It's too bad that you don't seem to value any opinions but your own. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-opinionated??First of all talk, I did not remove anyone's votes, second, I'm entitled to show my support to keep these pages. Thirdly, they actually existed before, I managed to track down a Wikipedia account/page I will keep anonymous that actually has those Cage Rage events on, and all I did was simply copied and pasted them onto the official event pages that were randomly deleted of Wikipedia before despite all the other pages relating to Cage Rage seemly passes all these Criteria. Also, if it is a notable event, which it seems everyone that has written on this page has actually agreed to, then I may add it to that WP:MMANOT page. And says the person who'd rather carry on this conversation rather than just end it by helping me add those notable links himself. In the end, you can say I don't value anyone's opinion but at least I got a case for it, and I'm willing enough to make a few of those changes that you all wanted in the first place. By the way, I simply cannot see why anyone would even dare want to create a page on Wikipedia if there are so many guidelines that means that forgetting the smallest criteria standard can mean that everyone will hound you down to remove the page. People like you who seem to spend all day on your computer looking for any page on Wikipedia that does not meet Criteria to keep it on, no matter how small, are actually quite pathetic, people look to Wikipedia for information, not for 'community', the only community I've seen on Wikipedia is the lynch mobs that look to track down any page that does not meet all related criteria. But anyway, if anythings removed, it will go back up. Simple :) BigzMMA 08:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Here are my final comments on this subject--you might want to get your facts correct. The older versions show you did remove Mdtemp's vote, you did add your multiple votes back in after they were crossed out, not "everyone that has written on this page has actually agreed" these events are notable (actually on one has), and things aren't "randomly deleted" on Wikipedia. Papaursa (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get my facts right???/Pages now meet criteria Standards Papaursa I really didn't delete anyone's vote, so you can stop that bulls**t right now, like I said, I can show support in what I'm doing, and you do not have the right to remove my votes, so naturally they are going back up. I said just about everyone, so learn to read before you go there homie :). I didn't just say the events, I mean the actually UCMMA page, it matches all criteria so you can drop that case right now. Your right about one thing though, Wikipedia don't randomly delete things, as people as pathetic as you are the one looking to delete everything you don't know about. If you did look at the Cage Rage events before I reinstated Cage Rage 15-19 back, you would of seen Cage Rage 14 and Cage Rages 20-28 were already on there, untouched and not called upon to be deleted, so why not do yourself a favour, drop this lynching now for this page before I decide to take action against anyone who is still willing to look to delete UCMMA related pages. those who haven't commented since the beginning I will take it that you have accepted that all related pages are within criteria standards, but for anyone not willing drop your case, then expect action made against you :) Oh by the way, I have just added independent sources for those UCMMA events that you claim are unreliable. Enjoy your day now. BigzMMA 07:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) [reply]

Actually, Papaursa is right. Your edit at 21:46 on October 22 did remove Mdtemp's vote and you're not allowed to vote more than once. Also, his claim was that the events were not-notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa and Astudent0 are right. You are not allowed to vote more than once. You may comment as much as you like, but posting "do not delete" multiple times and then not signing your posts will not help you make your case. Please sign your posts by typing four-tildes. Keep in mind that articles are deleted by consensus, just as they are edited by consensus. Re-posting articles that don't survive a deletion debate and threatening editors (i.e., "expect action made against you") will only get you blocked by an admin. I have signed your previous post and restored the strikethroughs for your multiple votes. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and salt - While I don't oppose the userification and/or incubation of the main article, it isn't notable now, and none of the events are notable as well. Given that the article creator has promised to "simply copy and paste back in", salting seems advisable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SInce BigzMMA is serving a temporary ban, several IP addresses have started vandalizing the main article. The links to the articles up for deletion discussion keep getting changed to non-existent pages. I have reported this to WP:ANI. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all clear failure of WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable MMA article. Besides, BigzMMA's aggression violates civil community standards. Will vote Keep when this becomes notable in the future. PolicarpioM (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Representative of Gohar Shahi[edit]

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

This disambiguation page has a history of being a WP:COATRACK/WP:BATTLEGROUND -- Gohar Shahi is a religious figure for two competing sects who claim to be the "true" followers of Shahi's teachings. The fact is, "The Representative of Gohar Shahi is not a term in use outside of Wikipedia (38 relevant -wikipedia results). This doesn't seem to be a plausible search term, serving only as a lightning rod for this religious turf war. — Scientizzle 23:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete with a salt mine They can fight it out in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't a commonly visited page anyway. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to John Ringo#Published works. The consensus here is split between keeping and redirecting, but I note that many of the keep arguments note the need to expand the article first, so if this article can be expanded at a later date it can be unredirected. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (John Ringo novel)[edit]

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

Seems to be sourced entirely to a blog, and does not seem remotely notable The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may wish to consider adding the rest of the Paladin series to this Afd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have prodded the paladin article as non notable, there is not a single hit on google news for it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the book is by a notable autor and it is a contoversial book that has spawned at least one cultural meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.28.225 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Ringo#Published works. I see no coverage about this book in reliable sources that justify a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep as it is a controversial book by a bestselling author, published by an established publishing company, sold by both Barnes & Noble and Amazon. Suprisingly enough it is found in the library of congress. Thus it does meet several notability thresholds. Still for the entire series of Novels it is the worst rated because of the dark sexual situations that multiple reviewers on Amazon and B&N have stated that it has put them off reading the authors books. It is also the source of the accusations of mysonogy towards the author. Paulwharton (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If the book has caused such controversy were all the the reviews from major newspapers? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has some minor notability. It's controversial. Kirkus Reviews[1]: "Mindless, misogynistic military slaughterfest, a change of scene from the author’s usual military SF beat". Book Reporter [2] : "If you are troubled by truth, male sexual fantasies, violence, and all of the things that make adventure literature great, you may not find Ringo or his book to your liking." --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirect unless appropriately expanded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page did have a multiparagraph plot summary until Killer Chihuahua reduced it to a sentance as it wasn't taken from a review but insted taken from the novel itself. Feel free to check the history and change the plot summary back if it improves the page. Paulwharton (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect This book, and those following in this series, are at a minimum controversial and are offensive to many. I suspect the latter is the reason for the lack of major reviews. "I didn't like it" is a reason (I didn't say it was a good reason) to not review a book, but not a reason for Wikipedia not to mention it. If you're offended by it, think of Wikipedia's article as being a warning to others. htom (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The assertion that the book has not received many reviews because it is offensive in some way id speculation. Perhaps its because nobody cares. Who knows? It doesn't matter. The lack of coverage means that it does not meet WP:GNG, and there's no indication that WP:NBOOK is met either. The reviews linked earlier don;t seem sufficient to me.-- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Speculation? Ah, at a guess, you have not actually read any of the books in the series. I've seen reviews in which it was claimed that every group was offended, but rarely have I seen such a wide, deep brush. Have you read the "Oh No, John Ringo, NO!" piece, or his reply? htom (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Speculation is assigning offensive content to the reason for lack of reviews. It doesn't matter what the content is. That's irrelevant to the AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - reply Rape fantasy. Kidnapping. Rape. Anal rape. Gang rape. Bondage. Threats of torture. Actual torture. Child rape. Child prostitution. Adult prostitution. Murder. Violent death. Poisoning? Beheading of a human, with the head placed in a bucket to be kept as a souvenir. That's some of the first section of the first book IIRC. It gets more objectionable after that. There -are- redeeming social values in some of the characters ... but almost everyone is deeply flawed. htom (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability with articles devoted to the movie in Variety[3], Las Cruces Sun-News [4], Macon Telegraph[5], Movieguide [6], and ChristianCinema.com [7] --GRuban (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Variety and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reviews (now added in the reviews section) are sufficient. --Lexein (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as nominator appears to have forgotten WP:BEFORE, and a number of fine soures are available as were offered by User:GRuban and User:Lexein. Two cogent things to consider, 1) notability is not found IN an article, but in its sourcability, and 2) concerns with current state is a reason to fix the problem, not to seek deletion because of lack of effort by others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No violations as I can see, well cited, it will require a slight rewrite, but contains nothing libelious. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources that establish topic notability: Variety, Las Cruces Sun-News, Macon Telegraph and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, sourced, etc. Invmog (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As evidenced by the numerous, independent, reliable sources noted above providing significant coverage. GuterTag (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Some links to reviews by reliable sources were in the article already at the time of the nomination. The previous AFD metioned the Variety review. [8] Dream Focus 11:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. May well require a chat/warning from an admin, but not necessarily a block. History2007 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time Changer[edit]

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

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure it does. Reviewed by 4 major newspapers. Charlotte Observer Lawrence Toppman; Miami Herald Keith Cassidy; Variety Scott Foundas; Austin Chronicle Marjorie Baumgarten. [9] --GRuban (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reviews you list do not meet the Criteria of WP:MOVIE which requires wide distribution and full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Sorry, but this falls way short. Dkchana (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, I'm afraid you've skipped the forest and gone straight to the trees. The base case that WP:MOVIE starts with is the Wikipedia:General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The rest of it is merely for those that don't meet the GNG. Those four make plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. And if they weren't enough (which they are), there are also the Sacramento Bee, Ocala Star-Banner, Fresno Bee, Southeast Missourian, and the Toledo Blade.[10] --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. (was keep) Plenty of reviews, good-quality article, made money. Faulty nomination: not specific about which criteria of WP:MOVIE were not met. Nom is misreading WP:MOVIE in a strangely strict interpretation. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Do not interpret guidelines as rules. Variety and the Sacramento Bee are certainly nationally recognized, and the reviews are full length, and their reviewers are both Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics". The film was distributed nationwide, as cited in Variety. I would respectfully suggest withdrawal of the nomination. --Lexein (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, see news sources in article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It definately passes WP:GNG has accurate references, is start class in legnth, I dont see how this has violated a single guideline. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as WP:JNN is a poor deletion rationale, multiple reliable sources are available with due diligence, and nominator has shown a misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous independent, reliable sources with significant coverage as noted by the users above. GuterTag (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GRuban found sources. Dream Focus 02:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the cast is redlink hell doesn't make it non-notable. There are enough valid sources here to pass WP:GNG and I'm going to err on the side of caution even if this article is a little weak on the WP:FILM side. Trusilver 13:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep With the reviews listed above this meets WP:MOVIE. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. m.o.p 01:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Glance (film)[edit]

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

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because we are about consensus, which part of WP:MOVIE would you say it does not meet? What are some parts of WP:MOVIE that you would say it does meet? Invmog (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep Certainly long enough, descriptive enough, contains much more than just plot, its few references back up the plot summary and notablity. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as WP:JNN is a poor deletion rationale, multiple reliable sources are available with due diligence, and nominator's well-meant nomination shows a misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. Also, nom's recent spat of deletion prods and noms being toward Christian-related articles[11] is MOST worrisome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. May well require a chat/warning from an admin, but not necessarily a block. History2007 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a ((trout)) or ((whale))? Given that all of the nominations in question here are Christian films, it smells distinctly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me & You, Us, Forever[edit]

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

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG— [12], [13] and [14]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changed vote to speedy keep per more sources researched by user:GRuban below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Those would be enough, but in addition, there are also substantial articles in Mountain Xpress [15], National Catholic Reporter [16], Times Record News [17], and Altoona Mirror[18] --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I see no guidelines violated, it is an encyclopedic, very informative and detailed almost start class article, doese not have many citations, but the ones it has back up the article entirely. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No problems whatsoever. Completely invalid nomination. Once again, nom did not look at the cited sources, nor conduct any work per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. --Lexein (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and invite nominator to a fish dinner. WP:JNN is a poor deletion rationale, multiple reliable sources are available with due diligence, and nominator has shown a misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trout are for subtle cluefulness adjustments, and may be considered delicious, or even a compliment. May I instead suggest a whale date? --Lexein (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and sourced. Invmog (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Overwhelming sources as provided above. GuterTag (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. May well require a chat/warning from an admin, but not necessarily a block. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources were found. Just click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, it rather easy to find things here. Bad nominations as nominate did not follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 11:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late One Night[edit]

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

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy keep as WP:JNN is a poor deletion rationale, multiple reliable sources are available with due diligence, and nominator's well-meant nomination shows a misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. Also, nom's recent spat of prods and noms being directed at Christian-related topics[19] is quite worrisome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No indication that nominator has done any due diligence and his edits exhibit a pattern that puts good faith to the test. There are plenty of sources found by [20] but I don't have time to sort out which ones are reliable enough to include in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable and it is sourced. Invmog (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a Christiano brothers filmography article, with existing content. I think we should admit that this one is not covered enough in enough independent sources - not even Christian media or quality blogs. After some pretty exhaustive searching, the only full review so far doesn't seem to be a widely known publication, and it's not at all clear if the film was ever "widely distributed" or if it was ever shown in theaters. No press releases about DVD sales, or showings to be found. I found only one mention, a (church notice of a morning showing during a church service. Even the YouTube rip only has 885 views. I'll switch to keep if even one significant verifiable independent RS is found; it can even be offline! --Lexein (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep fully meets WP:GNG, it is properly citated and descriptive, and I feel it does fully meet the requirements for WP:MOVIE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix B 1of3 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 October 2011‎

Speedy keep: It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. May well require a chat/warning from an admin, but not necessarily a block. History2007 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. original close by the nominator himself was botched, reclosing. I'll reopen this if Mangoe asks me to. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abellio Greater Anglia[edit]

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

The article concerns an entity which will run a railway service if it is selected by the British Government. I would advise that it would be better to wait and see which company is chosen, and to create a new article then. Cloudbound (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. We can wait at least until the contract is awarded, better still until the digging starts or even when the line opens. Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, this is a franchise to run trains, taking over existing services running on existing railway lines. The company that gets awarded the franchise will run the trains - there are no further ifs. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto, this is running trains over existing lines, no new digging or anything. It is an operating company.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greater Anglia. Not much to say about this company at the moment other that its bid for this franchise, but it's still a useful plausible search term. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: IT HAS NOW BEEN AWARDED (20 Oct) so this will be an active company.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There is clearly a consensus to delete this, but I have userfied it to my own userspace at User:Black Kite/Carpenter so that it may be merged back into the main list if necessary. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as an uninvolved party. This was deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven to the objection of User talk:Jrcrin001. WilliamH (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous piffle: random bits of data with nothing in common except a coincidence of nomenclature. This opens us to "list of fictional characters named Johnson", "list of fictional characters named Smith", and etc. DS (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no inherently notable phenomenon about fictional characters being named Carpenter. Compare this to, say, List of streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr., which is notable because Dr. King was a notable figure and throughout the country, people sought to name streets after him. A bunch of characters being named Carpenter more has to do with the generic nature and ubiquity of the name Carpenter than some massive effort to name characters "Carpenter". hare j 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Harej. This is not a logical encyclopedia topic. It seems to me that flavor of SYNTH applies, in a way. We don't have lists of characters with arbitrary similarities of name, or for other random similar minutiae. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My initial reaction was to dismiss this list as useless as well, but then I found List of people with surname Carpenter. I suppose it is unlikely that people will look for fictional characters by their fictional last names rather than by some other attribute (such as the work in which they appear, the type of character they are, some trait they possess, etc.) , and real people with the surname Carpenter actually have a historical reason for having that name though the relationship is arbitrary at present. But I would like to see a more coherent and developed argument on that than I can articulate right now to edge me from "meh" into "delete". postdlf (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for this list. Possibly add these characters to List of people with surname Carpenter? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or MERGE back with List of people with surname Carpenter.

This page was created due to a discussion at: Talk:Carpenter (surname). People (fictional and real) and places named Carpenter were moved to list pages per a discussion and requests. All were once in the primary article then moved by request. Basically the page was getting too big. A See also section was created with the following links;

List of people with surname Carpenter, for real people
List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter, for fictional people
Carpenter (disambiguation), for Carpenter named communities, natural features, and manmade features
Historic Carpenter Houses, for houses, homes, shops, homesteads, farmsteads, or other partially named or hyphenated named places with "Carpenter" or a similar meaning name

This page is a supplemental list for Carpenter (surname) page that meets the guidelines for WP:LISTN and Wp:STANDALONE in which every listing in it is linked to the related Wiki article. It also meets the requirements for WP:LISTNAME and WP:LISTPEOPLE. For more info, see: WP:LISTS.

Almost all surname pages list real, fictional and some related surname places. Many surname pages use lists to supplement the surname article. Examples:

List of people with surname Smith – Yes it has fictional Smiths in it.
List of people with surname Evans – Yes it has fictional Evans in it.
Category:Lists of people sharing a surname

Under WP:NOTREPOSITORY – “Wikipedia is not a “Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria.”

Under WP:NOPRICES – “Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)” – If a Carpenter is noted (notable or famous) in Wikipedia then the link in a list (significantly or less-significantly) contributes to the Carpenter surname article.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at Talk:Carpenter (surname). This list wasn't created as a result of a discussion at Talk:Carpenter (surname). Indeed, not only did you fail to gain consensus for your proposal to create this list there, but you have previously claimed in your discussions (back in April) on that talk page that you'd obtained consensus for the change in just the same way by alluding to e-mail discussions between "major participants" on that page. This and other behaviours leads me to believe that you appear to be gaming the system and misrepresenting consensus over this issue; please stop doing it. --Tristessa (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Harej, I see nothing notable about this list at all and fail to see what encyclopedic function it serves. Tiptoety ^talk 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There comes a time when a name becomes used so many times, that a disambiguation page must be split from becoming to large. This has happened for Carpenter, it has split off the surname. The list of fictional characters can't be merged into either Carpenter (disambiguation), because it is too long, or List of people with surname Carpenter, because the name is incorrect. 117Avenue (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list fulfills two of the three purposes for lists on Wikipedia, providing Information and a Navigation aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists#Purposes_of_lists) -- both of which are encyclopedic functions. Name-calling like "ridiculous piffle" suggests a personal judgment bias, which should have no place on Wikipedia. If the list truly was "random data" there would be no commonality to the entries. If it needs to be merged back into the main list, that is easily done -- it was split out from that list at some point in the past. Cohee (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. I would argue that were is nothing special about being a fictional character and having the last name of "Carpenter". –MuZemike 23:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly specific. Also per Harej. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 00:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7, as the article contains no assertion of notability or importance of the intersection between fictional characters and those that have the surname Carpenter, largely because there appears to be none whatsoever to assert. Wikipedia cannot contain a list of every single intersection of factors that has no informational value in itself. I accept that this may have been the result of a talk page discussion on Talk:Carpenter (surname) and occurred because the disambig was too large; but the size of articles does not justify the creation of articles on non-notable subjects for the sake of it. Reliable sources documenting the phenomenon of fictional characters having the surname Carpenter would be required to prove notability. --Tristessa (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Harej, this is too specific to merit its own article. There is no indication that the phenomenon of a fictional character having the surname "Carpenter" is notable in and of itself. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I appreciate that lists of names often have fictional characters among them, and that the Carpenter list is too large to incorporate this list, I don't think there's enough justification to retain this list on its own. There is nothing special about the use of Carpenter as a fictional surname, and listing characters by that attribute seems far too trivial. LadyofShalott 02:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cohee: it's part of a group of legitimate navigational lists, split up because of their size. If a wider consensus decides they don't like dividing the list by subject matter, then re-integration, not deletion, would be the remedy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I'm certainly an inclusionist about list of fictional whatever, but the "whatever" has to be something notable. Having the name Carpenter is not. I understand the problem raised by Arciloxus, but there has to be a better way of doing it. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- There are more than 100 navigational lists of people by surname, see Category:Lists of people sharing a surname. I see them as simply an organizational convenience. I'd like to better understand the objection here: Are you suggesting that we should get rid of all of these lists, or is the objection specifically to navigational lists of fictional characters? And I'd still think that if the problem is that the "Carpenter" list shouldn't have been divided by subject matter, the remedy is to re-merge the lists (keeping at minimum all the names that have their own articles), not to delete it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think most of the delete !votes are not analyzing this correctly. The issue is not whether fictional characters with the surname carpenter is itself a notable concept, really a silly way of looking at it. The issue is whether an index of fictional characters by surname is a useful navigational tool for articles that are about those characters or the works in which they are depicted - retitle it List of fictional characters by surname - Carpenter if that clarifies it. Problem is, surnames often aren't that meaningful for a character. It was news to me that Shaggy from Scooby Doo had a last name, or Anya even though I've watched the entire run of Buffy. So I'm just not seeing this as a useful index, given that we can index characters by type, occupation, work of fiction, etc. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge back to a single list, as suggested. Seems I was indeed not seeing it from the right perspective. The advantage of merging it into a single surname list will be to avoid the sort of confusion that I and others here experienced. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus - after four weeks of debate, I see no consensus on this one and none forthcoming. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Raise the Dead[edit]

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

Non-notable albums. Prod declined because "there are sources", but I see only one valid secondary source since the other is 404'd and probably not reliable anyway (it seems to be a blog). Deprodder also said "by a notable act", but notability is not inherited.

