< 23 October	25 October >

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

The result was Snow Keep -- the nomination did not offer a valid reason for deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia (TV series)[edit]

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

Not important, not popular. There are more important things that don't even have an article! VegetaSaiyan 23:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep: The show has won a Parents' Choice Award [1], which is pretty notable in itself. . As far as it not being "important", that's sort of a term that's up for debate. What is important to you or I might be pretty important to others (especially those with kids), so it's sort of subjective. It's also a pretty popular series, although popularity or the lack thereof doesn't automatically qualify or disqualify something as far as articles go. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep and improve the article. Whether something is important or popular is not relevant to its notability per Wikipedia's definition of the term. What matters most is coverage in reliable sources, and Google News is turning up enough articles to indicate notability. [2][3][4][5] Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This fully meets WP:GNG, is well cited, and it is of very much popularity, as mentioned above it won the Parents' Choice Award. Also "Not popular" is not a reason to delete. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others' arguments presented here and the fact that no part of the nominator's rationale is a valid reason for deletion under the deletion policy. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination statement does not reflect the intent of the deletion policy →Σ τ c. 06:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Tokyogirl179 and the rest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. PolicarpioM (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. If more important topics don't have articles yet, feel free to create them. Reach Out to the Truth 15:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep: Perhaps the nominator could turn his energies to creating articles he thinks ought to be created, between boning up on the requirements of WP:Deletion policy. Ravenswing 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid reason has not been given for deletion. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Arcos Bergnes[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person, such as the Google News, Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed by the nomination process, have yielded hundreds of reliable sources with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom. I added a substantial ref which satisfies WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Bennett[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, not know and appears to be written by his Dad, quote "his dad was a boxing champion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant Aboriginal playwright [6]. More coverage in Mackinolty, Chips (1 April 1997), "Reformer and playwright", The Australian and Burchall, Greg (17 November 1995), "Heritage In The Writing On The Wall", The Age. His father, the late Australian boxing champion Elley Bennett, had nothing to do with the creation of this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—although i have no way of knowing whether his dad wrote this article, it's clear that the article mentions that his dad was a boxing champion because that's important for understanding his play Up the Ladder, which is in part about boxing. reviewers of the play have almost invariably mentioned this fact as well. in fact, anyway, i added four sources for information that is in the article now, and which i believe are sufficient to establish notability. there is more to be added. it's hard to design a good search string because the name's so common, but this one brought up some good stuff, including this mention in the columbia encyclopedia of modern drama entry on indigenous playwrights. i see that it's only a mention, but he's important enough to be used as an exemplar in a book of that stature, which i think is evidence of his notability here as well.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The sources offered in the article and in this AfD make a case, but it's still a bit thin. My own web searches find a bit more, but not really very much. The article claims "Bennett's works are often studied in Australian high schools"--I looked but could not find evidence to support, but I'm not satisfied that I know everywhere to look. If anyone could find something solid to support that statement, I think it would AfD-proof the article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would you consider sharing the "bit more" that your "own web searches find" so that we might think about how to use it to improve the article and so that newcomers to this discussion might have a chance of judging the subject's notability on the basis of existing sources rather than merely employed sources?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Apologies for any dupes with previously identified material:

Voices from the heart: contemporary Aboriginal poetry from Central Australia - a collection that he edited
Google search within New South Wales .edu site - Looking again, here is some evidence that his plays may be studied in school. Play appears on half a dozen test syllabi. I can't tell, though, if this means 50 kids read him, or 50,000.
Broader search on all edu.au - This one is less helpful. Majority of hits refer to other people. Where it's the right person, mostly x-refs sources already found, including this WP article. This hit seems to suggest that his work was once included in one university course at one university in 1997, and again in 2010--don't know if that's one of a handful, or one of all Aussie colleges.
Aussie library holdings of his work
2008 seminar at Monash Univ. - included in syllabus on translating plays into Japanese
Academic paper - Gets a couple of sentences.
DRY LIPS MOVES TO TOKYO: DOES INDIGENOUS DRAMA TRANSLATE? - Included in 2004/2005 Univ. of Manchester seminar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm satisfied the subject passes GNG. Some of the cited sources are borderline-trivial mentions, but the books that mention him, in my opinion, get him firmly over the line.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE (G6). Alexf^(talk) 14:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curing time[edit]