tl;dr: they fail WP:NALBUMS, and All Your Life should be freed up for a notable song of that name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Prod added because "Non-notable album, no sources.". I removed because nominee can't see the source. It's an important album because this became the band's theme. Resurrection Band: Music to Raise the Dead. The album is sought-after and two of the songs are covered later by the band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are two Articles linked to one AFD? All Your Life is less notable, as no songs were covered later, but the album is still sought-after. If a song needs to be put here, then we just need to make the page disambiguation and link to the two different articles. No need to remove. Nominator should know that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "Songs were covered later" is not enough. These are early demo tapes on a non-notable label. "Sought after" is purely immaterial. Do you not know what WP:GNG means?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Two articles are on one AfD because they are very similar in terms of their notability. Yes, we could have two separate discussions, but the outcomes should be the same for both. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, these are by a notable act. However, WP:NALBUMS is very clear that album articles need "multiple reliable sources", which do not seem to be available. That these are, in effect, demos ("independent cassettes") compounds the problem. We need "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" which is not in the articles and I have not been able to find. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two is multiple. How many would you say is "multiple"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:26, 5 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, v/r - T P 20:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, and the band's nearly two dozen other albums are notable. "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." (from WP:OSE). The citation of NOTINHERITED by the nominator is clearly off base, since NOTINHERITED expressly recognizes the sharing of notability between musical works and their creators. Finally, I remain perpetually baffled by the idea that encyclopedia should not cover obscure but important aspects of notable subjects; that is an important function an encyclopedia should serve. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which I think is a silly argument. You're saying that just because one item in a category is non notable, it should be completely allowed to circumvent WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V just because all its cousins are too? Sense made = 0. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find reliable sources to support notability of these and so they fail the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep they both have some references however they could use with more. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:38, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete titles and merge any useful content to Resurrection Band. Notability of these individual topics has not been established, though it would be useful to mention them as part of the history of the parent topic. The cassettes are already mentioned in Resurrection Band, though perhaps some information on production and distribution might be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable source says Rez is "the most influential band in Christian music history", and all 21 of its albums currently have pages. Those at issue here are the only two that came before the band's studio debut. Better sources likely exist and should be added. If nothing else, these albums are very important in the history of a band that is very important in the history of its genre. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, what User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If sources exist, where are they? Don't just say there are sources, prove it or your argument's null and void. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the sources should be added (someone previously said that they exist), but that was not a fundamental part of my argument. The context of these albums is described in the first non-Intro paragraph of the Resurrection Band article. I don't see how you can argue that they (the albums) are not significant in the history of the genre. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the someone else who said they exist should prove that they exist. Right now your argument is founded on someone else's baseless argument. I think it's completely pointless to say "but but but, sources exist!" and then make no attempt to prove it. For all I know the "source" you found is a site you just shat out on Angelfire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, my argument does not depend on the existence of sources for this album in particular, but on the importance of the band. If the Beatles had a little-known pre-studio album that was nonetheless important in their own evolution and the initial building of their popularity, would it be notable from that fact alone? The situation is similar in terms of the fish-to-pond ratio, though the pond of course is smaller (I hope you understand the metaphor). You may agree with that line of reasoning or not, but I'll thank you not to be so rude about it. It's a bit unclear to what you are referring in the last sentence of your last post, but if you mean this reference that I provided in support of the band's importance, I would say that you should not be commenting on Christian music AFDs if you don't know that Christianity Today is one of the most prominent periodicals in the evangelical community. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED. I do not agree with your argument nor with your example. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz pointed out, WP:INHERITED says that music is one of three guidelines that "do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". However, I don't see any mention of such an exception in WP:NALBUMS. Can a more experienced hand please clarify whether such an exception exists, and if so what its nature might be, or whether this is a conflict in the WP guidelines that should be corrected? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Silktork. The inforation about how "influential" it is can just be put on the band's article. Right now there aren't enough third party sources to warrant the article on its own. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Silktork. Not enough reliable third-party sources. --Neutrality^talk 22:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the "true" first producton by Rez, one of the biggest influences on Christain rock music, it's notable and should be included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how you think WP:ITSNOTABLE is worth keeping. What sources say that it was a big influence? If there are any such sources, I'm not seeing them. Show with sources, don't tell me with weasel words and empty phrases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Bushranger was referring to the band, rather than the album, as "one of the biggest influences on Christian rock music". I have already cited the source for that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be vague then, if you're resorting to weasel words in the text ("considered to be"). If all you can do is consider, that's probably a sign it's not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person who has used the word "considered" on this page, so I am not sure what you are talking about. As I said before, a Christianity Today review argues that Resurrection Band is "the most influential band in Christian music history". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Bellerin Moruno[edit]

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

Player is in the youth academy of Arsenal. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. JS^{Rant Away} 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for the subject to meet WP:GNG and since has not played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've been trying to explain to the the user who created the article why it isn't deserving of an article, yet. He obviously disagrees and he has just removed the AfD notice from the page. This has never happened to me, so do we just continue with the discussion even though the AfD notice has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao10Siamun (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the tag and warned him not to remove it again. WP:PRODs can be removed, but if you see someone remove an AfD template from an open discussion you're always free to revert them. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He removed it again - three more times after that, despite repeated warnings. He has now been blocked until the AfD is closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted after a deletion discussion. The same content, still not notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - still. Giant Snowman 17:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Argyle 4 Life, if not the same content, then Delete — CharlieEchoTango — 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lezzli Marlini[edit]

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

No online sources findable through Google, no offline sources offered. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a patent hoax. User's other edits are all vandalism. Mangoe (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—hoax. nothing in nyt from 1857 to this morning, only ghit is wp article.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Probable hoax. - DonCalo (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense.--Cox wasan (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. No sources, possible hoax. – Richard BB 21:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SNOW. It falls btween the gaps at CSd; the solution to such rare instances is not to stretch a speedy category for something rarely needed,, but to remove the material here quickly. IAR speedys are not allowed, but SNOW here does just as well DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schastyenium[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable fictional compound created for an exam at a school. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patently non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't come up with a speedy category. This is about an imaginary compound which was part of an exam paper. It achieves fewer ghits than my Downby in the swamp (and that's saying something...). As second supporter of the nomination, I can't really call for SNOW, or can I? Peridon (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—per above and what WP:DUH should link to, but seems that it does not (good thing i previewed). i had the same problem with the speedy categories. i suppose that as third, perhaps i can call for SNOW?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can - I'm not yet sure how many cries of SNOW it takes to arouse the ~~gods~~ closing admin. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that there isn't a speedy category for things like this mean that there is a gap in the templates that needs fixing? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to at your talkpage. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I swear that you guys are fucking retarded arguing over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.146.109 (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be right. We didn't create the article, though.... Peridon (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, we're not arguing, we're agreeing. Does that make a difference? Peridon (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we're fucking retarded for agreeing in a manner that could be seen by others as arguing?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with liberal flakes of crystalline hydrogen dioxide. Wikipedia is not for things someone made up one day. Yunshui (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hit count shows an interesting story... http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Schastyenium [[[Special:Contributions/77.75.167.102|77.75.167.102]] (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)][reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Tana[edit]

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

Obscenely promotional article of a non-notable person. Zero coverage in mainstream reliable sources. The only sources cited are minor offline industry publications whose own articles on the project ought to be considered for deletion. ~~Indeed, you'll see that the reference to Inked (magazine) is dated 2006, a year in which its wikipedia article appears to concede the magazine was not published.~~ Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. Just because he has worked on famous or potentially famous people does not make him notable in itself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per above, fails nn...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability, by a long way. If notability was established this way then we'll see hairdressers, manicurists and gynaecologists to the famous appearing QU ^TalkQu 20:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPThe inked magazine spring of 2006 exist. Eddie is a heavy hitter in the tattoo game. Yeah I think maybe the page needs to be edited

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ETSJOE123 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... I'm forced to agree, Mr. Tana doesn't appear to be notable himself, but for the work he has done for other (more famous) individuals. Now, Usual Caveats apply, of course, and we might revisit this if he becomes notable. But I can't see evidence of that, at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluff (Atlanta)[edit]

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

This is not a discernible place, neighborhood, or even area. The article is based purely on slang, urban dictionary references, and hearsay. While some credible news outlets refer to it, that is not enough to warrant an article.--Mmann1988 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This reliable news article defines the area. Unpleasant as it is to read about it, it is notable. BigJim707 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with BigJim707. The article is - in fact - not "purely on slang, urban dictionary references, and hearsay" - in fact, quite the opposite. There are references from from three different major media - in fact arguably the three most important in Metro Atlanta: the AJC, Atlanta Magazine and Creative Loafing. (Atlanta Magazine, "The King File", 4/15/2009, Creative Loafing, "Heroin Tightens its Grip', Andria Simmons, "Heroin a deadly draw in ‘Bluff’", Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 7, 2011). The articles clearly define the geographic location. Additional articles in the AJC mentioning The Bluff: [21][22][23] So, it is clearly a neighborhood/area, just not an official one, but that is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. If it were, articles about many well-known districts in metro Atlanta would have to be removed, for example, Brookhaven. Keizers (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources— [24] & [25]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does establish precedent. Are we going to create a seperate page for every widely-accepted nickname for a group of neighborhoods? --Mmann1988 (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "establishing precedent" to have articles based on multiple reliable sources as this one. Like South Side, Chicago, North London, Lower Manhattan and many others, there are commonly accepted terms, or nicknames if you will, of sections of cities that might include multiple neighborhoods. --Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the said nickname defines an area that gets coverage in reliable sources, then yes, an article should exist for it. Precedent is really irrelevant in this case because the WP:GNG is what is being used to establish that this article is to be kept, and not some sort of appeal to other neighbourhood articles being kept. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing indicates that this neighbourhood is a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heavily referenced, provides an adequate description of the area, the area has been considered signifigant enough to have been included in film, and I feel is notible enough for wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the author is aware that the residents of English Avenue and Vine City consider the term "The Bluff" to be derogatory and have worked hard to put it to rest. I also cannot understand why a nickname that is used in rap songs and street culture to denote an area as dangerous and run over with heroin dealers is a distinction worth fighting for. I suppose a page titled Cambodia (Atlanta) should be created, since it is also a commonly-used and heavily-documented (including in A Man in Full) nickname for Chamblee. I am somewhat wary of the author's true intentions here.--Mmann1988 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond as "the author" even though there is never really one "author" here on Wikipedia. I have not come across material indicating that the residents of English Avenue and Vine City consider the term "The Bluff" to be derogatory and have worked hard to put it to rest. It may well be used in rap songs and street culture but it is also used by the leading media of our city - Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta Magazine, Creative Loafing. My "true intentions here" are to reflect reality as things are and as they are so documented in the media. Keizers (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References indicate the area is widely known as "The Bluff", as well as the fact that there was a documentary about the area called The Bluff, and another Sundance Award winning fictional film referring to it as "The Bluff", song lyrics, etc. I'd also like to add that just because something is slang, it doesn't mean it doesn't warrant an article about it if it is notable enough. yonnie (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do to vast coverage already found. The WP:GNG have been met. Dream Focus 09:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My love never faked[edit]

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

Article about a novel; no indication in the article that the book meets WP:NBOOKS. I searched for sources but failed to find anything. bonadea contributions talk 18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it reads a bit like an advert for both the novel and its author. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. A non-notable book that fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Does not meet NBooks Skier Dude (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, per WP:SNOW. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tees railway viaduct[edit]

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

Page very little notability, if at all. Merge could be possible. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Can I please have more than 10 minutes to write the page before you try and delete it? There are plenty of other articles on railway viaducts in Wikipedia, and the proposed new pedestrian bridge will be the longest bridge of its type in the UK if built. That is surely notable, no? QAnd there's lots more to say about it, if given the chance!!! If not, then bye bye Wikipedia, and thanks for all the memories.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JagMoore (talk • contribs) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Come on at least give the page a chance, it's not been up long yet and I believe it could turn out to be a great page, with a bit of work. It is notable too! Please reconsider. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy! I cannot believe how quick this happened. There's definitely more to put in, but I don't want to carry on if it's just going to be ripped up. Before I forget, I also found a picture of the abutments, can someone add it to the page? I have no clue about how to do that. It's File:Dismantled Railway Pecknall Wood - geograph.org.uk - 10169.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JagMoore (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) You may want to consider backing up the page by creating a personal sandbox (that does not get periodically emptied), pasting the article as it is now into it, and continuing the article there. Make sure you place the template ''((User Sandbox))'' at the top of the page, so no one will remove it per any policies (except vandalism).--andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that. I've added a bit about it being built by Thomas Bouch, of Tay Bridge disaster fame. Hopefully this adds to its notability? It certainly seemed to amuse the news anchors anyway. I think I'm done for the night tho.... JagMoore (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a possible source: Collins, Martin; The Teesdale Way; page 53. I am sure that other good sources can be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article very likely to show notability as it develops. Also I know Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles ("Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles") isn't strictly applicable but it should be! --Northernhenge (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination suggests merger. It also seems overly hasty, contrary to WP:BITE. Sources are, of course, available such as The North Eastern Railway: its rise and development. Warden (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a good faith nomination; it's obviously hard to find sources for this, and we can't judge the notability it will have in the future. The caution isn't as needed as for CSD because there are plenty of us weighing in, so the process works. It also seems that there are some sources, and I say let's see what evolves from them. I doubt it will be much if that bridge isn't built, but give it time to tell.--~T P W 22:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Per everything said above, much better than I could - so I'll just add WP:DANNO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple of refs and there are more out there on Bouch and his bridge. The article really just needs some refs added for the modern proposal for a pedestrian bridge on the site. (That aside, I really don't think any article should get to AfD a mere 2 mins after its creation. Apart from etiquette, that is not long enough for WP:BEFORE.) AllyD (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have added to the article, I'm less fearfull of it being deleted now given the above comments. I do have a couple of pages about the new bridge, if someone could tell me how to add them to the article. They are http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/pressrelease.aspx?pid=2691 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-15326661 from the council's press release and a BBC News report. Can I just copy AllyD's "ref" markup? I notice they say 'cite book', is it different for internet references? JagMoore (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:Original research. Article is attributed to inferences, observations, and speculation ("suggests", "suggesting", "it is possible", etc.). One of the author's favorite references, used 20 times, is "the time period over which the story is set can be deduced from the storyline as presented." Most of the references use observations by the editors as the source. The article has admitted it is unverifiable (see the "dating" section which states "not all of these stories can have a possible date attributed to them.") At many different points, the reference section self-consciously admits to guessing and deducing.

Even if you ignore the pervasive original research, this is still a WP:CONTENTFORK that inherently fails the policy on what Wikipedia is not, namely not plot summaries. There are no sources that provide information on reception and significance of this chronology, outside the significance of the Doctor Who series itself. Without any information on reception or significance this fork will fail the policy on WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. Also see the policy to WP:AVOIDSPLITs.

See this AFD for similar discussion and reasoning. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Instead of nominating this article here, you should at last have tried to fix the article. After all, problems with sourcing and/or OR can and should be addressed by editing and WP:BEFORE says so. They are not a reason for deletion. The article has, at this moment, 298(!) different sources and you picked a single one as an example why everything should be deleted. A lot of those entries listed are indeed sourced to reliable sources and/or primary sources after all. The list serves a valid purpose for readers who wish to place the episodes of the show in context. The article does not fail WP:CONTENTFORK (vague waving there does not excuse not reading what the page is about), as it explicitly says "[...] as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." As for WP:NOTPLOT, it simply doesn't apply here and you have not explained why we should think so. WP:WAF does not apply because as a part of the MoS it describes how to write about fictional topics not whether to do it. As for linking to another AFD, remember that every article should be based on its merits. Regards So Why 17:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is deeper than the one reference I mentioned. I have explained how WP:PLOT applies. WP:PLOT says articles "should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents" and "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary". This article has no information about the reception or significance of the chronology. The sources are almost all primary in nature, and provide no secondary information to help this meet policy, making it impossible to fix the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the deletion nom is confused both about this being nothing but OR and about this being nothing but plot summary. What this is, fundamentally, is an index of articles about notable fictional works, organized by the setting of those works. The "reception and significance" of those works is/should be/can be addressed in each serial/episode's individual article; it need not be repeated here as well.
The chronology includes the title of the story and the date it was first broadcast, which are not plot, but real world facts. And setting isn't even plot either, but rather the context (time and place) in which the plot unfolds. Given that Doctor Who is a show about a man who travels without limitation through time and space, indexing the stories by what time they are set makes perfect sense. The original concept of the show was actually for it to be more educational rather than sci-fi/fantasy through having the Doctor visit the past, and there are still many episodes in which the Doctor meets real historical figures or visits real periods in history. The Doctor also has repeatedly revisited the same fictional future settings, making it natural to list such stories together for having that shared setting. And we do it for all works even outside of a shared franchise: see subcats of Category:Works by setting.
Regarding the OR claim, I'd have some objections if this attempted to squeeze this into a coherent narrative, given that continuity has never been the show's strong suit and via time travel the characters continually rewrite history anyway. But the setting of a particular episode is in most instances going to be easily verifiable, even if only from the episode itself without any interpretation necessary: the Doctor often declares out loud what time they have traveled to, or the story is set in a clearly identifiable period of history, such as when Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, days before the destruction of Pompeii, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, or the Moon landing. In many cases as well, there will be ample secondary sources confirming the episode's setting even if those aren't currently cited in this chronology. So it's not acceptable to just wave our hands and call everything OR when much of this is easily verifiable. You have to do the work. If there is a particular listing that is inaccurate or cannot be verified from any source, then correct it or remove it only after the sources have been checked. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Verifiable dates are used whenever there is one. "Not all of these stories have a possible date attached to them" refers to ones which are not given a date in the article because the episode has no indicators or statements to that effect. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with respect to the first AfD: I was that nominator and it was closed as a very conditional keep. There, SilkTork noted that the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia without secondary sources, and also went through the article and found that of 184 sources, all but one was original research by a Wikipedia article. That has ballooned to 298 sources, with a few token URLs trying to paint a thin veneer of legitimacy on an article which still remains, two years after that AfD, unsuitable for Wikipedia (but maybe an interesting media studies research topic or a good Wikia page). Such an article will always fail our core policies, and as such it shouldn't be an article. There are all these wishy-washy platitudes about not demolishing houses during their construction (which, if you ask me, is a stupid analogy, but there you go), but this is a shanty town, not a row of bricks on top of a foundation. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced to 300 personal observations, with a few token URLs. There is already an index of articles at List of Doctor Who serials which is great example of a suitable list. List of Doctor Who serials is entirely verifiable and this list can't be verified. List of Doctor Who serials summarizes existing commentary from secondary sources and this list is original research sourced to observations. List of Doctor Who serials offers more than just a plot recap and this one is designed to be nothing but a plot recap. We have two lists about the same thing, and this list fails three core policies. Dzlife (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is incorrect to state that sourcing something to a primary source is necessarily OR. Per WP:PRIMARY, "primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. [emphasis added] All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." And as I've explained above, the chronological setting of Doctor Who serials/episodes is not a leap of interpretation, but rather quite easy to verify from the episodes themselves in many if not most instances. There is no question that the The Fires of Pompeii takes place during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79, for example, or that Victory of the Daleks takes place during World War II, or that The Idiot's Lantern takes place during the coronation of Elizabeth II. To state that those settings are unverifiable is quite plainly false. And for those episodes that the time period isn't clear (are there any? The Doctor tends to shout these things out, like "we're in the year 3125!" or whatever), secondary sources undoubtedly exist for most if not all. At a minimum, even if you want to insist on a print source, the DVD releases undoubtedly summarize the premise and setting for each episode, as does the BBC website for Doctor Who ("The TARDIS is marooned onboard a 17th-century pirate ship..."; "The TARDIS travels from Leadworth to Berlin in the 1930s"...). So again, there is no basis at all for claiming that this information is unverifiable. Re: the redundancy with List of Doctor Who serials, that list does not provide information about the setting, which makes this list complementary, not redundant. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With all due respect to SoWhy, editors have had since 9 January 2010 to correct the article (which was a condition of the previous AFD result). The problems have not been sufficiently addressed and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are rife. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the grounds of synthesis, lack of sourcing that shows the topic is notable (as opposed to interesting to a reader) and has received coverage in reliable sources. Compounded by a fictional setting where we cannot assume that a writer means that real-world event A takes place on the same date in-universe. When the notes have statements like "placing Skaro's destruction in either c. 963 or c. 2963 (alternatively, the Doctor could mean that the Black Dalek would take a thousand years to travel back to Skaro from Earth) " then its a case of too much speculation on behalf of editors, and not enough sourcing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "topic" is Doctor Who. This should just be renamed to List of Doctor Who serials by setting, because fundamentally that's all it is. All of your other comments are fixable problems and have already been addressed above. If a setting proves unverifiable, it can be removed, but as I have repeatedly demonstrated above, the settings of many if not most are easily verifiable. Please do read the other comments in an AFD before you post a !vote, because when you post arguments that have already been responded to but do not address that response, it does not advance the discussion. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're fixable problems then why haven't the been fixed in the twenty months that have passed since the original AFD? This only avoided deletion then as an assumption of good faith that the issues raised would be addressed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding trite, it doesn't matter: WP:NOEFFORT and WP:DEADLINE. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't believe that means an unsuitable article should exist indefinitely on the chance that it might be improved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that whether an article is suitable is a completely separate question from whether it has been improved. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been going the other way from having its issues addressed; indeed, the amount of original research has essentially ballooned since the last AfD. To go back to the famous house analogy: this isn't a budding two up two down, this is a massive shanty town. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork. If this really needs to be done, add a setting column to List of Doctor Who Serials. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the addition of a setting column can be done cleanly given the content of that list, nor would it be sortable so as to organize the serials by setting as this does. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content of the article is original research by synthesis. It is also an unnecessary content fork that presents a different stance from the plot of the series without being supported by reliable secondary sources. Since it lacks reception and significance, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. As the article is original research and a plot-only description of a fictional work, it falls into what Wikipedia is not and, thus, it is not an appropriate list-topic for Wikipedia per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Jfgslo (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see how this is useful at all. you can put dates of when a story is set in the story articles themselves, why do you need an article of where they lie in relation to each other? Add the fact that stories don't always have clear dates (leading to completely baseless speculation) and there is really no point to this at all. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page provides good information for the complex timeline of the series. Strong keep. 131.107.0.82 (talk) 14:43, 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, causa sui (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SoWhy and postdlf. Arithmetic is not original research, and it is not original research to note that a series is set in the last days of Pompei, the early days of the London Blitz, or other specific historical points, and to note what years those historical events correspond to. That the episode is set in such a specific time is usually verifiable from BBC summaries, as well as from the drama itself. Which of the 11 Doctors appeared in an episode and when it aired are not original research. The time course of article improvement ios not a basis for deletion, since Wikipedia is a work in progress and not on deadline. The editing process can removce entries based on conjecture. Edison (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not wrong to say that basic deductions, such as The Fires of Pompeii, takes place in AD 79. But this article, on occasion, makes deductions based on props or scenery which may not even support the hypothesis; for example, an episode is dated to the "warm season" of 1941 because the trees are green. But it doesn't take into account that The Sarah Jane Adventures probably filmed in June. After all, if it wasn't for a cold snap, there wouldn't be dialogue in "Planet of the Dead" about how a spaceship keeps itself cool (that's reliably sourced, by the way). Too much of the article relies on original research. Wikipedia is a work in progress, yes, but if a building inspector tells you that your bricks are made out of mud and need replacing, you actually use bricks, not mashed potatoes. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable television show, the list compiled is extensive and well cited, a very useful tool for anyone who wants to know more about the show, I have tagged this article for rescue, to generate more opinions, I hope WP:Snow will fall. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this long TV show is sui generis in its confusing time travel, so a chronology is especially useful for our core readerships of students. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this article is actually sus generis - a mess with editor suppositions and reflections standing in lieu of proper referencing for events relationships between events. And for the most part, that the Doctor visited 19th Century London in the nth season of the series is not linked to his visits to 16th Century London in the m-th and l-th season - the order of episode settings is not of direct relevance for all bar the most recent "timey-wimey" seasons. And those should be discussed in the context of the season as a whole. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem you're having is with viewing this as an attempt at a continuous narrative, basically an in-universe continuity reordered by calendar year rather than the Doctor's personal timeline that the show (usually) follows. Which would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, and OR, I agree. And maybe that's how this was initially conceived, and the title certainly implies that, but it's not what this is fated to be and it's not what the bulk of its information is. As I've characterized it, and as I plan on retitling it after this AFD is closed, it's a List of Doctor Who serials by setting. It is useful to know which stories were set during WWII, which ones were set during the Middle Ages, etc., for the same reason it is to organize any works by shared setting even when they're not even part of the same franchise as these are (see Category:Works by setting), just because they address similar subject matter, not because they are connected within a single fictional narrative. Some episodes with shared settings featured the same Doctor and were direct continuations of one another. Other stories were broadcast decades apart with different Doctors and without regard to continuity, but even that disconnection is useful information, contrasting perhaps how a First Doctor story produced during the 1960s portrayed Ancient Rome compared to a Tenth Doctor story produced during the 2000s. And one can also clearly see which settings the show has not yet depicted... Again, to the extent this list deviates from such a straightforward description and organization of setting, and/or relies upon OR to assert a date not supported by the episode itself or any source commenting on it, it should and can be fixed. We do not delete articles because of fixable problems, no matter how hard it might be to fix those problems nor how slow those problems are being addressed. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that anyone else would have gotten the pun of a malapropism of himself and swine. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as entertaining as the article may be, the (largely assumed) detailed in-universe chronology of the series is largely fancruft. Episode lists, plots and story arcs of Doctor Who are covered elsewhere, and there seems to be no compelling reason for this article as an additional 'index' of Doctor Who episodes. I'm not sure that the issues with the article can be fixed, as the issue is endemic to the purpose of the article. This article is largely based on primary sources and speculation, as opposed to articles such as UNIT dating controversy, which are supported by secondary sources. The amount of effort editors have put into the article is also not a basis for maintaining an article. Therefore, I have to say, Delete. (There is a Doctor Who Wiki for this kind of thing anyway.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are adequate to establish notability per WP:LISTN. And here's another one: Doctor Who: A History of the Universe - "the complete timeline of the Doctor Who universe, from Event One to the universe's final destruction billions of years in the future." Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of my points are stated above; the core problem is that we don't delete articles with fixable problems - we fix them. Col. Warden offers what appears to be an excellent source, and others are available as well. Yes, speculation and OR should be excised from the article, but there's much less of that here than my esteemed colleagues would have you believe. This is salvageable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the use as a precedent of the AFD for the in-universe Star Trek Chronology is flawed, as many many more dates from Star Trek are pure speculation; Doctor Who, by its very structure, is much more closely tied to time and place. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons I said to keep it last year. This helps achieve a greater understanding of a clearly notable series. There are also references found to confirm the information is valid. Why should we have the same AFD over again? Seems like a waste of time. Consensus was keep, the reasons still valid then as they are now. And Wikipedia has no precedents, ever, never has, and never will. What the random group of people that showed up at a totally unrelated AFD decided, has no possible bearing to this one. Dream Focus 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: still a WP:CONTENTFORK based on original WP:SYNTHESIS. Only sources are the series itself, or commissioned works that generate a profit for those who made the series. What trivial mentions remain can be added to existing articles about the Doctor Who series. 74.198.9.153 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Highly notable show.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Materia; presented during the AfDestablishes clear ntoability, as judged by the consensus. And I agree, meets thee GNG, meets N:book, and a full NYT review of anything has gnerally been accepted as showing notability (whether a brief note there shows it is much more uncertain, but this is a full review). I'm a little surprised at the nom saying they countn't find that source. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divergent (book)[edit]