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

This disambiguation page only had two articles, one of which has been deleted. Therefore, it's no longer necessary. Miniapolis (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - ~~there should be a speedy criterion for "dead disambiguation". I suppose G8 doesn't apply?~~ Oh wait, there is, a variant on G6. Tagged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Benedík[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources exist and the content of our article is verifiable/expandable, see:

Surá, Anna: O malířích Slovácka před Uprkou a po něm. Masaryk University, Brno, p. 34 - 36. (in Czech) (it is a student work, but gives a good information and cites another sources)
Pelikán, Jaroslav; Trachulec Vít: Karel Benedík. Veselí nad Moravou 1998. (in Czech)
Kozojídky vzdaly hold svému rodákovi (Malovaný kraj 40, 2004, No 1., p. 13. (in Czech)

However, I have to admit that Benedík was rather local and "less known" painter of Moravian folklife and traditions, surely less notable than Joža Uprka or Antoš Frolka. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in enough sources to pass this as a keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. The majority of the keep !votes failed to reference our policies or guideline in any way; a few of them pointed to guidelines that actually support deletion. While some concerns were raised that this bundling was excessive, that concern is directly addressed at WP:BUNDLE. Furthermore, no one was able to provide anything other than routine coverage or non-reliable sources for any of the articles, thus I have no serious concern that the bundling will be unfairly lumping good articles with bad. As some editors have pointed out, allowing these articles would actually be a major exception to the way Wikipedia handles the coverage of sporting events. While there were more Delete !voters than !Redirect voters, as Black Kite points out, keeping these are redirects is a pretty standard means for series of this type. Some editors expressed a desire to merge some of the info into the Season articles; since the article history will be intact, involved editors will still be able to do that at their leisure (just be sure to add the ((R from merge)) to the redirect page for licensing purposes). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bellator 55[edit]

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

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)).

Also included in this AfD: Bellator 1 - Bellator 54, and Bellator 56 - Bellator 59 (56 further articles - #4 is a redirect, and #8 does not exist)