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

Contested PROD: Newly, no evidence of notability. Non-notable author. I looked through book notablily requirements and can't see any criteria that would apply. Suspect this has been deleted before. Eeekster (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable book, only recently published, and supposedly first of a trilogy. Unknown author. No significant coverage anywhere.--Dmol (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please don't delete- it's an up and coming book. Not trying to advertise, just getting it out there if someone's wondering about the book because there isn't much on it. This is important to the encyclopedia for this reason. There needs to be information about it that people have easy access to. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? The sharing of information? Also, "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]" This book fits this criteria. See the following links to these sources with Divergent as the subject (these sources are not affiliated with the book in any way: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/young-adult-books-divergent-by-veronica-roth.html; http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/2011/oct/10/divergent-veronica-roth-review?newsfeed=true. These are 2 sources, with the definition of multiple being "more than 1" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiple) World English Dictionary (Collins) multiple (ˈmʌltɪp ə l) — adj 1. having or involving more than one part, individual, etc: he had multiple injuries OR Medical Dictionary (Merriam Webster) mul·ti·ple definition Pronunciation: /ˈməl-tə-pəl/ Function: adj 1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one < multiple births> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagestee (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Slagestee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per Slagestee. "up and coming" means not notable. "there isn't much on it" means not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I just delete and save the code for when it becomes more notable? Slagestee (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in WP:USERFY. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure it's a new book, and the article is badly written (not encyclopedic), and the author is an WP:SPA. But take a look at the references! It has been reviewed by the New York Times and the Guardian. (Oops, the Guardian removed that review as plagiarism. [26]) Not to mention Entertainment Weekly. Seems like some reliable sources have taken notice. Not bad for a first book, and one in the often-underreported Young Adult genre. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage in The Star (Malaysia) [27], The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, Ballina Shire Advocate, and The Wall Street Journal. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep While I definitely have some WP:CRYSTAL issues, but the sources are notable enough that I don't see any reason to delete an article that will almost certainly be recreated after the book is released. Trusilver 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book actually was released, on 5/3/11.[28] --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, absolutely right. I was reading that same source but for some reason I read it as being next year. That's enough for me to knock the 'weak' off that keep. Trusilver 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the article, eliminated the fluff and added references to some of the reviews mentioned here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that the "Summary" section is a copyvio, lifted verbatim from many pages[29][30] and probably from the book's blurb. Should it be deleted, or tagged, or what? --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just removed the section until it can be rewritten. Copyvios need to be removed as soon as they are noticed. Trusilver 15:51, 18 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, causa sui (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG with sources currently in the article— [31], [32]— and these sources:

Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A NYT review plus the other things should be enough. NA1000, are you going to take credit for this one too? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited reviews are far more than sufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google news archive search for the title of the book and the name of the author reveals 26 results[33] The New York Times one at the top, plus other reliable sources which cover it. Please follow WP:BEFORE. And those that said it didn't meet GNG, in the future please actually check before just saying that. It doesn't take long to find sources for things like this. Dream Focus 16:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Deskins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Career minor-league player and minor-league coach who toes the notability threshold without crossing it. The only stint with the big-league club mentioned in the article (a claim which is unsourced) is as a video coordinator, and the last time I checked that is not a coaching position. I might be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a longtime minor-league manager, but Deskins doesn't fall into that category either. Most of the sources I found were routine game recaps, so he doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell. As always I can be persuaded to change my opinion. I must admit I am curious as to why Alexsautographs (talk · contribs) was willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt and !voted to keep it in 2009 and is now bringing it back to AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. I've changed my mind about Casey since his last AFD. Spanneraol (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was boldly redirect to Henrico County Public Schools. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:SCH, no claim of notability. "Pepper " @ 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools per established consensus for run of the mill middle schools. I removed an unreferenced section called "Cliques" that was full of the sort of nasty gossip that some middle school students enjoy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Redirect or delete - no evidence of notability e.g. not a blue ribbon school.~~ --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order, the school received the Blue Ribbon award in 2006 (see here p. 45). Sailsbystars (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is established consensus that winning a Blue Ribbon award once is enough to make a middle school notable. Over 5000 schools have won that award. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. The Blue Ribbon award is the highest honour a US school can be awarded and fewer than 5% of schools obtain it. This school's concept of a 'school within a school' has become a model for many other schools.[34]. The school has been the subject of a lawsuit to keep it open.[35] etc. TerriersFan (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote to keep now that it is clear the school has won a blue ribbon award. --Bob Re-born (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Winning a hokey pokey bureaucratic award (given to THOUSANDS of schools) does not constitute grounds for per se notability in opposition to clear and long-established precedent. These awards tend to be awarded to the schools of the wealthy (skewing encyclopedia content on a class basis). In addition this award is thoroughly American-centric — creating an exemption for American institutions not available to others around the world. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's also a terrible and largely unsourced stub, so nothing of import will be lost by deletion. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for this comment to have validity will you please explain why the sources available do meet that guideline? TerriersFan (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools per long-standing consensus on primary schools. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools as above per the standing procedure for non-primary schools. The Blue Ribbon award is about as notable and distinguished as junk mail. Trusilver 23:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be more news coverage then would normally be expected for a run-of-the-mill middle school, and a decent amount of the coverage is not that sort routine coverage a middle school would get just by virtue of existing within a community. While middle schools are not automatically notable, this one appears to pass the WP:GNG. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:09, 18 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, causa sui (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment While precedent has been to delete or redirect articles like this, keep !voters are contending that this is an exceptional circumstance. It would be helpful if arguments to delete would attempt to explicitly refute these arguments instead of ignoring them (as if we are voting in booths, unaware of what others are saying.) causa sui (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools. Per AFD common outcomes, this is the usual course for middle schools. The "Blue Ribbon" award is given out far too freely for it to make this one an exception. Fails WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Edison (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep In full agreence with User:Monty845. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it does seem to get a lot of coverage. There is one news article appearing in the Google news archive search that says another school was modeled after it. Dream Focus 02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now added to an expanded page. TerriersFan (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Monty and others. The award clinches it for me, as that's a clear sign of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would be nice if people actually looked up the blue ribbon award before deciding it makes the school notable. The Blue Ribbon Award is almost routine, the award criteria is hilariously low. There are three elementary schools in the town where I live, four in the next town, going up one exit on the freeway there are three more. All ten of these schools have at some point been given the "Blue Ribbon Award". In order to get this award, all the school needs to do is show an improving trend in test scores which put the school in the top 40% for the state. Plus... once a school gets the award, they are forever able to call themselves a "Blue Ribbon School". So seriously... are you all HONESTLY suggesting that an award which HALF of all elementary schools have is enough to make it notable? Trusilver 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a few weeks since someone called me an idiot, so thank you for that. I don't think the award means that the school is notable. But it is a piece of the puzzle. What I said was that the award had clinched it for me - it pushed me from a borderline weak keep to a keep. The point Monty made, and the one that I echoed in my comment, was that there seemed to be more coverage of this school than other schools of its type - and that itself is sufficient to keep. The award added to that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Boats[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. No assertion of notability. Searches at the Center for Wooden Boats and WoodenBoat Magazine come up blank. Elen of the Roads came up with this link that suggests that the primary contributor sourced the whole thing to interviews with his mother, who worked for the company for 20 years. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in article, no sources found except the non-RS forum thread linked above, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm quite surprised that Elen of the Roads declined the speedy, in fact. Yunshui (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article is charming, personal, and well-written, (doesn't that almost make it notable?!) but nothing like a WP article. It could be rescued by someone who has access to verifiable facts about Clyde Boats. I wish I did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I declined the speedy - in the (probably forlorn) hope that someone out there has access to back copies of some small wooden boat hobby magazine or something, with evidence of notability within that community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, i think you were right to decline the speedy, as the article does make a number of (unsourced) assertions of the notability of the subject. whether it's notable isn't clear to me yet.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, fails WP:N. A search turns up lots of sources, all mirrors of this article! - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the search results for "Clyde Boats" seem to be talking about old steamer boats, small fishing boats that carry five men, boats that are used to stop rum runners, and other results. I'll keep looking, but its hard to find any mention at all, if it does exist, with so many wrong hits to sort through. Dream Focus 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book titled Lake Orion By James E. Ingram, Lori Grove mentions it briefly[36] "In the distance, a smaller motorboat travels past, which was likely a Clyde outboard runabout then common on Lake Orion. Their molded plywood hulls were built by fishermen in Nova Scotia during the winter and shipped to dealers like Clyde Boats in nearby Detroid." So, these were common on that lake in their time. Dream Focus 16:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of the sources are talking about Clyde puffers, which are notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[37] here they are in a Michigan manufacturers' directory, but that's all I can find. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Keep - This might be one of those sad cases where a subject is in fact notable, but that notability cannot be verified (an unusual inversion from the usual order of things on Wikipedia!). Clearly Cyde Boats were popular runabouts way back when, but are more or less forgotten now. Were that the information sources we had now always available! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well, Elen of the Roads and others have found books and photos on the web of Clyde Boats; we are agreed the article is notable and well-written, and we do in fact have some reliable documented 3rd-party evidence for that notability. Could we perhaps use an image of the 16-foot Clyde boat from the Bone Yard Boats site with a NFUR? But I suggest we already have enough to justify saving this excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we do in fact have some reliable documented 3rd-party evidence for that notability" I'm not seeing this. We've got a forum post (not RS), a passing mention in Ingram's Lake Orion, a directory listing (not RS) and a couple of photos. I'm sorry, but I can't see how these imply notability. Existence is verifiable, but ITEXISTS is not an argument for retention. Yunshui (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are we arguing that. With The Bushranger, I believe the article is clearly notable, and the challenge has been to verify, or at least show capability of verification (e.g. by visiting public libraries and other archives in Michigan...); since we agree on existence, the article should not be deleted. There will be scope for improving it and gathering further evidence and images thereafter, which will take time and effort. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being a little dense, but I really cannot see anything in the article that makes a case for notability. According to WP:NOTE, notable topics are "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Beyond immediate local interest, there seems to be no claim that Clyde Boats was ever attended to by the world at large, let alone any evidence for such. As a company, they fall under WP:ORG, and for better or worse, that guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to confer notability - which is precisely what we don't have here. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the article is a nice piece of work, but it's pretty and I like it aren't arguments for retention. Yunshui (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - or, keep but only as a stub. We apparently have reliable evidence that the company existed, in Detroit, and made small wooden outboard motorboats with hulls from Nova Scotia. Adjusting for the fact that it's sometimes hard to find material (particularly on line) about things that passed from existence decades ago, I could be persuaded that the limited RSs we have are sufficient to establish basic notability; but the rest of the article is either the personal reminiscence of the author's mother or unreliably sourced and hasn't any place here. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i managed to lay my hands on an actual paper copy of Classic American runabouts: wood boats, mentioned in the further reading section of the article. sadly, it mentions neither the company nor Clyde Rumney. so there's no failure of search in google books there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here as far as significant coverage in reliable sources goes. Hardly surprising for what was little more than a local or regional boatbuilder. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 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, causa sui (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see passing references, and mention in an online boat sales site. Nothing so far to satisfy WP:ORG. Not every small business is notable. Edison (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree thoroughly with what is said above, But I suggest we already have enough to justify saving this excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk)--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just barely enough, but barely enough=enough. I wouldn't have said keep at the earlier state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't comment before, but yeah, its fine. There is no valid reason to eliminate this article. Hard to find sources from that time period that are available online, but some mentions here and there do exist. Remember the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law, should be followed, and I doubt they were created to eliminate articles like this. Dream Focus 02:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2-plan project management software[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources online. Of the sources provided, the Internet Scout Project seems to be independent and reliable, however it is a brief description of the software. The rest are either not what we would consider RS, or in the case of Softpedia's 100% Clean Award, somewhat meaningless. wctaiwan (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please Reconsider for Speedy Keep~~

May I ask for consideration due to the following:

1. Gizmo's Freeware is the Top 100 Websites of 2010 according to PC Magazine.

2. Elizabeth Harrin's "A Girl's Guide to Project Management" is Computer_Weekly's Blogger of 2010. It is likewise cited as the 6th reference in AceProject and 3rd reference in ConceptDraw Project among others.

3. Softpedia and SourceForge are usually cited as references in several Wikipedia articles.

4. According to the Google Adwords Keyword Tool, "2-plan" has 823,000 global monthly searches.

GuterTag (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More from the "project management" swamp. Referenced only to trade blogs and Wikis. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’m not sure if my first post was already considered a vote. If it’s already a vote then this one supports my first post. Your patience is very much appreciated. I have no intention of voting twice. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are so extensive that I wasn’t able to use proper Wikipedia conventions yet. Maybe in time.

As I understood it, the nom’s issues relate to core content policies on verifiability for: WP:SIGCOV and WP:SOURCES.

What was described as a source which “seems to be independent and reliable” provides no significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) on the article. I disagree. The source in question addressed the article directly with the important details that concisely describe a software with the neutral tone of the academe. It is the main topic of the source material and even provided an entire web page (WP:NOTPAPER) for it. It is also in the right context.

Moreover, the source[38] material in question says it “delivers practical Web-based information and software solutions for educators, librarians and researchers” through a research team of “academics and professionals from Library Science and Computer Science, along with graduate and undergraduate students studying the sciences, social sciences and humanities”. In short, the source claims that it does not publish random or run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL) information. They have certainly noticed and selected the subject of the article for a purpose with a set criteria.

The article is verifiable (WP:V) with the quality of this reliable source. Per WP:IRS, Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. The article passes both criteria on direct support and appropriate claims.

WP:SOURCES says that the author of the source can affect reliability.

- For example, Elizabeth Harrin (WP:SOURCESEARCH) is a source used by others (WP:USEBYOTHERS) with notable Wikipedia articles in project management. She is the author of ‘Project Management in the Real World’ [39]. The work itself, A Girl's Guide to Project Management, is notable. While the article has not been the main topic of the source (WP:SIGCOV), it addressed the article directly in detail. Maybe not so comprehensively, but not in passing either as a phrase in one sentence.

If you also check “harrin elizabeth” on Google Scholar, you will see several of her scholarly works that relate to project management including the book earlier mentioned.

If the issue is about popularity because of what the title infers from this referenced source, then please allow me more time as I’ve just been recently browsing through a lot of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays on how to go about this AfD. Many of these remain unclear to me. But I’m learning from the experience.

- The assertion that Softpedia’s Award is somewhat meaningless will appear to be valid at first. But when we consider the context that this was about free software, then the award turns into a meaningful and useful information. It serves Wikipedia readers’ quest for information and more.

Let me explain. The “No Spyware. No Adware. No Viruses.” Award on a free software is no different from the policies of a free, online Encyclopedia that wants to preserve its integrity. I think WP:ADS, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT and WP:VANDAL policies/guidelines make Wikipedia what it is today through the hard work of many Wikipedians.

Softpedia is also used by others (WP:USEBYOTHERS) as source with notable Wikipedia articles in project management. What is most important also is that aside from having editorial oversight on what gets published on this source, it uses both humans and software to check for ads, spam, adverts, vandals and other malware just like Wikipedia. In a way, the Softpedia Award is meaningful in the proper context. The award is also notable because most free software has adware. Softpedia directly addressed the article in a very meaningful and useful way. This award is not trivial. It serves a purpose/function and is not readily given to anyone.

Per Diderot (Encyclopedia), the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge around the globe to render a service to the human race. Keeping this article improves Wikipedia as it gives readers alternative notable information on a topic which is dominated by commercial software.

Present circumstances indicate that people are now looking for free alternatives. When readers have a choice today between a commercial encyclopedia and Wikipedia, most readers would rely on Wikipedia. I think the present circumstances are also one of the reasons why the subject of this article is being noticed by reliable sources.

If we can give Wikipedia readers several choices on free notable project management software where they can easily compare each one under the standards and close scrutiny of Wikipedians, I guess Wikipedia would have rendered an excellent service in the topic area.

Thank you.

GuterTag (talk) 06:11, 4 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} 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Looks like only one solid review to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. The Gizmo's Freeware review is from Gizmo's Hot Finds Editor Robert Schifreen. WP:SOURCES says that the author of the source can affect reliability. If you search for "robert schifreen" using Google Scholar, you will see that he is a frequently cited author in the academe. He has several works most notably in computer security and data protection. Per WP:GNG, the review is very different from Elizabeth Harrin's. Likewise, Gizmo's is a notable source with a PC Magazine Top 100 Websites of 2010 Award.

Hemant Saxena also has another review at the The Windows Club. It is significantly different from the two reviews previously cited here. If you search for "hemant saxena" using Google scholar, you will also see that this author has a published work in biotechnology. This is not surprising as 2-plan is purported to be a free project management software for knowledge professionals.

Per WP:GNG, this article has 1 notable independent .edu source and 3 independent reviews with varied content by authors found in Google Scholar. Isn't 4 reliable sources that passes WP:SOURCES guidelines multiple already?

GuterTag (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviews are not the same thing as notability. WP is not a product catalog. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NOTCATALOG essentially states that: Sales catalogs. Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance. Prices listed by individual vendors, on the other hand, can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors. The reviews did not in any way mentioned prices nor did the article. GuterTag (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the contrary, product reviews are the principal sort of substantial coverage that makes for notability under the GNG. Certainly there's never been a statement otherwise. Rather, the question normally is whether the reviews are substantial,and not mere mentions. There are often borderline cases, but here , the Gizmo's review certain is substantial and entirely devoted to this subject, not just a product comparison or a one=paragraph listing. Though I had not previously heard of it, is seems to be an independent source (another frequent objection that is not relevant here.) The PM Software review (more exactly liked to at [40] is also substantial and independent. The Girl's Guide review, however, is unsubstantial and would not by itself show notability. But the two major reviews are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I discounted the the Gizmo's review is that the website appears to be a tech enthusiast blog and thus does not satisfy our standard for reliable sources. I agree this is debatable—the author of the review can be traced, and the site's about section contains the name of the operator. However, I tend to judge sources by their nature, and as such I feel the editorial control and level of professionalism here are below what we look for (the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write). wctaiwan (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is not about whether you like the sources or not, or you feel that the journalists, professionals and academics behind these are not good enough according to your personal standard of editorial control and level of professionalism. The fact still remains that these are independent professionals with several published works that are cited in the academe and that the websites that they write for have notable awards in the IT industry. Those in the academe and IT industry think that these sources are good enough. The minimum requirement per WP:SIGCOV states that: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Harrin's work on the subject might not be a substantial mention but it isn't trivial either. Schifreen directly addressed the subject. The Internet Scout Project, a .edu site, created a web page directly devoted to the subject with enough information to help researchers and educators determine if the subject will be suitable to their requirements. The question is, was the Wikipedia core content policies complied with or not per your rationale for the nomination? GuterTag (talk) 09:09, 17 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, causa sui (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is to discuss why this article's sources are reliable and answer the nom's issues on the professionalism of the sources' authors.

-Gizmo's Review as a reliable source per WP:SOURCES where the author impacts the reliability of the source. Please check the British Computer Society. This journal is published by the Oxford University Press. Where the publisher of the source affects reliability, please consider that Gizmo's Top 100 Websites of 2010 Award is from PC Magazine. PC Magazine is a well known institution in the computer industry that general public computer and software buyers read. The award is also notable considering that hundreds of thousands of new websites are created yearly. Assuming that only 100,000 new websites are created in a given year, the top 100 is less than 1% of all new websites.

-Girl's Guide as a reliable source per WP:SOURCES where the author impacts the reliability of the source. Please check her works here, here, here, and here for the British Computer Society. This journal is published by the Oxford University Press.

-Softpedia as a reliable source. Softpedia has a current Alexa rank of 427. 2.38 million unique visitors relied on the reputation for integrity of Softpedia in September 2010.

-The University of Wisconsin as a reliable source for its Internet Scout Project. This university ranks No. 41 for 2011 among all universities in the world. Thank you. GuterTag (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its considered a reliable source, then its reviews for the software confirm notability. This has reliable sources reviewing it. [41] covers it, and her awards and recognition by reliable sources makes her a reliable source[42]. You can use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to discuss any sources to determine if they are reliable or not. Dream Focus 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was wondering what if the editor made the review himself? Was there an editorial control then? What if the editor happens to be Mr. Robert Schifreen? He's well known in IT with historic, technical and legal importance. He's recognized in a reputable university press. I can't see any reason why this source is not reliable. I think this one has enough reliable sources. And Mr Schifreen writing a review of this? Wow. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InnoMed PredTox[edit]

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

A group of researchers developed a project, obtained funding for it, did the work, and produced some publications. Nothing out of the ordinary here. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. All of those publications appear to be partners in the project. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provided references clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the references would satisfy GNG, I'd vote keep, too. As far as I can see, they don't, however. --Crusio (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in either a general or scientific sense. The consortium gets minimal mention at Google News and at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly you define 'minimal'? Because search results you provided (particularly in case of Google Scholar) shows more than 'minimal' results. Beagel (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is used, not just to find publications, but to evaluate their impact in the field - based on how often the publications are cited by others. The highest number of cites for any article mentioning this topic is 13. There is another article with 10 cites and all the others have fewer than 10. This suggests that other scholars are not finding this subject to be worth citing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the criteria to be 'minimal' or not? If 13 mentioning of the single article is minimal, what number is not? Beagel (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF doesn't directly apply here, except by analogy, because we are not talking about a person. WP:PROF is mainly a way of recognizing that important scholars may not always receive significant coverage from reliable third parties. I don't think that a consortium would generally be granted that kind of exemption from WP:GNG, but would be judged more by the standards of, say, WP:ORG. But to answer your question, if I am evaluating someone under WP:PROF, for a scientist I would expect to see multiple articles with at least 50 cites each, to indicate that the person is a leader in his/her field; truly important academicians may have individual articles which are cited by others hundreds of times. (Those are not firm numbers since some fields of scholarship generate far more citations than others.) The number of cites of articles on this subject is minimal by almost any definition. I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important. --MelanieN (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important.

But this is more far reaching than WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is analogous how we judge academics (see WP:PROF): not by whether they have published and if yes, how much, but on whether their publications have had an impact. --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting: the article is nominated for deletion based on WP:GNG and then suddenly we are talking about WP:PROF. If the evaluation is based on WP:PROF, lets say that the reason for deletion is WP:PROF and not WP:GNG (because these are different things and references satisfy WP:GNG). Of course, for this lets make it clear and written in guidelines that WP:PROF applies also to research projects. Please let start the discussion at the talk page of WP:PROF (also notifying WP:GNG and WP:VPP) and create consensus instead of partisan activities by nominating all Framework Programmes' articles one-by-one for deletion. Beagel (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See MelanieN's explanation above. I'm not saying that PROF applies, just making an analogy. Another one would be sports: it would be weird to have a lower bar for a whole team of athletes than for a single athlete only. --Crusio (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. After carefully reviewing the article and arguments above, I think it just satisfies WP:GNG, based on references 9 and 10. The tone of the article is not promotional but educational and informative. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref. 10 is an in-passing mention in a brief news item (if you don't have access, send me an email address where I can send the PDF). Ref. 9 is a report on the project from participants and, as such, not independent. As it was only just published, it has certainly not yet been cited, so at right now there is no way of predicting whether this will generate much, if any, interest of the wider scientific community. --Crusio (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a such, this is sufficient for WP:GNG. For WP:GNG this is irrelevant how much interest it will or not will create in the scientific community. However, it would be relevant if there is specific notability guidelines for research projects. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So an in-passing mention together with a report by the participanst does not satisfy GNG. --Crusio (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another one of those Europrojects that has some flashy news but no real notability. WP:DOGBITESMAN. Nothing to see here, move along. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly journals like Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology and Chemical Research in Toxicology fall under WP:DOGBITESMAN in this case? Beagel (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because those publications are not independent, but written by project participants. Publishing is what academics do. I myself have a grant (all alone, not a huge team of researches like this project) and we have now published 4 papers in good journals. Does that now mean that my project is notable and should have an article? Of course not, all I did was my job, nothing out of the ordinary: indeed, Dog bites man. --Crusio (talk) 19:07, 23 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, causa sui (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This project has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All the current references are non-independent, having been written by the participants themselves. Goodvac (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus seems pretty clear--all delete !votes withdrawn except for one based on there beingotherpeople of the same name, which does not appear to be a policy-based reason. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Johnson (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BASE/N. No sources. PROD declined but no reason given.

Per WP:BASE/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." He never managed for the Yankees major league team as the article could be construed to insinuate. Alex (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Nothing in the article to indicate notability. I confess that I have not searched for sources, as given the commonness of the name I expect a lot of "false positives." But if someone wants to do the work to search and does find significant coverage of this player, I would be happy to switch to keep. Rlendog (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm srtiking my delete based on assuming in good faith that the "subscription required" sources that were added to the article are indeed significant. But as all the non-subscription sources added are routine, and from what I can tell from the titles and abstracts of the sources that require subscriptions, I am not sure that any but one are signficant, I can't change to keep. Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my personal opinion, but you should have never !voted delete if you weren't willing to see whether he was notable. We have many many thousands of crappy articles on notable subjects.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was willing, but I found nothing. See my comment below. That someone found some "subscription required" sites that may (or may not) establish notability, which I did not find on my search, does not mean that I (or anyone else) should not have !voted. That is why we have these discussions. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know this guy passes WP:GNG because I've read articles about him dating back to the early 1980s, when he was a Triple-A manager. Problem is, with the football coach and countless others sharing the same name, he gets buried. (He also often goes by J.J. Johnson, which is even worse for Google purposes.) I'll try to play around with Google News Archive, but I'm confident in my Keep vote. — NY-13021 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .. Long and very accomplished career in professional baseball... sources are out there. Spanneraol (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless those sources are presented, this should be deleted as a non-notable minor league player and staffer. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing at least three different people of this name in the news (unless it's normal to have positions in three different states?). Without solid sources disentangled by someone who knows, this isn't going to fly. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson has worked in professional baseball for well over 30 years, with the Yankees, Astros and Rockies, plus a year managing the St. Paul Saints, the most well-known independent team in the U.S. I understand the need for sources, but with this much time in pro baseball, I don't think we should default to "delete" just because Johnson has the misfortune of sharing a name with several more prominent sports figures. — NY-13021 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not finding the significant sources of coverage to pass GNG. Unless there is something more notable, he's a career minor league that has no WP:IMPACT and is WP:Run-of-the-mill, and likely to fail the presumption of notability even if more sources are found.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. It's bad enough that a large number of people in these baseball AfD debates wrongly believe WP:BASE/N trumps WP:GNG, but now people are supposed to make a subjective assessment of WP:IMPACT as well? Johnson has played and worked in professional baseball for between 30 and 40 years. That, in itself, seemingly passes WP:IMPACT, since the average pro baseball career is something like 3 years. Regardless, the odds are maybe 1 in 1,000 that a 30-year baseball lifer, who spent four years as a Triple-A manager and five years as a Double-A manager, hasn't been the subject of at least three or four feature articles (or enough media coverage, in aggregate, to pass GNG). In the pending Zach Daeges AfD, people are saying Daeges "easily" passes GNG, and yet we're supposed to believe a 30-year lifer like Johnson has fewer citations out there than Daeges? Sorry, but that's just silly. — NY-13021 (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per GNG, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that "presumption isn't a guarantee," but no one has ever explained when that should otherwise override GNG. The general attitude in comments above seems to be, Well, Johnson has worked in professional baseball for 30 to 40 years, but he has a common name, and I don't want to spend more than 2 minutes with Google, so let's delete the page. Triple-A baseball managers get huge amounts of media coverage. Johnson's might have been in the pre-internet era, but we know it's out there. I've been planning to work on this page for a week, but 75% of my free time this week has been spent in the crush of baseball AfDs. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, I spent more than 2 minutes searching, but even searching on terms like "'Jimmy Johnson' baseball" brought up the football coach and running back a lot more than anyone else. Google Books showed virtually nothing on the person in question; nothing that would advance a GNG argument. I am still more than happy to change to keep, but as of yet no one has produced any evidence of significant coverage and I haven't found it myself. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if deleted, there is the option to WP:USERFY and recreate if more sources are found later.—Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my previous delete vote based on new sources and others views on subscription sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Um, didn't anyone look for sources? There's much out there despite the slightly common name. Meets WP:GNP, no solid rationale for deletion that would improve Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the references added that does not require a subscription are routine, not even remotely significant coverage. From the title, the 1st source that requires a subscription may well be significant. The others are hard to tell just from the titles and the available information. Rlendog (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am confident based on my brief effort that I didn't come close to finding all possible additional sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per many sources researched and added to the article by user:Milowent. The topic appears to pass WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 18 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, causa sui (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references, well cited, meets the quality standards for biography. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Gold[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. PRODded, but subsequently DEPRODed with deprodder saying a he played in Taiwain, though nowhere in the article is that claim stated or cited. Alex (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A simple Google search could demonstrate that Hit bull win steak was right when he deprodded the article and said he meets BASE/N. Gold played for the La New Bears of CPBL in 2009, meaning he automatically qualifies under notability guidelines.[43][44] Granted, the article needs serious improvement, but nominating it for deletion rather than adding to the article when you were told he is notable? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was lying. Alex (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe he was lying"?? First of all, I find HBWS to be beyond reproach. Why would he lie? Secondly, it's YOUR responsibility to check out a claim like that prior to nominating for deletion. I'm glad you withdrew this request, but seriously, this is a waste of your time, my time, and the time of the closing admin, which could have been very easily avoided. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Alex (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Claim verified. Nomination withdrawn. Alex (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, all delete !votes withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Granadillo[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. PRODded, but subsequently DEPRODed with deprodder saying a multi-time All-Star in the lower minor leagues is notable, though nowhere in WP:BASE/N is there any such stipulation. Further, he claims Granadillo played at the highest level of baseball in Spain, but nowhere in the article is that claim made or cited. Alex (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inactive since 2008, no notable write-ups about him, some recognition at the lower levels of the minors are insufficient to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep based on his international play, not his low minors All-Star nods. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu. Spanneraol (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Change to keep he did play in Spain, and won the batting title in the Spanish league.[45] Spanneraol (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, playing in Spain is not, in and of itself, notable. People are going way overboard with the "top league in a country" standard. — NY-13021 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did win the batting title. Spanneraol (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what difference that makes. If the Spanish League is non-notable, then winning the batting title there is non-notable. — NY-13021 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is saying that even if you do not think that all players from División de Honor de Béisbol are notable, that Granadillo is one of the most notable players in the league, by virtue of his accomplishments there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per my stated rationale when de-prodding. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehh... MVP of the Appalachian (Rookie-level) and California (High-A) leagues? Those could add to a case, but without anything else of substance, I don't think it meets GNG. As for playing in Spain, BASE/N is only a guideline, and I think their league falls way short of our inclusion criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below. In my experience, nearly all players who were All-Stars at A+ or above will end up meeting one or more of the notability criteria. Granadillo is no exception. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case it changes anything for anyone Granadillo was also a starter for the Venezuelan national team for the just-completed 2011 Baseball World Cup, thus satisfying another section of WP:BASE/N. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's going to be part of their team for this year's upcoming Pan American Games, too. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Per his appearance in the World Cup. Alex (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (former-admin close) Secret ^account 02:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Franklin (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league figure. Never reached major leagues, so he fails WP:BASE/N. References are lacking and those that are provided seem to be from sites that would violate WP:NOTSTATS. Alex (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other source are available, you just didn't look for them. He's a long time accomplished minor league manager who seems to me to have enough coverage to establish GNG. The article needs improvement, but not deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Spanneraol (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others above. Also, I love it when I de-PROD a page with a specific rationale and then Alex brings it to AfD two minutes later. This guy has turned into Mr. Bad Faith. — NY-13021 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Muboshgu. Rlendog (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Eckert[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. He played in the Mexican League, though no clear consensus has reasonably been arrived at that would suggest that participation in the League would make one inherently notable. Alex (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. Played in the top level league in Mexico, which makes him notable per our guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Spanneraol. The consensus on the LMP was plenty clear when we wrote the guideline. It qualifies. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past consensus that LMP counts, though that could change some day. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per playing in the Mexican League. Rlendog (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete. Hoax. Alexandria (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tugang[edit]

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

The only source added in response to a BLPPROD was a Facebook page, I can't find any reliable sources for this. January (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, or as a hoax. There's no "MotoJulau World Championship" or "Kapcai championship" and the fact that he "is the first Iban to win Moto GP race and the youngest champion at the age 15" is not verifiable by any source. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+ Comment Today I deleted an article claiming that "Zarin Ummarul (Born in 1992), ... the father of physic and the father of Chemistry, ... the teacher of [Albert Einstien] [sic] ...", attends the same school as Jason Tugang. This article is a subject of interest of the following accounts (I would call them SPA's, but some of them are also interested in editing the article Murder of Junko Furuta):

Pencintabahasa (talk · contribs)
Kemako (talk · contribs)
Rudyzainul (talk · contribs)
Fredrickfilix (talk · contribs)

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this set of edits, Pencintabahasa (talk · contribs) added Tugang's name to the section 'Criminals' in the article Murder of Junko Furuta. The information is unverifiable and could be possibly damaging. I'm going to warn the user and nominate this article for speedy deletion as a hoax. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ellis (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Nothing about him seems to suggest that he might pass WP:AUTH. Alex (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. two years in the low minors... page seems to be self promotion. Spanneraol (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -per Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spanneraol. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everett L. Storey[edit]

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

After substantial searching, there appear to be no sources discussing this man that are not involved in the business of peddling his so-called CellFood. The US Patents Quarterly lists a lawsuit naming him, and he's listed in Ulrich's, so his existence (at least as the publisher of West) is demonstrated, but notability is most definitely not; the one book that discusses him in any detail (Blue Diamond Story) is self-published poppycock, so no use as a source. Fails WP:GNG through lack of independent sources. Yunshui (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really a WP:COATRACK for "Cellfood", a fraudulent food supplement. Plenty of people think that there never was such a person, and it's pretty clear he had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project. The Deuterium Freedom Act of 1985 mentioned in the article is a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any reliable sources on Google news or books to verify the claims made in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax (even if a person of that name ever existed). Everett seem to becoming a perennial- has been deleted a few times before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everett L Storey Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines: no reliable sources visible on a Google Books or Scholar search; no sources for the claims in the article. -- 202.124.74.16 (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Subject is not notable.Vincelord (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkeden[edit]

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

Available verification seems to be limited to primary sources: Joymax press releases and an interview at IGN. Therefore does not meet our requirements for verification or notability (WP:V, WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've never played this game, but a quick search reveals plenty of coverage (some more reliable than others).