These are weekly events of a borderline notable Championship (even the main article is mostly sourced to primary sources). Wikipedia has no less than fifty-seven of these articles which are effectively just routine sports coverage, violating WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:EVENT, and given that none of them appear to have third-party sourcing, WP:V as well. I am including all the other 56 articles in this AfD; I picked this one for the main because it is the most recent to have actually taken place. I am aware that bundled AfDs are not popular, but this is an exception in that this is effectively the same article 57 times. Only the participants and commentary change. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bellator is currently the no. 2 recognized MMA organization in North America and seen on a major network. How can they "effectively" be the same article 57 times when -- as you even say -- they all contain different results. Are you planning on next nominating the UFC events next? Does it really keep you up day and night knowing that these measly articles inhabits just a few pages of Wikipedia? Leave it be. Udar55 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're effectively the same article 57 times as far as AfD goes because they all fail the same policies. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to me in the three policies you referenced where it is violation. I don't see the articles offending anything listed under WP:NOT#DIR; the same with WP:NOT#NEWS; and I think I've properly argued that they have notability under WP:EVENT. As an organization, Bellator has top ten MMA fighters in several weight classes. I understand your argument, but do you really think something like the Coton Hill rail crash, which you started and has far less activity, also meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I know this will now be a crusade for you as Wiki-types never back down, but why the sudden concern about Bellator taking up some Wikipedia pages? Udar55 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed."
WP:NOT#NEWS - "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.'"
WP:EVENT - "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."
WP:SPORTSEVENT - I won't copy the whole thing in, but read it
And thank you for digging through my own creations; some of them were created a long time ago and probably do need improving. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until nominator gives a reason for EACH event he/she wishes deleted, and also actually LISTS them. I am not particularly interested in a nomination that reads and 56 further articles. The exception mentioned would also apply to the Olympics (Only the participants and commentary change), and I don't see him/her nominating them. The Steve 05:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nomination, all 57 of the articles fail at least three of our policies, plus our notability guidelines. That's all an AfD nomination needs to state. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I would like a link to EACH of these 57 so I can look for myself. An Afd nomination should be for ONE article, not 57. Such mass nominations show a lack of diligence to me. Did you even bother to look at them all? Have you thought of a better solution perhaps? You could go to the talk pages and ask for a mass article with redirects, similar to the TV show per season synopses. The Steve 15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mass redirect to List of Bellator events would be a possible option, I suppose. But you aren't going to get a link to each article, because the nomination statement is valid for all 57. If it were not, I wouldn't have bundled them. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... Thesteve, does it take you as much as one second to type in any given "Bellator XX?" Implying that it's an onerous task to do so, or that failure to include point-and-click links somehow prevents you from looking at these articles, is more than a bit silly, don't you think? Ravenswing 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is wrong to say that the Bellator pages are an "exception." There are LOTS of other pages that the same argument could be made about. There is no reason to think that this nominator wouldn't simply start new AfDs for those pages as well, claiming a precedent set by this discussion if the pages are not retained. It can't be both an exception, and also a precedent for deleting other pages that CURRENTLY exist. What's next? A single Afd for the nearly 200 UFC events? Consensus for many years has always been to retain event pages for top-tier mixed martial arts promotions, such as the UFC, Strikeforce, and Bellator. Bellator is the number two MMA promotion in the US and there are plenty of independent third-party sources to add to these articles. I and others have been working to nominate bottom-tier events to increase the average notability of these types of articles, which to me seems like a eminently more sensible approach. As I've said in previous discussions, I prefer to see AfDs being used like scissors to trim Wikipedia like a bonsai tree, rather than like a flame thrower to clear cut the entire forest. The question as I see it is whether Wikipedia should remain a primary web destination for people to read about top-tier martial arts events or not. If that is the goal, then the nominated pages fall comfortably above that threshold. I realize this broader debate is beyond the scope of this AfD, but it is one that the Wikipedia community (and MMAWikiproject) needs to have (not just two or three editors who follow martial arts AfDs). It seems like a good rule of thumb that the number of people "voting" in an AfD discussion should at least be reasonably close to the number of articles put up on the chopping block, so long as the content isn't libelous or a copyvio. I see no way that 57 editors are going to participate in this debate, which should give an admin pause. Regardless of the votes here, to me the clearer consensus is the dozens of editors who have created and maintained these pages, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have frequented them without feeling compelled to put them up for deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without commenting on the notability of these articles, I've a few observations.
First off, in point of fact, no part of Wikipedia's mission statement, policies or guidelines state that a goal of the site is to serve as a primary web destination for MMA fans to read about purported "top-tier" martial arts events. Articles are judged as to whether they meet verifiability and notability criteria, not as to whether MMA fans find them useful or whether Wikipedia serves as a convenient web host.