While some are less reliable than others, I believe it serves to establish more than sufficient notability and verifiability. Article needs expansion, however, but AfD is not clean-up. Salvidrim (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMO Hut, MMO Reviews and Brighthub aren't WP:RS; the IGN list is entirely press releases; gamesradar is an aggregate source which eventually leads to Cinemablend, a self-published source that looks reasonable so perhaps should be vetted at WP:VG/RS. Ten Ton Hammer is actually fine, thanks, although I'm aware of our caveat on single sources. Marasmusine (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply As I've said, I'm aware that some of these are not reliable, however the very existence of the coverage in independent (although arguably not disinterested) sites seems to imply some amount of notability. Agreed on GamesRadar, and I also think TenTonHammer is the most solid of these. Salvidrim (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, deleting this article is the same as saying we don't want people to have information unless we approve it. Silly isn't it ? (sorry for no formatting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.193.85 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, was this an unsigned comment from the nominator or someone else? In any case, not only is information available elsewhere, but Wikipedia's goal is not to provide information about every single topic, only notable and verifiable ones. It has nothing to do with editors "not want people to have information" about something, it is about editors making sure topics covered by Wikipedia are topics that have their place in an encyclopedia. Salvidrim (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I also found sources to go with the TenTonHammer one. Marasmusine, what are your thoughts? GamersDailyNews.com, GamersHell.com, GamersHell.com, CinemaBlend.com, CinemaBlend.com, CinemaBlend.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking. Your first three links are press releases, the same ones that I found on my search. They cannot be used to support notability. CinemaBlend, as I say above, is a self-published source that should be vetted at WP:VG/RS but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Marasmusine (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to open the discussion. However, it seems to be a solid, reliable source. Its Owner and Publisher is a member of both the Dallas Fort Worth Film Critics Association and the North Texas Film Critics Association; the Editor in Chief, Katey Rich, was a writer for Film Journal International, and she's a critic (not an 'audience reviewer') at RottenTomatoes. While that established some relevance in the movie topics, I think it should indicate to some degree that this is not a "blog", thus should be considered reliable. With that and TenTonHammer, there should be more than enough to rescue the article. Salvidrim (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sold! Marasmusine (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 03:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of new religious movements[edit]

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

This article is not really needed since there is already a category, with subcategories, for new religious movements. The main problem I see with the article is potential problems with WP:BLP. The expression 'new religious movement" is used in various ways by different sources. A lot of times it really means "cult" but other times it just means a recent development in an established religious tradition, like Christian fundamentalism and Online church both of which are included on the list. The specific BLP problem I see is that for most Christians being a member of a "cult" or "new religious movement" (if used in that sense) means that the person is not really a Christian and not going to heaven. I don't think we want to say that about members of, for instance, the Church of God in Christ (also on the list) without much better standards of sourcing. Right now a single source using the words "new religious movement" about a group is enough to put it on the list, or so it seems. BigJim707 (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, arguably split. Please don't try to extend the "cult" debate to a perfectly neutral and value-free term like "new religious movement". --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- also, deep-revert (done). I see the article had been butchered and turned into an alphabetized list. Of course this is pointless, as it is redundant with category listings. List articles only have a point if they are structured, or contain additional information. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article makes more sense with your changes, unfortunately it is also mostly now unsourced and the same information could be given by way of categories. BigJim707 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a big thing written, but I typed it too slow. First the "there is a category" thing is irrelevant. List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba is a Featured list and it's in the Category:World Heritage Sites in Cuba. Several featured lists are in categories with the same name, categories and lists have different use on some matters. One doesn't negate the other. The BLP issue is more interesting, but BLP refers to articles of living people. Living people might be in new religions, but I don't know. I would say more but I don't want to run into "edit conflict" again.

WP:BLP applies to all articles, not just biographies. So yes members of a church are included. Borock (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if the statement is not expressly about a particular living person, it can't fall under BLP. You're basically pushing for a "transitive property of BLP," such that it would apply if a statement is about a group that living people belong to, even if it doesn't attribute anything specific to or identifies any particular living people. Think of the havoc that would wreak by undercutting normal editing and discussion about any organization that has living members, any corporation that has living shareholders and employees, even countries that have living citizens and government officials. So obviously there have to be strict limits beyond individuals; see WP:BLPGROUP. Also, BLP just requires direct sourcing for negative statements of fact and that they be attributed and/or NPOV in wording, it does not require the avoidance of such statements. Also also, it would really torture BLP out of shape to apply it to faith or doctrine-based assertions such as that someone is "not going to heaven"; many Christians believe that of all non-Christians, for example, such that under your view it then would be a BLP violation to call someone a Jew or a Muslim. Obviously an absurd interpretation. Let's not use BLP as a bludgeon to get our way. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is against WP policy to say someone is a Jew or Muslim, or Christian too, without a good source. I think it is also wrong to say that members of the Church of God in Christ are members of a "new religious movement" (without a good source saying so) even if that is not technically a "BLP violation." BigJim707 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Without a good source" is the key phrase, and as your deletion nom makes clear you aren't claiming that no "good sources" exist that identify any groups as "new religious movements." Which means that the lack of good sources isn't an issue, which leaves you completely without a BLP claim, or indeed any deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a history of very questionable sourcing. Please check out the discussions on its talk page. BigJim707 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially this is more an argument to improve a list than jettison it. Perhaps it should be limited to ones that have been called "new religions" or "new religious movements" in reputable sources and then maybe semi-protect it if necessary.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not apply to groups. If it did it would lead to absurd conclusions, like making it a BLP violation to say that Syria supports terrorism because that implies Syrians support terrorism. "New religious movement" is a fairly neutral characterization. It is not an NPOV violation to say that scholars describe a group as being an NRM anymore than it would be to say that they are known as a mainline Protestant group.

Sourcing problems are not a reason for deletion unless they are truly insurmountable. Will Beback talk 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a "List of terrorist nations" would last on WP. I'm sure that some sources have said the United States and Israel were such. BigJim707 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See State Sponsors of Terrorism. Will Beback talk 18:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To quote the opening sentence of that article: "State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to nations which are designated by the Secretary of State "to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."[1] Inclusion on the list imposes strict sanctions. That's good sourcing. I tend to think that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would discourage the US government from issuing a similar list of "New Religious Movements." BigJim707 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When WP agrees that the US Government is the only reliable source then you'll have a good point. However I believe the current view is that scholars are the best sources on religious issues. My point, lest it get lost, is that BLP does not apply to groups. Descriptions of the group are not necessarily descriptions of the individuals. to use another example, we can say that the Catholic Church has sometimes turned a blind eye to child molestation without implying that Catholics are pedophiles. Will Beback talk 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly should report on the issue, but I don't think we should have a "List of pedophile churches." BigJim707 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP should have this list, it's an important topic. I have been trying to help with some of the problems by taking off items that did not seem to belong, based on information in their own articles. I think this is a better way to go. If sources cited in an article on the group say it's a NRM then it belongs on the list. Borock (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually take a very conservative views BLP but even I think this an overextension of BLP. As for the scope issue the term NRM and cult are interelated but do not mean the same thing and most importantly do not have the social connotations. The loose ways scholars use the term is a valid criticism of the field but not a reason for deletion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nom undercuts his own argument against the list by saying that the label of "new religious movement" is acceptable as a category; it can't then simultaneously be POV or a BLP violation to use that label in an annotated list. See also my critique above of the nom's misapplication of BLP. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking that putting a category on the article on the group itself would be better than putting its name on a list, which has been done based on very thin sourcing here. At the very least it would give interest people one less article to watch, while giving readers the same information. All they need to do is click on the category and they get an alpahbetized list the same as this article.BigJim707 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't make any sense, because adding an article to Category:New religious movements is the same assertion of fact as adding a link to that article to List of new religious movements. If sourcing is sufficient for the former, it is sufficient for the latter, and indeed lists may be less stringent and less unequivocal in practice than categories because in a list you can explain inclusion nuances such attribution of opinions, qualifiers, or disagreements between sources. And as noted by Will Beback below, we do not delete articles just because they need improvement. To claim that this list merits deletion, you would have to assert that the very concept is unverifiable, which you are not saying and which you could not establish. You cannot delete it merely by claiming that there are some entries that are currently insufficiently sourced or even some that should be removed. It's certainly easier to delete it than to fix it or commit to addressing the ongoing problems that any potentially controversial article is prone to (goodbye, articles on George W. Bush, Barack Obama...), but that kind of laziness is a cancer at AFD and on Wikipedia generally. Do the work. Conduct some research. Discuss inclusion for contested entries on the article talk page. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on that right now. Borock (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I would be more inclined to help myself if people were not calling me "lazy" or even "a cancer." BigJim707 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—per Postdlf and above. see WP:LISTPURP for why the argument about lists v. categories is a red herring. also, regardless of whether some people mean "cult" when they say "nrm", the term "nrm" is well delineated and self explanatory. if the religious movement is new, it can go on the list, and we don't have to worry about whether some people think it's a cult or not. this is the accepted term in the academic study of the subject, and i see no reason to second-guess it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard you could put any church, religious school, religious charity, or whatever founded in the last 200 years on the list and the whole thing would be fairly meaningless. I think the Salvation Army is already included, or was till recent edits. BigJim707 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the key point for Christians is if the movement in question has added doctrine to traditional Christian beliefs, not the date when its organization was founded. If you imply that, for instance the "Mormons are a cult" controversy, you are (in the eyes of mainline Christians) defaming the members of the group. BigJim707 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your view. But Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources. If several scholars say that a group is an NRM, then we shouldn't be engaged in our own debate of whether the description is legitimate. That would original research/synthesis. Will Beback talk 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BigJim707, i don't expect to have to add "backed by reliable sources" as a qualifier to every statement that i make in an afd about appropriate content for articles. it seems to me to be understood. if there is a reliable source saying that the salvation army is an nrm, then by all means it belongs on the list. after reading the idyll of miss sarah brown i'm not so sure it shouldn't be, but nevertheless, it's really not my call. if you meant the possibility of including the salvation army as a reductio ad absurdum response to my reasoning, though, i think that's a weak argument.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend it that way. It seems that one source somewhere had said the Salvation Army was a NRM so it was put on the list. Its own article, also of course based on reliable sources, did not mention the topic at all. BigJim707 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons previously stated. • Astynax ^talk 17:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not a fan of any new religions, nor too many of the old religions for that matter, but that doesn't mean we can pretend thay dont exist, This is a highly organized list, on a very notable subject, I feel deletion of this would be a censorship of information, why cant we just seek to find more sources, rather than just erase? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep I came to this deletion debate with a clear mind as new is a vague term. What's the inclusion criteria? Clearly stated and sources listed to support it. Could someone argue that an individual entry might not meet inclusion criteria? Certainly, but that's not a reason for deletion. WP:BLP concerns are valid, but again must be adhered to, not a reason for deletion. WP:NOTDUP is so abundantly clear that I am still surprised the Category already exists argument is still made. The only plausible reason for deletion would be that this list violates WP:NOTESAL which the listed sources demonstrate is not the case. Ill-concieved and unsupported nomination.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - list similarity of a category page is not valid rationale for deletion, per WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When a list has useful sections like "by country", "by faith", etc., this makes it more than just a category. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al-Gashamy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY - have not played a match in a fully professional league Mentoz86 (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - he may have played in the Norwegian Premier league, which would make him notable under WP:NSPORT. However, at present I cannot verify this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently no evidence he meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL; if that changes, so will my opinion. Giant Snowman 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He has not played any matches in Norwegian Premier League - only Norwegian Second Division (tier 3). Here is another source. He might have played a match in Meistriliiga for FC Flora Tallinn, though I doubt it since I cannot find his name in any FC Flora Tallin related article on Wikipedia... Mentoz86 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he had played in the Meistriiliga, it wouldn't make him notable, as it is not a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Cartoons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Had only previous afd which I've withdrawn myself. As far as I am aware, this article has only source, and not enough sources to establish the notably. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative redirect or merge with Cartoon Network original series and movies and/or Cartoon Network. It does have information that merits being mentioned on the wiki, but I can't really justify it as an entry to itself. I think that the article could probably be summarized in a few paragraphs on the main article and the shows listed on the original series and movies page. I do, however, think that there's merit in having a page that outlines the general history of all of the station's original programming rather than have it just be a list of shows. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

KeepThis is very notable, it was a channel I and my generation grew up with, I will search for more references, This article deserves to stay. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable Cartoon Network collection of series. Yes, I grew up with it too. I disagree with merge, I think it can have its own article. I'll search for more references too. Inox ^talk 01:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources to establish the notably. Yes it is a very notable Cartoon Network collection of series. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found significant coverage in a reliable source at [46]. Search for "cartoon cartoons" and find the spot they mention it, and how vastly profitable it is, and other information about it, and various cartoons that are part of it. Dream Focus 19:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Lots of sources to prove notability. CallawayRox (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Herman_Cain#Media_work.. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine There's No Pizza[edit]

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

I somewhat regret nominating this article for AfD, but I'm afraid that it doesn't meet notability criteria nor is it likely to. "Imagine There's No Pizza" is a parody song which was performed by Herman Cain at an Omaha Press Club event in 1991. It came to public attention in the last day or so because a newspaper found a clip of it while covering Cain's current presidential campaign. It's a very amusing parody (see [47]). But I don't see how it can qualify as notable for an article of its own under the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs, because as far as I know it has only been peformed live once, and there is no chance that it will ever be commercially released, unless Yoko Ono is a lot more entertained by it than I would have expected her to be. If this AfD ends in a redirect rather than a delete, I won't object, but I'm not sure where it should redirect to (probably either Herman Cain or Imagine (song)). Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about redirecting the page with possible references to Herman_Cain#Media_work, where the song is mentioned? (I assume that this particular title would be associated rather with Cain than with Lennon. Btw, the cover + relevant background is already mentioned at Imagine_(song)#Cover_versions). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge - we don't want to lose the content, but you're prob. right that it doesn't justify/need a page to itself. Herman Cain seems the right place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Herman_Cain#Media_work. As Vejvančický points out, it's already mentioned there. Enough coverage to warrant a mention in an article, but not enough to justify a stand-alone page.--JayJasper (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the English Wikipedia should not function as a soapbox (per policy WP:SOAP)- Gilliam (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a soapbox? We're not promoting Godfather's Pizza or Herman Cain's campaign, we're just documenting them. Difluoroethene (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed, the article is a quiet report, no soapboxing at all.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cain is now the frontrunner in the RCP polls, and his campaign is history-making (he's the first serious black candidate the GOP has ever had, and he's done unusually well for someone with no experience in elected office). As a result, he's now a significant figure in American politics. Because of this, "Imagine There's No Pizza" has been getting enough coverage as a human interest story to be notable. On a side note, I don't think Yoko Ono would need to give permission for the song to be released, actually, as parody is protected under the First Amendment (just ask Weird Al). I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cain campaign releasing this as a digital single in order to appeal to younger voters. Difluoroethene (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think of it, Weird Al Yankovic gets permission for his songs primarily so that he can share the songwriting credit with the original writer; I guess Cain could skip getting Yoko's permission if he didn't want to claim any songwriting royalties. Still, we can't give the song notability for being released as a digital single unless and until that actually happens. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect (or vice-versa) per JayJasper. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously no separate article for this is merited. Redirect to Mr. Cain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to WSUN-FM. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 97X Green Room[edit]

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

The albums here were deleted via PROD. Each article has been recreated and merged into a single article but this does not make the albums any more notable. They're localized to the Florida area and have received no significant coverage (if any) in reliable sources. Sources provided include the radio station that releases these albums and a youtube video. Recordings by notable bands in acoustic versions or proceeds being donated to charity don't make the albums notable. These type of releases are not uncommon by local radio stations in the US, and most wouldn't seem to meet notability requirements. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had another source, but it was removed. Also, I don't see how a YouTube video showing an actual performance is considered an unreliable source. ----DanTD (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. Anyone can upload anything - including a band practice session in their garage. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't exactly a bunch of local kids in their parent's garage, nor was it filmed by some young burnout at a concert. ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't quite the case I was illustrating. I was demonstrating that YouTube is for all intents and purposes a self published or non audited source. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not meet criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have if one of the sources I used wasn't deleted. I swear, the criteria for notability is rotten. ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - No coverage in reliable sources to support notability of this series of compilation CDs. Youtube, as user submitted content, has no editorial oversight in the content selection, and as such is not a reliable source for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Having all albums on a single article page does not make them any more notable. There is not enough coverage from reliable sources to make the albums notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - As DanTD suggests. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea - Why not just redirect it to WSUN-FM? We can just rewrite the discography chapter and turn it into a whole section on the albums. ----DanTD (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, just put this list of non-notable albums and place them elsewhere? A list of the albums is ok (and that's already there), but not just copying/pasting the track list of each album into another article. It will make the WSUN-FM article more about the albums (which aren't notable by the way) than the station itself. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is not a merge. Issues with the growth of material at radio station's page would be an editting concern for that article, and the growth of its discography section would be an issue regardless of whether this article were redirected or deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 17 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} 06:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. No notability found within the references. Article consists of little information bar track listings.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The_Middle_East_(nightclub). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ruane[edit]

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

Delete: Non-notable despite local coverage of death, which is not always dispositive of the question of notability. Fails WP:N, and WP:BIO completely. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:44, 25 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ It seems he was moderately well-known behind the scenes in the Boston music crowd. However, all I could find were passing mentions in reliable sources until he died, when all the Boston papers ran obituaries. Obits can be useful for documenting biographical details of someone otherwise notable, but lacking other significant coverage, they aren't sufficient to establish notability, in my judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my recommendation to delete based on some of the better references furnished during the debate (though the YouTube and Myspace stuff did not influence me at all) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy was more than just moderately well-known. He established the Middle East as a notable venue and launched many notable acts in the Boston - Cambridge area. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Middle_East_(nightclub) . And he was the subject of a song (called "Billy Ruane") by notable band The Varsity Drag - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2Eq1gVfqY - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Deily . His death devastated the Boston music community to a person precisely because he was a notable part of it. Maybe if you're lucky, you may be notable enough to have Peter Wolf and Duke Levine play your memorial birthday bash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-laWPjfBf4 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.143.133 (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to be convinced, but we need evidence from reliable sources, not just your personal opinion. Please offer reliable, independent sources that gave him significant coverage, other than his obituaries already discussed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia entry for Ben Deily, the youtube video of Varsity Drag performing Billy Ruane, and the youtube video of Peter Wolf and Duke Levine are reliable. Furthermore, in this case, the obituaries contain first person interviews with eyewitnesses attesting to Ruane's notable lifetime accomplishments, such as establishing the Middle East as a music venue and discovering and helping start the careers of many notable national acts, most recently Lady Lamb the Beekeeper (she also performed at his memorial and that video exists on youtube as well). They're not typical obituaries. Lady Lamb has Billy's picture (together with her and with Amanda Palmer - also notable) on her myspace page: http://www.myspace.com/ladylambthebeekeeper/photos/33781706 Speaking of Amanda Palmer, when she accepted her most recent Boston Music Award, she urged us all to be more like Billy Ruane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHYN17cHWnw Here's from 2006: http://varsitydrag.bandcamp.com/track/billy-ruane In 1987, he got Buffalo Tom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Tom their first Boston gig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZQKjR4bvQ This was his infamous birthday show that launched the Middle East and was much discussed in all those obituaries. Here he is in 2007 at the Middle East's 20th anniversary party http://www.bostongroupienews.com/MiddleEast20Anniversary.html with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalia_Zedek and Chris Brokaw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Brokaw among others. Here he is with The Dull in 2005 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrEKNb1A5I&feature=player_embedded Here he is on vocals with Yo La Tengo in 1997 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsAvZhKpJU4 Crazy supereight performance from 1987 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquaybvD2yU In 2007, Come reunited for his birthday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW26kPqiyhM Mary Lou Lord http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lou_Lord spoke of Billy here (she was housesitting for him when whatever happened with Kurt Cobain happened) http://www.oedipus1.com/home/?p=203 Billy was, in fact, well-known and notable before his death, and his presence and influence were quite well-documented before anyone had to write his obituary. He was much better-known and far more influential, nationally as well as locally, than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatle_Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.143.133 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't be offended by what I say, IP editor 209.128.143.133, because that is not my intention. We don't allow material from user submitted websites to be used as references to establish notability on Wikipedia. That applies to YouTube, MySpace and (don't be shocked), Wikipedia itself. That's right, you can't use one Wikipedia article as a reference for another Wikipedia article. Otherwise, the whole thing would turn into circular self-referencing. We need independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic. So far, all we have is the obits, which most experienced editors don't think are enough. Please furnish something independent and reliable other than the obits. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended, and I understand that user-generated content cannot be used by itself to establish notability. It is offered as corroboration of original matter presented in the obituaries that apparently have been rejected solely because they are obituaries. I respectfully reiterate that where, as here, the obituaries contain new interviews with notable figures discussing the deceased, those articles go beyond mere biographic data and the new matter should be considered in determining notability, particularly if there is a lot of it. However, I have taken some time to conduct an internet search for news articles that are not also obituaries. This is an arduous task, because there are some 17 pages of obituaries and tributes before news archives begin appearing in a google search, but here are just a few:

Profiled in the Globe July 20, 1988. Noted as part of the Boston music scene for a dozen years. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8071444.html Excerpt: The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) July 20, 1988 | Jim Sullivan, Globe Staff | Copyright Share http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8071444.html#.TosUSk4TAYM.twitter on Twitter The URL http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8071444.html#.TosUSk4TAYM.twitter has been shared 0 times.View these Tweets.

CAMBRIDGE - Billy Ruane has been a visable part of the Boston rock 'n' roll scene for a dozen years. Through most of it, he's been visable on dance floors around town -- in clubs such as the Rat, the Channel, the Underground, Streets and T.T. the Bear's Place. He was always easy to spot: this slight, youthful-looking guy, usually dressed in a shirt and tie, dancing like an absolute madman, often being knocked about by other dancers not so pleased with his intrusion into their space.

Ruane's special memories? "I got my nose broken at a Slits' show at the Channel while dancing. I saw the blood and just kept dancing. Another time, I was facing away from the stage and the people in …Full-text articles are only available to subscribers.

Postumously won Boston Music Awards Unsung Hero Award 2010: http://articles.boston.com/2010-12-06/ae/29295703_1_amanda-palmer-honors-year-nominees

1996 Boston Phoenix Interview with Peter Wolf in which Wolf casually compares his own house to Billy Ruane's http://www.bostonphoenix.com/alt1/archive/music/reviews/05-09-96/PETER_WOLF.html

Respect for Billy Ruane's musical sensibilities noted in The Boston Daily: Bill Janovitz' music blog: http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2011/05/18/the-giant-kings-live-at-the-lizard-lounge/

Another mention of Billy's BMA: http://stuffboston.com/onthedownload/archive/2011/09/30/2011-boston-music-awards-return-to-the-liberty-hotel-on-november-20.aspx

Again in the Boston Phoenix performing at a DelFuegos show in 1999: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/music/99/06/17/REX/DEL_FUEGOS.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.143.133 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Again in the Phoenix 1997 http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/music/97/11/06/MIDDLE_EAST.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.143.133 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous, but not an obituary: http://thephoenix.com/boston/music/111449-interview-pat-mcgrath-on-the-strange-cruel-beau/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.143.133 (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to either William J. Ruane or The Middle East (nightclub). I agree that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I have read sources and agree with this cited source which describes Mr Ruane as "a small-time nightclub impresario". As the nominator argued, eulogies and similar death notices are not always dispositive of the question of notability. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:45, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A redirect to either William J. Ruane or The Middle East (nightclub), while not something I am enthusiastic about, would be preferable to keeping as is. Respectfully move to close debate after almost an entire month passing since nomination for article deletion was made. Quis separabit? 17:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takao Single[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: No indication of passing WP:NSONG Eeekster (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG due to complete lack of independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 17 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} 05:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability found and the article's title is certainly wrong.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of episodes in Gravity's Rainbow[edit]

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

List covers things already covered in Gravity's Rainbow's plot summary to a level of detail that is unnecessary for Wikipedia, might be useful on a fan forum. We usually don't cover chapter's and sections of books down to that level of detail. Sadads (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all sections are entirely unsourced. Alternatively, purge unreferenced sections. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 17 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} 05:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A poorly executed plot summary that appears less useful than the parallel material in the article proper. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. clear consensus after the relisting. I urge Vivekananda De to write an article about the person he mentioned. Il eave it to his judgment if the name is similar enough to justify a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Kumar Verma[edit]

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

No significant coverage able to be found in independent reliable sources. Language is likely to be an issue, also the similarly named poet from earlier in the 20th century, but we need more to prove notability. The-Pope (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is also another person of the name "Ravi Kumar Verma" who was born in 1905 (unlike this guy who was born in 1955)and is one of the literary giants of hindi literature. I have read the letters given by the prime minister and president of india given at http://www.kaviramkumarverma.blogspot.com/ (also given as source). The letters can be translated to be strictly appreciation letters and not awards as claimed in the article. The letters also say that this person himself sent free copies of the books to the offices of PM and President of India.Thus this articles fails WP:BIO and WP:RS.Moreover the above reference has a link which says "My Profile In Wikipedia" and it loops back to wikipedia. Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- not referenced biography. --(User) Mb (Talk)20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sriramulu Vallabhajosyula[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. The World Masters is not the highest level of international competition for race walking as deemed necessary in WP:NSPORTS. Contested PROD, removed asking for more time (page has been up a month). Ravendrop 06:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 4 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) 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that he has competed at a sufficiently high level, nor significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The Redemption. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruff Me Up (Brooke Hogan song)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Did not chart, lack of references; YouTube is not a reliable source. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 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) 02:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per WP:NSONGS - to The Redemption, the song's parent album. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." I can not find significant coverage for this song to indicate it warrants a separate article. Gongshow ^Talk 04:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Redemption. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:59, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the previous comment, I don't know that there is really any information worth merging, as the body of the song article is unreferenced, and the "Singles" section of the album article already covers the song. Gongshow ^Talk 02:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ReGeneration (documentary film)[edit]

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

Documentary that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines per WP:MOVIE. The IMDB page does exist but only links to one critic review, at CultureCatch.com (which doesn't have a WP page but is cited often.) I realize the relative importance of the names apparently involved in this film, but the sole review makes it sound like the work of an independent filmmaker with ancillary use of the people of note. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (without prejudice). This is a relatively young article, and a cursory search shows that there are sources out there covering the film, so it appears to meet WP:GNG. Now, if some time goes by and the sources just aren't showing up, I'd be willing to revisit this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very well cited stub article, could be salvaged and expanded, no reason to delete. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Congruent with WP:GNG— [48], [49]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small mention in various places, adds up to notability. [50] And aren't some of the awards its won notable? [51] Dream Focus 00:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources are located. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC2 Video[edit]

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

The article has no reliable sources, and could not find any through a Google search, so I believe it fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article should not be deleted because a Google search couldn't find any resources. As noted in the article, the service is widely used in Japan. Most if not all references to FC2's userbase are in Japanese, not English, which is why a Google search may not be the best answer. At any rate, FC2 Video is a major component of FC2.com which is ranked #36 in the world and #3 in Japan by Alexa. In a nation of over 100 million people, this is a major web service. Some mathematical information in English can be found here. http://www.markosweb.com/www/video.fc2.com/ MattHisaAsuka (talk) 10:07, 05 SOctober 2011 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:GNG. I'm open to changing my mind if references (in en or jp) are added, but I've looked for them myself and can't find anything solid, partly because the name is used in so many content pages. Feel free to ping me on my user page if RS are added. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:55, 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) 02:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. gNews fail =/= lack of notability, especially for an African commuter airline. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesky Aviation Services Ltd[edit]

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

I could not find any secondary reliable sources for the company that do anything other than list its contact information or aviation code, and a Google search of "Bluesky Aviation Services" turns up only 9 links other than the Wikipedia page. It quite easily fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and rename) as it is notable enough to be assigned a ICAO code and callsign, really needs to be moved to the real name "Blue Sky Aviation Services" if this AfD is a keep. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's so notable, we should be able to find some sources that provide Significant coverage. There simply are none out there. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAn airline, but still covered by WP:ORG? Lacks sources, lacks coverage. Heywoodg ^talk 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per MilborneOne. For a small African airline, it has adequate sourcing. Compare to other similar fleets from the continent. --Mareklug ^talk 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try searching with the string: Blue Sky Aviation Services Kenya. I also found another Wikipedia Kenyan airline article referencing this airline, and wikilinked it there. --Mareklug ^talk 15:17, 5 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) 02:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. zero explanation provided on how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I tried searching the 2 alternate names in gnews. Not one hit. Clear fail of WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it may not have made the news but an airline that has an ICAO code and callsign and operates an aircraft the size of the Let L-410 Turbolet is notable in airline terms. Even gets a mention on snopes at http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/lionplane.asp which is also at [52], dont normally get an airline related to the animal liberation front. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What is your reasoning for stating that every airline with an ICAO code/callsign is notable for this project. Is this a precedent from previous deletion discussion, a policy, or simply your own opinion? I will admit I'm on the fence on this one. It is obviously an existing, operating passenger airline and it does have that one famous lion photo, but there is simply no coverage beyond their own homepage and various unreliable directory listing websites. I have to assume that there is at least somewhat of a location bias in coverage here, but I'm not entirely sure that that assumption along justifies a keep !vote from me. Ravendrop 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It was not just the allocation of an ICAO code/callsign because a lot of non-notable flying clubs have codes allocated but the combination of an official code and the fact that it operates a small airliner were plus points in notability. The fact that it hasnt been in the news or the only publicity outside of Kenya is the lion image is probably related to it being a small operator in Africa. So it does exist the question is does the existance of a small airline in Kenya that doesnt appear to have done anything wrong meet the requirements. Strange but if it had a crash or financial wrong doing it would meet the mark! My thought is it can be kept but it is up to others to draw a consensus from these discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Agree. I was concerned that you were just considering having an ICAO code as making the airline fully notable, when, as you point out, there are numerous non-noatble airlines/schools/clubs that have there own codes, but should not have their own article. Just have a look through List of airline call signs (all most all of which have an ICAO code), but only about half are notable enough for an article. Ravendrop 15:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a small scheduled regional airline in Kenya, doing exactly what many small regional airlines in North American and Europe do as well, but their notability is not questioned. Per past precedence scheduled airlines operating decent sized planes, which this one does, have been kept as notable. I also feel that there is a very high possibility of the airline's base of operations being partly responsible for the lack of coverage. Ravendrop 15:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No support for deletion apart from the nominator Davewild (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk of Tynwald[edit]

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

This position seems to be an insignificant support position in a rather small government body. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as far as I can tell, the Clerk of Tynwald's position in the Isle of Man's government is equiviliant to that of the Attorney General's in the United States government. Now, if additional info can't be found for the article, the merge to Tynwald that's apparently been proposed on the article's page for some time might be in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. Head of administration of a national parliament (however small). Of course he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination appears to be the result of a misunderstanding. This is not an 'insignificant support position' but the most senior. As for it being 'a rather small government body' the Isle of Man is self-governing, not a constituent part of the United Kingdom, and the Tynwald is therefore the governing body of a rather small island, which is an entirely different thing. The Tynwald, incidentally, claims to be over 1,000 years old. --AJHingston (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the talk page I summed up why I thought this position was unimportant. Please give it a read. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's purpose is to inform. It does not favour one country over another because it is bigger. The fact this official only heads an office of about thirty is immaterial, since he is the chief administrator of a national legislature. The fact you, as an American, are confused as to the meaning of clerk or Tynwald is also immaterial. If you read the article and follow the links you will be in no doubt as to their meanings. Clerks are not important? I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the term. In the UK and its associated countries, a clerk may be a very senior administrator. The Clerk of the Parliaments, for example, is almost invariably knighted for his service in that office. Your generalisation about clerks could just as well apply to secretaries, who are often even more junior than clerks, yet that term is also used for very senior officers in the US Government. Do we now only write articles about positions and nomenclature understood by Americans? The fact that none of the officeholders yet has an article is immaterial - it just means nobody has yet got around to writing one (remember that nobody, not even the Presidents of the United States, had an article until one was written about them). Your argument seems to be largely based on "these aren't terms I understand so it can't be important", which really is a very weak argument for deletion. Using your logic, presumably Secretary of Agriculture should also be deleted because it sounds like a minor functionary in a rural town!? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was a really nasty response. I posted that on the talk page so that knowledgeable people could improve the article to better state the position's significance. My point is that the article as it existed very poorly stated the importance of the position. It was a guide to those who wish to improve the article. If I was a more sensitive person, I would just give up on the whole project after responses like this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You were the one who nominated it for deletion instead of just suggesting it should be improved! This is not the place to get articles improved; it's the place to get them deleted because they're not notable! I'm sorry if you thought it was, but as far as I'm concerned it wasn't a nasty response. It was just that you seem to have nominated a perfectly good article for deletion without trying to determine its notability, based on the fact that people from another country may not understand its significance. Is that not what Wikipedia is for? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - My attempts to rescue confirmed my delete vote. See my comment below. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trout nominator Francis Bond (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical depth rather than size is what makes notability. So, the administrator of a small legislative body of one of the realms of the British crown is notable; the Tynwald itself has been around since 979. FWIW, the most senior judge of the Old Bailey is the Recorder of London, and the second in command is the Common Serjeant of London. To American ears these too are unimpressive sounding titles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt the historical depth of Tynwald, but I don't know if the Clerk has the same historical depth. The office holders listed only goes back to 1987 and my source search failed to find any earlier officeholders. Do you know more about the history of the clerk? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went looking for sources to get a better idea of what this position is about, and my initial beliefs are confirmed by the sources. Aside from providing legal advice, the sources to me indicate that this position primarily assists the House of Keys with menial scheduling and organizing. A Google News search, in particular, demonstrates that this position has almost no news-worthy role in the governance or law-making on the Isle of Man - a search for news on Tynwald produces pages and pages of very recent news about Isle of Man, but all that comes up for a news search on the clerk is a total of 6 news article, four of them merely asking people to submit something to the Clerk and the other two simply mention clerk and Tynwald on the same page. Thus, the Clerk of Tynwald is not equivalent to attorney general (those people get in the news), not like a secretary in the US (they get in the news, too), not like a clerk elsewhere in the UK (they also get in the news) and not the chief administrator (the Chief Minister has this role). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a google news search for Roger Phillips (the current Clerk) only a single news article about his presence at a historic church service. Again, an important officeholder in a parliament gets in the news. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps not Google News, but there are various BBC News articles such as article on appointment, article on IoM governance review by former officeholder, article on petitioning. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first I already cited in the article, the second doesn't say anything about the clerk, and the third quotes the clerk, but says nothing about the office or the person. And that's the challenge here, finding an article about the clerk position, and not just about Tynwald in general. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please use some common sense. The Tynwald is a top-level legislature, same as the UK House of Commons or the US House of Representatives. In top-level legislatures, there is no argument that all major elected and appointed positions have articles. The equivalent position in the UK House of Commons is the Clerk of the House of Commons, and there's no argument about deleting that. I have the say the argument for deletion is verging on WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the reason to delete is "there's no sources" D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the reason you gave was that it's an "insignificant support position", but if we disregard you changing your rationale for deletion in mid-AfD, that argument doesn't prove much. For a start, it's practically impossible to prove there's no sources, only that sources can't easily be found on the internet. All Members of Parliament of any top-level legislature are presumed to be notable (that's the individuals themselves, not just the position) whether or not sources are found about them. There's no reason why the same principle should be applied to the most senior administrative position of a top-level legislature. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - For a bit I was thinking I had the wrong idea with this nomination, then I looked at sources, and they confirmed my rationale. The sources indicate that this is an insignificant support position. The sources indicate that this is NOT a senior administrative position at all. Again, how is it possible that Tynwald could have 10 news articles a day and its senior administrator almost none in ten years? The answer is that it's not. If the clerk was really the senior administrator, there would be substantial news about him every day.

The Court of Tynwald itself suggests that this position is not very important. At their own website (http://www.tynwald.org.im/tynwald/today.shtml), he's barely mentioned and lumped in with the Chaplain and the Manx translator.

The Keep argument seems to be that other UK clerks are important therefore this one is too. Which is a flawed argument, especially with the Tynwald's different history compared to UK parliament. Another keep argument is Tynwald is old which makes it notable which makes the Clerk notable. Notability for the Clerk is not inherited from the parliament.

And how is it that I'm wrong when I'm the only one basing my argument on sources? When I'm the only one who's tried to improve the article during this discussion? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there's a lot more to notablity and importance than what you find on Google. To pick a couple of figures out an random, UK Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan currently gets 110 hit on Google. Lord Kerr gets 7. Does this mean Lord Kerr is an insignificant figure is public life? No - he's a Supreme Court judge, and Supreme Court judges have a huge amount of power. Not all third-party coverage comes from the internet - it can also be from printed media. Policy is not a rigid set of rules where one microdeviation is punishable by death. The are statements of principle which evolve over time using precedent and common sense. The majority of people in the AfD presumably believe there is more than enough precedent and common sense to presume the most senior administrative officer in the Isle of Man Parliament to be presumed notable the same way that MPs are presumed notable (which doesn't mean it's notable in spite of having no sources - it means it can be assumed the sources are out there.)

Please credit Wikpedians with the intelligence to talk about how their own countries are run with some degree of knowledge. When someone makes sweeping statements about the running of whichever US state you live in, you're welcome to use your own knowledge then. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't think anyone who's commented here lives on the Isle of Man. And based on sources, I don't think the clerk actually is the chief administrator. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think we may be getting somewhere. Do you think that somebody at Tynwald has a more senior administrative role? I don't see how you get that idea from the sources you refer to but perhaps you can explain. You may be confusing the elected members with the appointed officers. Or are you saying that he is not the most senior administrator of the government? That would be right, because he is an officer of the legisature, whilst ministers head their own departments which have their own staff. That is usual in a parliamentary system. This does demonstrate, by the way, why WP articles on such topics are genuinely useful because they can explain the nature and duties of offices such as this that might not be immediately obvious. --AJHingston (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a notable title, I dont see how this violates any guidelines. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see how this article violates any guidelines, so I say Keep. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this kind of thing help at all? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't add much new, but a source is a source. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable position. If you don't like it, that's not a reason to delete it, or spend all day arguing with everyone else. Dream Focus 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it snowing yet? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swift & Safe Security[edit]

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

2011 start up company, WP:ADVERT. The only references are listings on B2B directories, and their own web sites. Fail to meet criteria at WP:GNG for notability, and WP:ORG for companies. A PROD was declined without addressing the issues Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searching is not turning up any 3rd-party sources discussing the company. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really no reason for this to be here. There's nothing about this company that is notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. The article says that this is a Facilities Management & Security Services business. What I think that means is that they offer night-watchman services, and are just putting on airs. But if they can't bring themselves to say that in English, or use capital letters correctly, it's spam, not neutral, in addition to the obvious notability issue for such a routine business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, noting that it's important the article is improved, possibly in line with Elen of the Roads's suggestions. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bhangra bands[edit]

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

This is purported to be a list of (previously identified as notable) bands in the bhangra musical genre. This whole list has been tainted by Noxiousnews (talk · contribs) who has added various acts that he has in his music collection, and there are really only 11 articles that should be on the list in the first place. This whole thing is unreferenced anyway, and we should just get rid of the whole article to get rid of Noxiousnews's influence on the project. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What exactly is wrong with removing all of the non-notable bands and leaving the 11 that belong on there? Bhangra is a very notable and widespread musical genre and I see no reason why a list of bhangra bands shouldn't exist. We don't delete articles because they've been "tainted" or to get rid of someone's "influence". Silver seren^C 05:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to do that. But someone with major ownership issues reverted me.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion of the page is not the venue by which to solve editing disputes. Obviously some bands belong on that list—at least those with blue link Wikipedia articles. The Independent is a reliable source and surely there others; see WP:BEFORE and sour grapes. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that i've just started adding these sources a moment ago, they weren't there when Ryulong nominated the article for deletion. Silver seren^C 05:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, there's no need to reference the ones that are blue linked. We already have articles on them that say they are notable Bhangra bands. The problem is all the redlinks, some of which - as shown below aren't even Bhangra bands, and some of them don't have any evidence that they even exist, other than the creator's word for it that they do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment ... except that Asian Dub Foundation and Cornershop aren't bhangra bands per se in a million years - both may be influenced by it being of Asian background. However, the linked source for ADF (that the only source we could find was in Spanish says something) says that they show some influences of it along with a long list of other styles. And although the Independent's source suggests, again, there are elements of bhangra there, this does not equate to being a bhangra band. I suspect that the editor responsible for those sources has just put "*name of band* bhangra" into Google and not really read the actual sources. I note that our article for Cornershop does not even mention the word bhangra once, and whilst it is included in ADF's genre list, the lead sentence is "(ADF) are a British electronica band that plays a mix of rapcore, dub, dancehall and ragga, also using rock instruments, acknowledging a punk influence." That's not a bhangra band. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can expect this deletion request to be attacked by the article's primary author and WP:OWNer in 24 hours, as he believes that any sort of attempt to fix his errors is ethnocentrism. There may be bhangra bands. We may have articles on them. But this list is either going to be way too small or full of way too many red links. Categorization is a better option.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't have any real issue with such a list (some of the bands on it are clearly both bhangra and notable), but I do have an issue with it being inaccurate due to lazy sourcing. I have removed ADF and Cornershop. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but take back to being only notable bands and drastically prune.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also support idea of rename to make it inclusive of solo acts etc as well as bandsElen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have pruned it back to include only bands that have Wikipedia entries, similar to how I keep trying to maintain the list of Caribbean bands. If they are truly notable, then create a validly-sourced article about the band, THEN add it to the list. The list itself needs no ref's, as the details should be apparent on the band's own article. I have watchlisted this article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some more notable bands to the list to flesh it out a bit more, going off of a top bhangra bands website. Question: Do singular musicians still count as bands? If not, then we'll need to create a List of bhangra musicians article and most the one that were musicians that I added there. Silver seren^C 14:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a question for the list article's talk page ... although my preference would be to simply rename the article to replace "bands" with "acts", or some comparable rephrasing that would cover both groups, if possible. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no objection to the list existing - my concern is ensuring that the list follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which is why I had initiated the discussion at WP:ANI#List of bhangra bands (again). The issues I see are content related, and center around a single uncivil user with severe ownership issues who repeatedly restores original research content, and who makes false accusations against other editors and the Wikipedia project as a whole rather than address the original research concerns that have been repeatedly brought up (see the article talk page, ANI discussion, and the user's talk page). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very useable, and alphabeticly organized list, just because its not popular in the US doesn't mean it should be deleted, perhaps a rename List of Bhangra bands, capitalize Bhangra. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a number of the entries are solo, I would go with List of Bhangra artists. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, artists is a better term to include solo musicians and bands in it. Silverseren^C 22:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - agree with phoenix, if you want a list of asian rappers or asian djs please make a seperate article. This article should stay "list of Bhangra Bands" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bwilkins and Barek. The issue is with a single editor, not the article itself. Renaming per Black Kite is a good idea, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

DELETE: The list was created to list LIVE PERFORMING bands, not studio acts. Entries like JOSH, ms scandalous, punjabi mc are equivalent to throwing lady gaga in a list of death metal bands. In that case the list should be deleted because it would be giving out erroneous information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in a releated note, the entry for the most notable bhangra labels, Multitone Records, was nominated for deletion by the same people who are trying to alter/add incorrect entries/change the nature of 'list of bhangra bands'article. I have since added various references articles from magazines such as billboard to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of all bands. It does not matter if they are live or studio acts. The fact is that they perform bhangra music and that is why they are on the list. Lady Gaga has never performed death metal so it does not make sense to place her on a list of death metal acts. Ms Scandalous has performed bhangra music so she should be on a list of bhangra music acts.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ms scandalous has not performed bhangra music. definition of 'performing music' is to create music in front of an audience. She clearly has not, and neither have JOSH. Furthermore she is a rapper who belongs in a list of female rappers, not list of bhangra bands (band = 2 or more individuals) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this discussion serves as an instructional guide on general music and bhangra in particular to the party c pants posting here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ms Scandalous has performed bhangra music" I crack up everytime I read that sentence. Funniest thing on wikipedia. Yea I heard kenny rogers performed bhangra too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of non performing solo artists (ms scandalous, abrar ul haque, punjabi mc, JOSH) into a "list of bands" constitutes vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism by Barek and Ryulong should result in removal of editing capabilities from their account for a period of 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anthing about bhangra. I am not claiming that I do. All I know is that I removed several items from the list for people who did not have articles on Wikipedia and at the time the list was so small that it seemed unnecessary to have on this project.

And there is no difference between "performing music" and "recording music". If Ms Scandalous has been recorded music in a studio and that recording can seemingly be called "bhangra", then she is a bhangra musician. You do not get to choose who is and who is not a bhangra musician by saying that if someone has not performed live for an audience, that excludes them from being on this list.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no difference between "performing music" and "recording music"" you would be surprised by how many people would have issue with that subjective assertion. Looped sampling in a computer software, is not performance of music. She is a female rapper. Rap is not bhangra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nowhere else on wikipedia would solo artists be inserted into a "list of bands", yet here bands are being deleted and solo artists, many of whome are rappers or hip hop djs, are being inserted in their place. makes no sense atall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing here whether or not the article should be moved to "list of bhangra [something more inclusive than bands]" as well. And, again, you do not get to decide what is and what is not bhangra just because someone has not physically been in front of an audience singing or playing music.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J._T._Eberhard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a WP:BLP of a student who is known for organizing a conference while in college (Skepticon) and for being an outspoken atheist blogger. There are very few secondary sources for his work on Skepticon despite 2011 being its 4th year. I have searched for other news articles about this subject but outside of his personal blog there is very little content available. I'm not sure what is best at this point - redirecting to Skepticon or deleting entirely. Allecher (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I applaud what he is described as having done, but per the article he does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page has had a lot of time to be corrected, with little improvement. If the sources needed existed, I'm sure they would have already been added by now. I won't argue with redirecting if that is what is agreed on in the end. Sgerbic (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Haifa Model United Nations Society[edit]

Newer users, please note: Comments should be added to the end of this discussion page, not at the beginning. Thanks. Chzz ► 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

From the PROD, "Not (yet) notable. No evidence of significant coverage; a newly-formed society; see also WP:CRYSTAL WP:ORG". →Σ τ c. 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD reasoning; I see no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources at this time (WP:GNG, WP:ORG) and I cannot find any such coverage - which is why I proposed deletion. Of course, if anyone can demonstrate such coverage, please let me know. I've also asked on WikiProject Israel in-case there may be sources in other languages. Chzz ► 01:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There are no assertions of notability and Wikipedia is not a directory or a way to promote an organization.--TM 01:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. This is just one of many local Model United Nations organizations and is not clearly notable in itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mikerp1986- please take note that after this deletion request was raised, 2 external references (Haifa u in English and online journal of Haifa in Hebrew) were added to prove existence and actual achievement of what is written — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerp1986 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=5512 - published by the university; so not really showing any significant coverage of this small club outside the uni itself. The other is http://www1.haifa.muni.il/news/20110727/newsletter.html which is in Hebrew, so really I need advice over how significant/reliable that is. Chzz ► 03:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mikerp1986- added another article about us from "Yediot Haifa" about our achievements in the euroMUN- considered the biggest local newspaper in the Haifa metropolis, the journal i posted earlier is from the city municipality itself, this newspaper is privately owned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerp1986 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sefishalem- I really don't see a reason to delete this article. The fact that this is a local club dosen't mean that it is not important enought to have its own article. This article's purpose is not to promote the organization, but rather informative. In addition there are avidance of the achievments mentioned in the article with the form of local press coverege. --Sefishalem (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find any secondary sources about this local group, but I would go along with a merge into the Model United Nations article, to be kind to the newbies. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to University of Haifa.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mikerp1986- in continuation to bearian above, i feel this whole situation was a major biting incident. i understand that perhaps the article wasn't covered enough as required, but external sources are added in to the article since i received the deletion notice- but was this really a way to help a new editor improve the article? putting his article on deletion call within 60 seconds that he enters the help forum? very offended, and even if this article will hopefully not be deleted, i personally will think twice before adding knowledge to Wikipedia and give notice to all my friends as well. extremely negative first experience for me as a wiki article writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.98.136 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Mikerp1986 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)mikerp1986- once again, ive added a dutch article giving coverage on our visit during the euroMUN. since my last post i also noticed that there is a hint of accusation of me using multiple accounts even though i made it clear that my friend, a fellow wiki editor who is even newer than myself to this system, might of used my article as a guideline to creating an article on an umbrella organization for Israeli MUN societies. BITE BITE BITE.....[reply]

to further emphasize my novice experience in writing articles, i would appreciate it if someon could please help me and teach me how to write references for external links properly? ive added theem meanwhile in a very poor manner, just so that i can get it in and try and save this article, but if hopefully this article will be spared i would appreciate it if someone could show me how so i can improve the article's design and aesthetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerp1986 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added help on referencing, on the user's talk page [53] Chzz ► 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SefiShalem: 8 references have been added in proper citation form, so I beleive that right now there is sufficiant avidance that this organization does exist and operates as mentioned in the article. Therefore I belive that the "Article for deletion" banner should be removed. --Sefishalem (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, WP:ITEXISTS isn't sufficicent reason to keep an article on something. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chzz's reasoning was correct --Neutrality^talk 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter H. Thomas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter H. Thomas

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

Non-notable bio per WP:BIO. Sources are largely self-published, promotional, or press releases. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be well citated, and a biography on someone who has achieved multiple notable titles in his lifetime. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His business dealings and charity work get significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Plus he founded a company which 11 years later had "$9 billion in annual sales and employed over 8000 sales representatives". Honestly now. How could someone like that not be notable? Dream Focus 17:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the references are repeated uses of only a couple of sources: One self published personal website, and one article from SUCCESS (magazine), whose article is marked with an advert tag and is questionable at best. The rest are trivial; the Century21 website where he works. I'm not seeing any serious claim to notability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peter H. Thomas meets the GNG—"Peter's principles: Real estate entrepreneur Peter Thomas's new book is as much a self-help manual as it is a tribute to the son he lost" from the Times Colonist, "Rise and fall and rise: Developer's book recounts life on real estate rollercoaster" from the Waterloo Region Record, "Supersalesman sets out to sell secrets of his success" and "Total commitment to goal essential to success, says man who made it" from the Ottawa Citizen, "Success — read all about it" from The Calgary Herald, "Learning from his mistakes" from the Toronto Star, "Ask the Legends: Peter H. Thomas" from Profit, "'Business for charity' grew out of tragedy" from The Globe and Mail (also available through LexisNexis), "First-hand advice for pig fighters" and "Millionaire at home in public housing: Century 21 super-salesman takes over B.C. commission" from Financial Post (both available through LexisNexis), and six-page "The Education of Peter Thomas" from Canadian Business (abstract available through ProQuest Research Library). Goodvac (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Goodvac which establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. given the information that emerged in the discussion, could just as well have been G11, but since the 7 days is over, an ordinary AfD will do. Some comments were made in this AfD that would seem to me to violate our BLP policy: AfD, though not mainspace, still does not have license to insult the subject of an article, regardless of provocation. I suggest a courtesy blanking if another admin agrees with me. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Golden[edit]

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

Ok, what we have here is an article with, as of this writing, 57 refs for only five paragraphs on content. One would think that notability would not be in question with more than 10 refs per paragraph, but look a little closer and a different picture emerges. Some of these supposed references are written by the subject of the article. A great deal of them are from the local paper in the Chicago suburb where he lives. A paper which will apparently print obvious self promotion and which I would suggest does not qualify as a relaible source. Some of the sources mention the subject's name and that he was involved in this or that small project without offering any more in-depth information. And some of them are simply writings about gambling techniques that do not have an author's name attached and do not mention the subject of this article at all. In short, this is classic puffery in the form of ref-bombing. The article subject is a shameless self-promoter and main author, under various names, of several articles about his own accomplishments, most of which have now been deleted. In short, it appears to me that Les Golden has attempted to use Wikipedia to promote himself, and that his notability in any field is not significant enough to merit an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edited to add:) Delete Fails WP:BIO. References fail the requirements of "independent" sources. Keep Appears to satisfy WP:Bio and WP:N. Substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. ~~The nominator's apparent rejections of the Chicago Tribune as a "reliable source" for having an article about this person is asinine.~~ Edison (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would guess that the nom was referring to the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, which is cited in this article even more than the Chicago Tribune. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune is obviously not the "local paper in the Chicago suburb" referred to in my nomination. The Oak Park paper is of course what I was referring to. I thought I practically drew a map to that conclusion, but apparently I was not explicit enough to stop Edison from jumping to this asinine assumption. Anyway, I don't think we can consider them a reliable source, there are indications that they have allowed Golden to engage in "real world sockpuppetry" by publishing overtly promotional articles Golden wrote about himself under a pen name. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification of the vague dismissal of a newspaper. An article in a local Oak Park paper can provide useful detail, but I agree it counts for less in establishing notability than a major paper such as the Tribune. I've seen a number of instances of an AFD nominator rejecting something as a reliable source merely because it has significant discussion of the thing he is trying to delete. Edison (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I am having such trouble getting you to understand this, you don't seem to be registering at all what my objection is to the Oak Park and River Forest Journal, which is odd because I unambiguously explained it in my remark right above yours. . They have allowed Golden to write articles about himself using a pen name. That is not the type of journalism engaged in by reputable news sources. They should not even be considered valid for verification purposes, let alone establishing notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the debate here. HE WROTE THIS ARTICLE HIMSELF ABOUT HIMSELF. He used as references fraudulent press releases he had submitted under various women's names to the suburban version of the Trib called "Triblocal". Those press releases have since been removed, and the claims referenced in this article were thus also removed. He had listed himself in a good dozen categories as notable, all of which have been removed now. So what's left? He says he's a gambling writer, but the gambling folks here say he is not known in the field, and has been vandalizing articles in order to get a book deal. He says he's an "astronomer" and "professor", but that too has not been substantiated by anyone other that one of his sock accounts. Can the KEEP folks please point to anything NOT written or sourced by Mr. Golden which attests to his notability? WikiMrsP (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox and WikiMrsP seem to be familiar with this editor and his socks, and seem to assume that all editors should be equally familiar. Suddenly WikiMrsP mentions that his local press articles are self-written. I do not assume that all articles about a person in some paper in a town the size of Oak Park, Illinois (population over 51,000) are in fact written by himself under pseudonyms. Maybe they were in this case. We usually take a newspaper in a town of that size as a reliable source. But it would have been well to refer to the CU and sock investigations, and to discussions on this article's talk page, rather than assuming universal knowledge. My "keep" will probably become a "delete" on review. Edison (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are willing to reconsider, but in actuality I did mention this twice already when replying to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out the Trib articles, and yes, it's obvious that he wrote these under a pen name. The "author", in this case, only writes about Les Golden, and writes in his own style. Rklawton (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Beeblebrox would read Theory of mind. He asserts in 2 replies to my first post that all the articles about this person were written by the person. He knows from various discussions in other Wiki fora that HE has participated in that this is so, but does not link to any CU or any talk page, yet assumes that other readers should know why his assertions should be assumed to be true. Sadly, AFD participants say all kinds of unsubstantiated things, so I do not automatically assume that every assertion by an AFD nominator or Keep or Delete !voter is true. Please provide a LINK when you assert something, or you may expect your assertions to be questioned. "Mentioning" is very far from being sufficient proof! I note that at least one editor, JFMcKeown, accused of being a sock has not been found to be any such creature. Do you feel compelled to claim that I am also a sock? That would smack of the Salem witch trials. Edison (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Beeblebrox nor I asserted that ALL articles about Mr. Golden in local suburban papers were self-written. This article used to be considerably longer, and many of his claims were referenced by press releases on the Triblocal website which were obviously written by Mr. Golden and which have since been removed from this article and from the Triblocal website. The Wednesday Journal is in fact a reputable independent paper which has won many awards, and which publishes letters and Op-ed pieces by Oak Park residents, including one by Mr. Golden of that is still ref'd on this article, as well as many articles about his failed political campaigns, his battles with the Park Department, and his trespassing conviction. WikiMrsP (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable writer on gambling, regularly published in some magazines. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An extreemly citated artical on a signifigant and well known writer on the topic of gambling. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article needs to be reorganized. If this person's notability is as a gambling writer, then a much higher percentage of the article should be about his activities in the gambling field. Currently, about half of even the "Gambling writings" section is about his activities in astronomy and acting. I would recommend either reducing the non-gambling content of the article, or increasing the gambling content of the article, or better yet both. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Stubify first~~ Delete. Update: Sufficient work has been done by other editors investigating Golden's claims to notability and as of now the subject does not appear notable. The article is a puff piece written by the subject using multiple socks while actively denying any connection to those socks (see here for one example). At this point it's nearly impossible to trust any of the edits made by the subject and given that the majority of the references cannot be verified online my suggestion is to get rid of all the sources (and associated text) that cannot be verified by someone other than the subject (most likely this will mean keeping only online sources) and then see what's left. Maybe Mr. Golden will turn out to not be notable in which case AfD would be appropriate or if he is then we'll have streamlined the article to just the barest facts (with reliable sources). I know Wikipedia allows offline sources but if no one is able to verify them and given who added them in the first place then I think it's OK to get rid of them. SQGibbon (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim is that he is a notable writer on gambling. But, he is not mentioned in any books on gambling, has developed no theories, data, strategies, or other works referenced by other writers, and appears to be unknown in the field.Objective3000 (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment - I've got it 80% decrufted now. ~~The fact that he was a Republican Congressional candidate goes a long way towards notability for me.~~ There are ~~absolutely~~ claims to be made on an academic and gambling-writer basis as well. With a little more regular editing, this piece should be encyclopedia-worthy... Carrite (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being an "also ran" candidate is not usually considered a valid claim to notability, especially in the States where the press is required by law to give equal coverage to all certified candidates. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no such law in the United States. You may be thinking of the equal-time rule, but (a) that only applies to broadcast television and radio; (b) the rule has so many exceptions that it is almost meaningless; and (d) most local stations, in dealing with the Republican primary in a heavily Democratic district, would give, at best, minimal coverage to the candidates in that race. (Only the more competitive Congressional races tend to receive significant television coverage.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he was one of 18 people that registered for the primaries for that position. The article seems to suggest that he was the Republican candidate. Unless I'm mistaken, according to Danny_K._Davis, the Republican candidate was Randy Borow and there were three other candidates in the general election. There is no mention of Les Golden.Objective3000 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not mistaken. Here are the official results of the U.S. House of Representatives primary elections in Illinois for 1996. It notes 11 Democrats, 3, Republicans, and 3 independent/other. It does not mention Les Golden getting even a single vote. And here [54] are the final results, compiled buyt eh Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Illinois District 7 Republican nominee is listed as one "Randy Borow" and again Les Golden is not mentioned The claim that he was the nominee is now sourced solely to the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest which as I've mentioned I do not believe we should consider a reliable source. Perhaps now it is becoming clearer what we are actually dealing with here. Les Golden is absolutely shameless about promoting himself and doesn't let a little thing like a fact get in his way. Just because he fooled his local paper doesn't mean we should let him do it to us as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Computational Astrophysics for more information on wacky, largely imaginary claims to fame by Golden. I would also note, and I'm somewhat dismayed at feeling like I have to even point this out, that being published in magazines and gambling websites is not really an indication of notability. Being written about in reliable sources is. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was created, edited, sourced, and defended by Mr. Golden and his sockpuppets, for which he was blocked. The only Chicago Tribune ref is to his father's obituary. Even in his hometown, he is known mostly for his self-promotion as the town gadfly, for his monomania regarding the parks department, and his recent conviction for trespassing. It is very likely he was using Wikipedia to resuscitate his image, which he has himself destroyed with comment gems such as on this article (the first result when you google "Les Golden"). Seriously, we have all spent way too much time on this article. He had a piece in Nature when he was a young man, has dabbled in a bunch of different stuff ever since, and does not seem to be legitimately notable in any field. WikiMrsP (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any role in his life for which he is notable. I see no significant coverage from out of state and modest coverage at the local Chicago Tribune. I don't think the list of sources is sufficient to pass the WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was asked to reconsider my delete vote and I don't understand why. There is nothing to suggest any national or international notability in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony and all the above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beeblebrox. Wikipedia is not a reputation laundrette. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Additional Comment Sorry, but I need to add this and apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. Three plus months ago, I removed edits to Blackjack made by DianneSteele about an unknown person in the field obviously making false promotional claims. I received a phone call from Les Golden. I was quite unnerved by this call as I had never considered the possibility of getting a telephone call as the result of an edit. Seriously, this is weird. He told me that DianneSteele was a PR person that had advised him that Wikipedia is a good place to become known, so that he can point publishers to WP to prove he is known in the field, so he can publish a book on Blackjack. I told him that I was afraid that he had this backwards. You do not use an encyclopedia to become notable. You are added to an encyclopedia BECAUSE you are notable. I also told him that I am mentioned in 22 respected books on gambling, and do not think this makes me notable to the point of addition to an encyclopedia. (He is mentioned in no books.) It later turned out that DianneSteele was one of, I think, 11 socks of his. After I refused to stop removing the edits, he invented another sock to attack me on two odd pages. I have avoided discussion on this for some time, as I looked him up, and he makes me nervous.Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken Diane Steele was also the byline used in the ridiculous puff piece the Oak Park Journal ran on Golden that was used to support the now deleted Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project article. I note that story is no longer visible on their website. They must have realized they'd been flimflammed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objective--I would suggest that you have a sysop delete the history, which continues to show your personal information that you would prefer now be private.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never mind that the article was created by the subject with the misguided intention of promoting himself without regard to our rules. We can't delete an article on those grounds, though it raises a red flag that perhaps the subject isn't notable since he had to do all that work himself. Thus the question at hand is whether or not this guy is notable. The answer: his work isn't cited, he hasn't received any awards, and he hasn't received any significant press coverage. In short, the guy is a nobody that nobody other than himself is going to want to read about at this point. Rklawton (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Couldn't have expressed it better. Edison (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of small-town newspaper stories and a lot of sources that don't seem to be about the subject don't add up to a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After posting this I received a Wikipedia email, purportedly from Golden, canvassing me in an attempt to persuade me to change my !vote. I consider this to be grossly inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Canvassing rules are esoteric, normal humans will try to win support for their cause and the fact that it is regarded as "grossly inappropriate" as part of Wikipedia's culture shouldn't necessarily be projected upon a broader public. I've also been in contact with Dr. Golden today and have attempted to explain the deletion process and why this article was "in trouble" to him. Obviously, he feels personally attacked here, but like I told him, this is a tough neighborhood populated by committed volunteers ultimately haggling over their fundamental visions of this project, and he's not meant to see this. Okay, where are we? Tossing out the political campaign, there are two potential paths to inclusion — as a gambling writer (including a publication on applied probability theory in a peer-reviewed journal), and as an academic. Both of those angles are outside my normal area of concern, but I would ask that someone familiar with the notability claims of academics examine how widely-cited his work is. This article is probably doomed in the eyes of most by virtue of having been written by a publicist in association with the article subject, as shown by the edit history, but what we should be considering is whether the subject is itself worthy under our notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Begging Dr. Golden's pardon for quoting part of a personal email without asking him first, he explains the confusion about the election here: The confusion arising from my U.S. Congress candidacy was not of my own making. I was a candidate, defined in Illinois as one who files a petition with signatures and a statement of candidacy, in the Republican primary. A wiki editor...altered that statement to my "losing" the election. That was not verified nor is it correct. I was removed from the ballot after a Democratic Party challenger objected to my “Cut the Taxes” nickname and the Cook County, Illinois, machine was able to sustain the objection. I never appeared on the ballot. The misrepresentation is due to lack of due diligence on the part of a wikipedia editor. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. The line “In 1996, he was a Republican Party candidate for U.S. Congress in the predominately Democratic 7th Illinois Congressional District, using his ‘Cut the Taxes’ nickname” was added by Tallllnoisyninja, later identified as a sock and blocked. No matter what the technical definition, this seems misleading as he was not on the ballot for even the primary, much less the general election. The fact that he finds reason to put blame on the Cook County ‘machine’ and a WP editor is unfortunate. In any case, the explanation clearly suggests lack of notability.Objective3000 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about academic notability: Google scholar search finds only one paper with double-digit citations, and an h-index of 3 (I think, discounting the papers that seem to be by other people). The quasar article mentioned in the text is in a very good journal but has absolutely no citations in Google scholar. DIfferent people have different standards for what is enough to meet WP:PROF#C1 — some will say that an h-index of 10 is enough, others would like to see more than that, or multiple triple-digit-citation papers, or clear evidence of being one of the leading researchers in some specific topic. Regardless, I think it's clear that what we see from this search is not enough. So I think any notability is going to have to rest on his popular writings on gambling rather than his academic work or his unsuccessful political campaigning. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've checked the stats related to academic notability, as requested by Carrite. WoS (the definitive source for physics-related work) does show several papers from the 1970s, but they are not highly-cited with respect to our conventions here. Citation counts are: 34, 9, 5, 0, 0, ... (h-index = 3). Fails everything in WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Many of the references in the article don't have hyperlinks. These may serve to establish notability:

Kogan, Rick (2005), “Lawyer also designed, built bars,” Chicago Tribune, July 24, p. IV-7
(1983). “Rosary prof makes stars come to life for ‘ET’ class,” Suburban Sun-Times (West), July 1, p. 14
(1983). “People Focuses on Fellow Who Makes ETs His Specialty,” Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, November 16
(1995) "Cut the Taxes" seizes a golden opportunity to run for Congress, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, December 20, p. 12

Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have access to the Rick Kogan article mentioned above. It's an obituary article (a proper article, not a paid death notice) for Les Golden's father Irving Golden. The only mention of Les in the article is the following quote:

At home, "Dad was incredibly handy around the house, and performed all but the most major work even into his 90s," said son Leslie. "He enjoyed working in the yard and had an extensive rose garden."

There is no mention of Les's occupation in the article nor anything that would contribute to establishing Les's notability there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, at the risk of repeating myself, I strongly believe we should not consider the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest a reliable source, for all the reasons already detailed above. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has had its failures too, but is not ruled out absolutely as a reliable source. The "Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest" was named the state's best weekly newspaper in 2008 by the Illinois Press Association, per [55] and again in 2009: [56]. It received numerous awards from that association in 2011: [57]. Since other articles related to these towns may come up in the future, perhaps you should take your views to the reliable sources noticeboard, to see if there is a consensus that the paper is absolutely not a reliable source. Should all articles be purged of references to articles in this paper? Or did they just get hoodwinked by the one self-promoter? Edison (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the companion issue for such publications (neighborhood papers, glossy business district bulletins or circulars, local tourist or shopper-type publications, etc) is that they do not have the impact of mainstream publications (big city newspapers, national news magazines, etc). By definition, they focus on items that are predominantly of local interest, e.g. school board elections and such, and have very limited circulation and/or readership. Not that these things wouldn't help, but arguing a case largely on such sources alone shows nothing beyond a person being of local interest. Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to correct an inadvertent misstatement by an editor concerning my race for the 1996 U.S. Congressional seat.

At 16:16 09/4/2011 TallIllinosyninja wrote:

In 1996, he was a Republican Party candidate for U.S. Congress in the predominately Democratic 7th Illinois Congressional District, using his "Cut the Taxes" nickname.^[1]

At 16:48 09/04/2011 Rklawton in good faith edited that to read:

In 1996, he ran as a Republican Party candidate for the United States Congress and lost in the predominately Democratic Illinois's 7th congressional district, using his "Cut the Taxes" nickname.^[2]

That editing is incorrect. In addition, the referenced article does not provide that information. In Illinois you are a candidate by virtue of submitting nomination papers. That was the statement in the post that was initially placed and the basis for the newspaper article. The “dubious” note placed on the page refers to the inappropriate edit by Rklawton. The initial post is correct. Rklawton’s post, made in good faith, of 09/04/2011 should be reversed.

To verify that the lengthy feature article “Who is Les Golden?” in the Wednesday Journal (Trainor, Ken (1997), “Who is Les Golden?”, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, April 2) was written by a staff member and not Les Golden, a fair-minded wikipedia editor need only call the Wednesday Journal at 708-524-8300 and ask for the senior writer who wrote the article, Ken Trainor, or email him at ktrainor@wjinc.com. I have uploaded the first page of that article (zerox reduced because the format of the newspaper is 12 inch x 14 inch) to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:drlesmgolden. I have received permission from the publisher of the Wednesday Journal to do so. Here is a transcript of those first few paragraphs.

Let's say there was a local character who has a B.S. and M.S. in engineering physics from Cornell University; earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of California in Berkeley; is a professional actor; a former stand-up comedian in San Francisco and L.A. and an improv performer with Chicago's Second City, is a freelance jazz and theater critic and playwright; is president of his own software development company; gives lectures on UFOs and the possibility of extraterrestrial life; was listed in the Marquis “Who's Who in Science and Engineering;” and every July 4 either he or his twin brother lead the band that precedes the fireworks at the local high school. You'd accuse us of making him up, right? Wait, it gets better. Let's say all of that is not enough. Let's say this guy wants to make his mark in politics . . . only he insists on filing under a nickname which usually gets him tossed off the ballot . . . (Continued on page 36)

In addition, for those wishing to contact the Wednesday Journal, ask for Marc Stopeck. mstopeck@wjinc.com. He is the author of the cartoon strip one of whose main characters, “Moe Silver,” president of the “LOVE” party, was modeled after me, “Les Golden,” president of the “CARE” party. His cartoon strips, “Shrubtown,” were made into a play by the same name and produced professionally on the stage. All references to those comic strips were deleted on my article. The wikipedia editor, WikiMrsP, in particular, as an apparent resident of my town, who quizzically claims I lack notability but who knows all about me, I would guess from reading about me in Chicago-area newspapers, can verify that Ken writes for the WJ, that Marc is the cartoonist for the WJ, and that the cartoon strip Shrubtown was made into a play and produced professionally. Her doing so will save conscientious editors the chore of contacting the WJ themselves if they wish to do so.

Let me make this clear. I do not claim notability based on local politics. My national and international notability is based on being a gambling writer and, nationally, as a political figure. (I should say, however, that I don’t know of any gambling writer who has a main comic strip character modeled after him.) These references are simply to dispel the concerns that conscientious editors at wikipedia are expressing about the veracity of Wednesday Journal authorship and to clarify the commentary concerning my congressional candidacy in 1996.

Thank you for allowing me to provide this information. Drlesmgolden (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get something straight. Even if that piece isn't yet another stunt you engineered yourself, the Journal is a small local paper and not sufficient for establishing notability. I also note that you have now scanned the article and uploaded it, claiming that the paper actually released it into the public domain [58]. I find that claim as unlikely as many others you have made. Also, we are not going to call the newspaper and talk to somebody in order check the veracity any of your claims. That is now how this works. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth. What some guy says on the phone is not verification of anything, and can't be used a source for a Wikipedia article. Not that it particularly matters whether a comic strip in that same local paper was based on you or not anyway as that still is not a valid claim to general notability. I have no doubt that many residents of Oak Park know all about you as you seem to be willing to go to any lengths to get your name in print. That does not mean you are generally notable in the way Wikipedia defines the term. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Editors David Eppstein, Carrite, Northamerica1000, and perhaps others have implicitly or explicitly asked for more citations in either my writer role or my political role. Administrator Fred Bauder has suggested I’m notable in both categories.

The article began with over 100 references, then after the first tidal wave of editing it was down to 57, now it’s down to 14. The important ones in establishing notability have all been deleted. I cannot quibble with conscientious editors who view the article and judge that, in its present state, no references exist to establish notability.

The following text with its numerous references will I believe help establish my notability before the scrutiny of conscientious editors. It looks like a lot, but the text is concise. It has about 25 references in magazines, newspapers, websites, etc. The majority are online citations, as is the wish of conscientious editor SQGibbon. None are from my personal websites. I’ve checked out the syntax in Preview Mode.

The text, without the references, reads: He has won awards for his writing, his research into the gambling game of 21 has been published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, he holds the Ph.D in astronomy from the University of California, Berkeley, some of his early research in astronomy appeared in a book by [Stephen Hawking], he is a nationally-referenced animal welfare advocate, and he is a professional actor. His political candidacies for U.S. Congress and State Representative using the nickname “Cut the Taxes” have led to court actions, a re-writing of Illinois election law concerning allowable names on the ballot propagated throughout the state of Illinois in election guides for candidates, lengthy discussions in the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) handbook on election law which is on display in courthouses in the state of Illinois, scholarly studies on election law and ballot access, and rewriting of election law in other states.

The text, with the references, reads: He has won awards for his writing, ^[3] ^[4] his research into the gambling game of 21 has been published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, ^[5] he holds the Ph.D in astronomy from the University of California, Berkeley, ^[6] , some of his early research in astronomy appeared in a book by [Stephen Hawking], ^[7] he is a nationally-referenced animal welfare advocate, ^[8] and he is a professional actor. ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] His political candidacies for U.S. Congress and State Representative using the nickname Cut the Taxes have led to court actions, ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18] ^[19]^[20]^[21] ^[22]

^[23]  a re-writing of Illinois election law concerning allowable names on the ballot ^[24]  ^[25]  ^[26]  ^[27]  propagated throughout the state of Illinois in election guides for candidates, ^[28]  ^[29]  lengthy discussions in the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) handbook on election law ^[30]  which is on display in courthouses in the state of Illinois, scholarly studies on election law and ballot access, ^[31]  and rewriting of election law in other states. ^[32]

In addition, the beginning of this DELETE discourse is marked by a deletion by a hard-working editor on 10/17/2011. The paragraphs displaying my contributions helping to establish notability as a gambling writer (on the basis that the editor never heard of me) were deleted, although the paragraphs were referenced and one of the contributions appeared in detail in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Within one-half hour a second hard-working and conscientious editor placed the DELETE tag. The first hard-working editor on 9/3/2011 or 9/4/2011 also had deleted a quote from the editor of Gamblingonline, a print journal based in London for which I write, on the basis that it is simply one of thousands of online gambling webpages. A simple google of “gamblingonline magazine” will show it is in fact a print magazine. The top google entry reads: “Gambling Online Magazine - The largest print magazine for online gambling in the world covering poker, sports, casino and lifestyle.” I only write for print magazines on assignment.

I am sorry the editor who deleted that material was not aware of this prominent magazine but in good faith believed it to be only internet fluff. I therefore respectfully request a fair-minded and conscientious editor among you to:

1. Reverse the deletion by Objective3000 on October 17 with the note that “adequately-referenced material should not be deleted” or words you consider appropriate.

2. Reverse the deletion by either Objective3000 or Rklawton on September 3 or 4 concerning the quote that “fortunately for readers, he’s also a great blackjack player” by Chris Lines, my editor at gamblingonline, with the note that “gamblingonline magazine is a respected print magazine, not an online webpage as claimed by the editor” or something you consider appropriate.

Thank you for reading this post. I greatly appreciate your time and energy spent hereon to make this article wikipedia-worthy. Drlesmgolden (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Published author of gambling articles with zero awards is simply not notable. Maybe (but I doubt it) the court cases influencing election law are notable, but that doesn't mean the individual behind the case is notable. We have thousands of articles about notorious crimes but not about the criminal for the same reason - it's the crime (or in your case the case) that's notable and not the individual. Next - we do not create biographical articles for election losers and are even less inclined to publish an article about someone who never appeared on the ballot. Moving along - your claim to be a professional actor is technically true and at the same time patently absurd as grounds for notability. You had a bit part in a movie that was nothing short of horrible and seen by virtually no one. Lastly, your academic research is quite typical for non-notable dead-end academics who fail to make tenure. In short, Stephen Hawkins is notable. You are not. Rklawton (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These sources make no showing of notability in the current article, my searching reveals no different. I am extremely troubled by the gaming of the article by someone who apparently knows a lot about gaming.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is now personally weighing-in with lengthy comments. This usually marks a dramatic downward trend, judging from past AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There should be an essay on this, if there isn't already. E.g., Wikipedia:Whatever you do, don't comment in your own AfD. Because you can self-create an article and self-edit an article or use socks, canvass editors on the sly, and do other nasty things, and these will be strongly frowned on, but possibly may not be fatal. But when you start making strong lenghthy pleas as to your own notability in an AfD about yourself, you are DOOMED. In fact, I think I will publish a book on this topic and then write a wikipedia article about myself and my book. But I will not comment on my deletion discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Chicago Tribune is not local coverage. I found the article at [59] and it quotes him and his opinions throughout the article. His run for office got ample coverage. There is a picture of him glued to a tree and comments about his crazed protest in one news source[60]. The bulk of coverage for this person is behind paywalls, so no way to access it. But it is clearly out there. Dream Focus 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you f'n kidding us? You're citing a letter to the editor in the Tribune and a fluff piece in a local paper as evidence that Golden is notable? Who are you, his mother? Rklawton (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the Tribune ref you cite is a letter to the editor by a reader, not coverage of Les Golden by the Tribune itself. The other ref, [61], is a local paper for Oak Park and River Forest. Such papers do not have substantial visibility or readership outside these localities. This particular paper evidently has an even bigger conflict-of-interest issue with respect to this subject, as explained in detail above by others. These 2 refs do not go toward notability, in my opinion. Agricola44 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, that's what I would have said had I not been put off by an editor who didn't spend five seconds on the subject before wasting our time. Rklawton (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, Dream is good folks, give him a chance to look further. Les is polluting the voting pool here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, i encourage you to look a further into this one. In a general case what you are citing might give pause, but this guy is a piece of work. Your cite of the Tribune seems to be an honest mistake if its only a letter to the editor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no need for anyone to get rude now. Firefox 6.0 doesn't load up the "VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (letter)" bit properly, but has it overwriting part of the text, I just seeing a blur and not paying attention towards it. Went back, copied that bit, and pasted it, and found out what it says. Simple mistake. The other coverage he gets in reliable sources, that is hidden behind paywalls, still confers notability. Dream Focus 22:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to all the articles under paywall here, and have found none of them to constitute nontrivial coverage of Les Golden. Goodvac (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have access to all 1,900 results? And have looked through them all? I find that unlikely. Dream Focus 23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do. I looked at every single page of the results (There are only 10 pages. Even though it lists pages 11–19, they don't exist.) and chose to look at only articles that might have significant coverage. If you want to see the full text for any result, feel free to let me know which one. Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" about him gluing himself to the tree is an parody piece, published for the April fools day issue. WikiMrsP (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting through all the Google news archive results, I found coverage of him here: [62]. Added a section in the article for his political career. Dream Focus 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normal people define "candidate" as someone who appears on a ballot. Les Golden's name did not appear on the ballot in 96 and shouldn't have in 2002, not because of any corrupt machine (David Orr?? Are you kidding me?? That guys' middle name is Good Government), but because Golden himself tried gaming the system (sound familar?) by "ballot sloganneering", which you are not allowed to do. He knew this, but he did it anyway (sound familiar?) and elicited a bunch of lawsuits and wasted a ton of tax payer money. The end result, yes, was legislation specifically prohibiting his behavior. His election runs were publicity stunts designed to get himself attention. He has never been a serious candidate for any office. The fact that he now states his notability is due "nationally, as a political figure" makes me think this whole thing is yet another big joke to Mr. Golden. Maybe he's just trying to get his friends at the Wednesday Journal to write another article about him. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, we are spending too much time on someone simply attempting self-promotion. The exaggerations found here surpass anything I have yet seen in WP. To wit:

He claimed, using a sock-puppet, to be a “newspaper columnist” based on a ref that was to a print pub to which we had no access. Later, someone with access said it was a letter to the editor. I once wrote a letter to the editor of the NYTimes. Does that make me a New York Times columnist?
He claimed, using a sock puppet, to be a Republican candidate for the U.S. Congress. But, he wasn’t even on the ballot for the primary, much less the general election. Anyone can register, and be found unqualified.
There is a claim that he was involved in suits that changed election law throughout Illinois. Involved has not been established. But, they may have been spurred by a sleazy gimmick that he perpetrated to sneak an electioneering phrase unto a ballot, and the law was changed to prevent anyone else from making the same attempt. Unlike the suggestion that it was a change that he campaigned for.
He created two additional self-promotional pages on WP, that were deleted.
His claims to academic notability have been dealt with by two editors on this page.
Now let me get to his claim to notability as a gambling writer. I will spend more time on this as this is my field. Nine months ago, I participated in an AfD discussion over someone that is a real gambling writer, a byword of gambling writing that, in addition to his own work, has edited the majority of famous Blackjack texts. My !vote was keep, based on references in 38 books, many written by PHDs in related fields. I was told that citations in 38 books was not enough. I was told that I had to actually supply the quotes so that they could be evaluated for actual notability. I gave many important quotes and the page was saved. Now, we have Les Golden claiming that he is a notable gambling writer. Only, he has zero references in books, somewhat less than 38. Not a single citation in a book to examine for notability in the field. Not a single established gambling researcher has cited anything that he has written. The two articles I found were seriously poor, brief, fluff pieces that looked like they were written by staff writers to entice people to gamble in online casinos, with incorrect strategies. And indeed, they were in magazines that made money from online casinos, not scientific texts, and cited by no one.Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm changing my vote from Delete to Delete, salt, and lifetime ban. If we had a hall of shame, I'd nominate him for that if I didn't think it might make him notable. Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Per the sources both available and in the article. See article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those of you in tl;dr mode, here's a potential "notability hook": "His political candidacies for U.S. Congress and State Representative using the nickname “Cut the Taxes” have led to court actions, a re-writing of Illinois election law concerning allowable names on the ballot propagated throughout the state of Illinois..." Of course, that would need to be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This claim has been sourced out above, but I'll add the link again here for the deer. So it's been established that he's not notable as an academic, a gambling writer, an actor, a politician, or any of his other claims to fame, but now some of you think the fact that he forced the state of illinois to legislate specifically against his pain-in-the-ass election cheating/attention grabs (it was already case law; he just forced them to make it statutory law), fine, let's rewrite the article to reflect this particular claim to fame. Yes, he has gotten a lot of attention from our local newspapers. Yes, he's a relentless letter writer. And yes, he is a shameless self-promoter who does not believe laws (election laws, stalking laws, trespassing laws, wiki "laws") apply to him. He is not notable outside of Oak Park, Illinois, and here he is known primarily as a crackpot.WikiMrsP (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not independent / detailed / reliable enough to meet notability by WP:GNG. Concerned by the tactics of the canvass squad to save such obviously inappropriate content. 74.198.9.153 (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Not sure why this was taken here instead of to WP:PROD, but it is certainly not encyclopedia material DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution by Aristotle[edit]

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

Essay and Synthesis (WP:OR), by applying some quotes about Aristotle and revolution to current events, without widespread coverage of that connection. First Light (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as somebody's not that good school paper. Note that the bust of Aristotle appears to be toppling in shame. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic essay.--JayJasper (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If a transwiki is desired, ping me on my talk page and I'll restore the article to a userspace sandbox. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping UML design to java[edit]

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

Essay. First preference is delete, maybe transwiki to WikiBooks? →Σ τ c. 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides its "how to" quality, the English is so bad I can't really make it out. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT; not a how-to, not for OR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Autarch (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ (1995) "Cut the Taxes" seizes a golden opportunity to run for Congress, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, December 20, p. 12
^ (1995) "Cut the Taxes" seizes a golden opportunity to run for Congress, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, December 20, p. 12
^ http://students.berkeley.edu/finaid/undergraduates/hofferprize.htm
^ (1974), Griffith Observer, number 6
^ http://www.appliedprobability.org/content.aspx?Group=tms&Page=tmsabstracts36_1#eight
^ http://badgrads.berkeley.edu/doku.php?id=alumni:old
^ (1979) Hawking, S. W. & Israel, W. General relativity: an Einstein centenary survey. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22285-0. “A much cited centennial survey”; books.google.com/books?isbn=0521222850
^ http://www.elephantinformation.com/CEMENT%20FLOORING%20or%20HARD%20DIRT%20GROUND.htm
^ (1994), “A film career far (but not removed) from Tinseltown,” Compuserve magazine, August, p. 55
^ (1982) “Improvising Your Way to Success,” Spring,1, 6, p. 34
^ (1984) “The boss is never wrong,” Screen magazine, October 1, p. 19
^ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/773242/posts
^ (2002), Mission: Fool voters (editorial), Chicago Tribune, January 18, p. 18
^ (1996) “Cut taxing districts,” Berwyn Life October 9, p. 22
^ http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=1446
^ http://ddd-hph.dlconsulting.com/cgi-bin/newshph?a=d&d=HPH19980107.2.3&cl=&srpos=0&st=1&e=00-00-0000-99-99-9999--20--1----Sen.+Obama-all
^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-09-18/news/0209180186_1_ballots-fractional-jagielski
^ http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/10-30-2002/Golden_wins_Cut-The-Taxes_suit,_sues_again_
^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-10-16/news/0210160202_1_blagojevich-spokesman-doug-scofield-illinois-state-board
^ Zorn, Eric. (1995) This candidate is a Cut the Taxes above the rest, Chicago Tribune (Metrowest), October 3, p. 1; http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-10-03/news/9510030038_1_wallace-gator-bradley-candidates-taxes
^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-10-23/news/0210230072_1_golden-ballot-orr
^ http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=136091
^ www.highbeam.com/doc/1N1-1110F700ED5B9A50.html
^ http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0428ham005&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=&DocNum=0428&GAID=3&Session=
^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-06-03/news/0306030127_1_orr-slogans-78th-district
^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-06-03/news/0306030127_1_orr-slogans-78th-district
^ Trainor, Ken (1997), “Who is Les Golden?”, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, April 2, p. 29-37
^ www.champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/docs/2012/2012CanGuide.pdf
^ www.elections.il.gov/downloads/electioninformationcourth/pdf/2011canguide.pdf
^ www.iicle.com
^ http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/illinois.pdf
^ law.onecle.com/texas/election/52.031.00.html