Secondly, I question the blithe claim that "consensus for many years" has existed for the notability of event articles for this organization, which was only founded three years ago. That being said, even stipulating that this is the "number two MMA promotion" (a claim that Strikeforce would dispute), it is a far, far distant second to the UFC, and its individual events gain no automatic notability.
Finally, while they are disliked by many Keep proponents, bundled AfDs are not only permitted by the deletion policy, they are encouraged in such cases. Osubuckeyeguy's "rule of thumb" that the number of editors participating in a deletion discussion ought to equate to the number of articles being nominated is a curious notion that forms no part of deletion policy, and any admin attempting to rule by it would provide a nice, juicy ground for overturning the decision at DRV. Ravenswing 16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is all completely correct. Any closing admin is simply going to ignore such arguments, and they would not be doing their job if they did not do so. These pages are not an "exception" - which is exactly why I have nominated them. They simply fail multiple Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if there is "consensus" amongst interested editors that these pages should be an exception if no-one can outline a policy based reason why that should be. At the moment, no-one has done that. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Ravenswing's comments: Just because it is not part of Wikipedia's mission statement, doesn't mean that the website cannot be a primary web destination for MMA fans to read about top-tier martial arts events. It can be certainly be both. It's not in Wikipedia's mission statement for it to be a primary destination for people to read about bands, companies, products, sports teams, or living people either. The pejorative quotes around the term "top-tier" doesn't recognize that this term means something specific according to wikiproject members. The org is considered top tier because world-ranked fighters compete in the organization, not because I decided it was. Your claim that it is not the number two org because Strikeforce is fails to account for the fact that the UFC and Strikeforce are currently owned by the same company. Bellator is the number two independent promotion. I also never argued that my rule of thumb was part of deletion policy, just common sense. It is the same common sense principle that leads closing admins to relist AfDs that have not received much attention from other editors. It is the same common sense principle behind informing the page creators that the page has been listed for deletion. It is the same common sense principle that causes people to list nominations on WikiProject Deletion sorting pages (as I have done here). The more people who weigh in, the better. From my perspective, it is a greater error to delete notable pages that don't receive much attention during debate, than to keep potentially non-notable pages because only a few editors weighed on and there was no clear consensus for removing the dozens of pages involved. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You're right in that people can choose to come to Wikipedia to read about whatever they please, but the convenience of martial arts fans can form no part of AfD discussions; Wikipedia is not a web host. As far as "top-tier" goes, I'm certainly willing to accept any assessment submitted to WP:ATHLETE and approved by the consensus of editors looking such things over; I have, however, made no claims one way or another.
As far as your "common sense principles" go, the Guide to deletion explicitly states that you should notify article creators and explicitly states that project pages should be notified, to "enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." Admin guidelines explicitly permit for the relisting of AfDs that haven't achieved consensus. These are not in the same category as your "rule of thumb," which isn't recognized by anyone else as such. Ravenswing 22:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As to that, the claim that consensus is in favor of these individual event articles is false. I see the following at WP:MMANOT, the notability essay for the applicable WikiProject: "Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article". WP:N also says "notability is not temporary" and "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability."" Therefore, these articles stand and fall on the GNG, and meeting it hasn't been proven. Ravenswing 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is true that the consensus at WP:MMA is that individual events at the second level of competition in a single country should have separate articles then I would suggest that that project needs more scrutiny from editors who are not martial arts fans, because that consensus would be way out of step with the way that we handle far more notable sports. I also see no problem with a mass nomination, as the arguments for keeping or deletion are the same for all of these articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability guideline page for MMA (WP:MMANOT) says "Individual events are not considered notable ...". The consensus has been that means MMA events are not automatically notable, regardless of organization, not that they can't be notable. However, I don't believe any UFC article has ever been removed. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the MMA editors would do well to look at, for example WP:FOOTBALL. To take an example, English Premier League games are watched live by multiple millions of people around the world each week; but when people try to create articles on individual games, even ones that spawned massive amounts of press coverage worldwide, we end up with this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009). Black Kite (t) (c) 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be biased, since I had a hand in drafting WP:MMANOT, but I think the problem isn't with the criteria. It's in getting editors to follow them. Every MMA fan seems to believe their favorite fighter/organization/event is notable and that the guidelines don't apply to them. Trying to delete MMA articles tends to be a battle and it's easy to feel it's not worth the trouble. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA for an unusually difficult example. Papaursa (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Bellator news, they were recently purchased by Viacom. I'd argue that makes them even more notable. Udar55 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? Notability is not inherited. Being owned by a corporation confers no notability. Ravenswing 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future events might have more promotion, and thus more coverage - which might confer notability. But it does nothing for previous events. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On point of procedure... 57 articles is a ridiculous number for an AFD. Any one of these events that actually does have some notability is going to get shuffled in with the other 50 or so that don't. And if someone were to attempt a rescue, trying to rescue 57 articles at once is not feasible. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I would agree with you, but this is an unusual case in that these articles are functionally identical - which is only to expected given that they are effectively a list of sports results. Thus, as regards rescue, if it could be shown that a few of the articles could to be fixed so that they don't fail WP:SPORTSEVENT, that would suggest that they all could. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll tell you what. Find a couple of these events which meet the GNG - multiple reliable, independent sources which discuss the event in question in "significant detail" - and I'll switch my vote to Keep All on the spot. Speculation about what happens should any of the events prove notable would make more sense if that was at all a possibility. Ravenswing 16:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a Bellator thing, it's an AFD thing. The chances that any editor will find one article in this set that may be notable... well, those chances are minimal at best - due to the large number of articles. Whether or not there is in fact any such notability is irrelevant. There are few editors who are going to sift through 57 articles to find a nugget of possible notability - many will check the few articles linked above and handwave the whole thing. That's the point I was raising. The few I've spot-checked don't seem to be going anywhere, true, and you're probably right about the notability issue - but with so many articles it's real easy to miss something. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me suggest a different way of looking at these articles that is specific to Bellator events and not mixed martial events pages in general. Yes, Bellator is an organization that promotes mixed martial arts contests, but Bellator is also a television show that currently airs on MTV2 in the US. Bellator does not promote an event EVERY week - it only does so during television seasons, which are only a fraction of the weeks in the year. Instead of thinking of it as sport events like football, it is reasonable to think of it as reality programming. Since Bellator uses a tournament format, fighters make appearances across multiple weeks in the same season, just like the cast might do in a reality show. So, each event is like an episode. This isn't like college football where there are dozens of games being played on multiple television networks at the same time. I understand that WP:Otherstuffexists does not confer notability, but I don't see anyone going after each of the episodes linked to List of Seinfeld episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, etc. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because such episodes have huge amounts of third-party sourcing in reliable sources. In fact, some of the Simpsons episodes are Featured Articles. Regardless, this is not a relevant analogy; these are sports events, not TV episodes. I'd point you towards my comment on football fixtures above. Having said that, as I said, a redirect to the list article wouldn't be a major issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding Black_Kite's assertion that the analogy provided above is not relevant, I see no evidence provided to suggest that its not. The nature of the show is mixed martial arts contests. How is that any different than singing contests, dancing contests, talent competitions, etc. that make up much of the other current reality programming? Even if we agree that the nature of the show is "sports" there are lots of sports television shows that have their own pages and associated articles. Again, I have read WP:Otherstuffexists, but I fail to see how Bellator events are different than Monday Night Football games or Friday Night Fights. If the sheer number of the pages is problematic, I would have no issue with seeing Bellator event pages merged, so that there is a single page for each season of the broadcasts. It would not be difficult at all to come up with references for each season that the Bellator program has aired. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do we have individual articles for each separate Monday Night Football or Friday Night Fights episode? If not, then that analogy doesn't work. Nobody is suggesting deletion of Bellator Fighting Championships, which is the equivalent of the articles that you linked. And we generally don't have articles about individual episodes of "singing contests, dancing contests, talent competitions, etc. that make up much of the other current reality programming". To suggest that, as a TV program, Bellator is anywhere close to being in the same league as Seinfeld or the Simpsons is plain ludicrous. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right Phil, it would be ludicrous. And yes, you are correct that there are no pages for each Monday Night football game. I was just trying to illustrate that sports television programing can be notable (that is, sporting events and sports programs are not the same thing), and that individual episodes of television programs can also be notable. That doesn't mean notability is a given in this case, but it does mean that there is another framework that could be useful to consider outside of WP:EVENT. This reframing suggests a way to merge rather than delete. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither do we have individual articles on episodes of singing/dancing/talent competitions, etc. For programmes such as American Idol, there is a single article for each series, not one per episode. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, I am comfortable with a single article for each series if the consensus is to not have one per episode. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Those articles already exist - Bellator Fighting Championships: Season One etc. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Good catch. Indeed they do. Then, I support merging relevant information and redirecting events to the corresponding season page. These pages do not currently report the championship fights that occurred during the season, just the tournament brackets. Since the whole point of the tournaments is that they determine champions or determine who will challenge the champions next, this information should be merged before any articles are deleted. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. The Steve 21:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete all User Osubuckeyeguy brings up a good point, but I do think it falls under WP:Otherstuffexists. However, it was enough to make my vote a weak one. As for Bellator's notability (commented on earlier in this discussion), the archived discussion on the MMA project talk page shows Bellator barely gained entry as a top tier event and was a distant fourth among U.S. promotions behind UFC, WEC, and Strikeforce. I suspect that all of these pages are simply routine sports reporting, but I'm hesitant because I have to admit I didn't look at all 57. Astudent0 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration I've crossed out the "weak" in my vote. However, I do like Thesteve's idea of combining events into seasonal articles. Osubuckeyeguy, I agree Bellator is notable, but that doesn't make its events so. Astudent0 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- With regard to the status of Bellator compared to other orgs, WEC and Strikeforce are both owned by the same company that owns the UFC. This was not always the case, but it is true today. The WEC is now defunct and there is good reason to suspect that Strikeforce will be too by next year when the contract with Showtime expires. Bellator on the other hand...it was literally announced today that Bellator was just purchased by Viacom [7] and will air episodes on SpikeTV starting in 2013. This makes it the only organization with fighters ranked top-ten in the world that has a television contract and conglomerate ownership in the United States outside of the UFC (which is still privately owned, but partnered with FOX Sports). Its #2 status is pretty clear at this point - If they are not #2, then I would have no idea who is. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am uncomfortable with episode level detail articles unless they can be sourced using third party WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Number two televised MMA promotion in the country. If there's going to be an article for each UFC event, there's no reason to not be one for each Bellator event. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.225.171.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep At least some of the 57 articles pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Trying to show sources for all 57 is not a feasible tasks for the moment so I'll do some spot checks:
- Bellator 55 sources: USA Today, MMA Junkie 1, MMA Junkie 2, MMA Junkie 3 (and there is a lot more coverate at MMA Junkie), Sherdog (and more)
- Bellator 36 sources: Yahoo Sports (there was another article at Yahoo Sports showing on Google, but it's a dead link at the moment), MMA Junkie (plus more at MMA Junkie), Bleacher Report (and additional possible sources)
- Bellator 10 (or Bellator X) sources: Corpus Christi Caller, MMA Mania, USA Today (admittedly it's a video) So in a few minutes time with each of the three article I found some sources, given more time additional sources could probably be revealed. Again, IMO, passes WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of those sources are either primary sources, or routine sports reports The USA today video is from Bellator's own website. As I said above, on that basis we could write an article on every single professional football match ever. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC) --[reply]
    - I believe you are arguing is good faith Black Kite, but I believe your analogy towards football is incorrect. Because of the effect the results of each event have on the world of MMA each Bellator event has the notability of I'd say at least a college football bowl game. Would you argue that those don't deserve their own articles? 71.57.54.169 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have guidelines for that - WP:SPORTSEVENT, but even more, these don't even have in-depth third-party sourcing. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - USA Today, Yahoo Sports, the Corpus Christi Caller, the Bleacher Report, MMA Mania, MMA Junkie, and Sherdog are not primary sources. All of them have their own reporters separate from Bellator. Therefore, it shows that there is coverage from sources independent of Bellator. The fact I was able to find such coverage in a short period of time highly suggests there is much more coverage out there which is also shown by simple Google searches. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing has been presented that the articles dont fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. 92.28.13.191 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — 92.28.13.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - This is the second most important MMA promotion in North America if not the world. I don't really like Black Kite's argument that "this is effectively the same article 57 times. Only the participants and commentary change." Couldn't the same be said about every Super Bowl and World Cup? And common sense dictates that those articles shouldn't be deleted.71.57.54.169 (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — 71.57.54.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is a very strange idea of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the same couldn't be said of those - see WP:SPORTSEVENT, which I've quoted at least twice already. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the comments that I have made above. I see no evidence that individual screenings of this sporting event/TV entertainment program are any more notable than, say, individual Football League Championship matches, each of which has many more reports in national newspapers than have been presented for any of these articles. And please don't quote WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST at me unless you can explain why MMA events should have a far lower standard of notability than events in much more notable sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per WP:MMA and WP:MMANOT. It has been the consensus to have all notable MMA events on wikipedia for several years now. I fail to be convinced why (arguably) the world's number two promotion should be excluded now, especially when each event is notable and well documented in the mixed martial arts community. Yes, some articles use only the primary source, however reliable secondary sources can easily be found (and perhaps the focus should be on adding these rather then deleting so many unique pages?). I present the following Inclusionists arguments:

Deletionism goes against the premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia.
Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, the US presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish scientist John Anderson is more prominent.
Article additions and expansions, and allowing time for them to occur, is highly superior to simply deleting articles.
It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content.
Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the total information of Wikipedia.
It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship.
Deleting an article on the basis of notability both reduces Wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that Wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), but also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems.
Deletionists may subjectively pick-and-choose from a long and diverse list of Wikipedia notability and other guidelines as a rationale for the blanket deletion of an article. When one chosen standard is disproven, another rule is searched for and then stated as a rationale for deletion.
Deletionists may use absolutist rationales and stances to justify article deletion. A notable example in Articles for deletion logs is arguing that absolutely no reliable sources exist to establish notability for and/or verify an article, while utilizing only one brief search for news and other sources, such as on Google or Google news, to qualify the statement. Sometimes it takes only seconds to disqualify such statements by utilizing web searches in other mediums, particularly those that are empirical, research-based, and lack a profit motive.

(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

- So are you actually going to answer any of the issues raised in the nomination statement? (Failure of WP:NOT, WP:SPORTSEVENT etc?.) Just stating that something is notable doesn't make it so (WP:JNN), and indeed WP:MMANOT which you mention suggests they actually aren't. Black Kite (t) 09:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my arguments why these articles should be kept. As I mentioned, its pretty well known that anyone can find multiple reasons to delete almost any article on wikipedia.(Justinsane15 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Except that you didn't refute any part of the nomination statement, and the second part of your sentence is clearly ridiculous. Black Kite (t) 12:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have to agree with Black Kite on this one - While you clearly feel strongly about this issue, none of the points you raise have anything to do with this article. There are many editors who have issues with how we debate deletion on this project - and the place to discuss those issues is at the Village Pump, WT:AFD, or elsewhere. If you can show that some of these specific events are notable, and that there are sources to prove it, then a case could be made that the entire set is in some way notable. It might at least buy you some time. But speeches like this seem like a filibuster, and that helps the cause not at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment I'm leaning pretty heavily towards merging these articles into Season articles. Each Bellator Season is more notable, with mentions in business and TV news about which network is showing them and how much money they're making, and of course the purchase by Viacom. Bellator is already structured like a TV series, and they divide the tournaments into seasons that correspond with the TV network season. The only one that seemed slightly non-routine was Bellator 56, which broke some viewing numbers. The Steve 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it broke viewing records when it hasn't happened yet. How does this differ from the Bellator Fighting Championship Season articles that already exist? Or are you talking about making those articles larger (or perhaps redirecting the individual event articles to the appropriate season)? Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I meant Bellator 52 - here and here. And yes, Papaursa, I'm talking about making those articles larger and redirecting the individual events... The Steve 21:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I actually think that would be a perfectly correct way to go, treating the articles in the same way as we do other media events. Black Kite (t) 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP:SPORTSEVENT deals with indiviual games or series- each bellator EVENT is a seperate and distinct EVENT. — 216.249.61.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, hence why WP:SPORTSEVENT applies. Black Kite (t) 12:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of the events I checked (I'll admit I didn't look at every one) seem to pass WP:EVENT. They all seem to be just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these meet the notability criteria to have their own article, but combining them into the existing Bellator Season articles as Thesteve suggests seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:EVENT and WP:V. These articles include championship fights from televised events covered in mainstream media sources. There is no actual reason why we should not cover sourced information that is relevant to a segment of a readership. Like seriously, what's it to ya? Gosh! — WR Reader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You do realise that WP:EVENT suggests these are not notable, don't you? Black Kite (t) 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Im on the fence as far as keep and delete. I don't think we need an article for every single event (maybe a list) but I do think that a consolidated article would be appropriate. The content of the individual articles could be consolidated and I think a better article would be the result. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think (discounting the SPA votes) that there is some sort of consensus developing that the series articles (which already exist) are the best place to merge these articles to. Black Kite (t) 20:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, because the nominator apparently has his/her holidays confused. It is Halloween, not April’s Fools Day and yeah, nominating fifty-seven articles that vary dramatically in importance would indeed be foolish. So, just as I don’t know much about menstruation, other than that it grosses me out, I am going to assume the nominator is just ignorant of mixed martial arts, because anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the subjects knows that many of these are relevant events. The difference is I am not going to go about trying to delete all articles on women’s crap, because I actually do like and find interesting some women and kudos to Bellator for being one of the few mainstream promotions to feature a women’s championship. For example, the first event held by a major promotion is notable by any logical standard. But we have events with title fights aired on MTV2 lumped together with non-title events aired on FSN in this bundle. No, these are not carbon copy events. Saying so is either ignorant or dishonest. But anywho, yeah, keep per the obvious consensus to do so among series editors. And come on already, this effort to try to mass get rid of content a handful of self-appointed fun police officers either know nothing of or care little about is ridiculous already. Deleting sourced content that is obviously historical knowledge that a clear segment of our readership finds important does not actually benefit anyone. By contrast doing so just diminishes the overall value and usefulness of this site. I am getting sick and tired of coming here looking for information that a handful of random electronic book burners don’t like or know about. First, Marcus Bachmann and now I want to find out about Saturday’s results and I find this farce. Wow! I swear it is like some are doing to this site what those Libyans did to Muammar Gadhafi. You know which part I am talking about! Peace! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh look, another one. Black Kite (t) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to whom? Relevant to MMA fans? So what? We're not a blogging or event listing service for MMA organizations. Any !votes have to use arguments appealing to Wikipedia policy, not to personal, business, organizational, or other, desires. N^oformation ^Talk 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:SPORTSEVENT. We have articles about seasons and championships, not individual weekly matches. The arguments against bundling the nominations appear to have no basis in policy or guidelines. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and the various listed policies. This is an easy decision from a policy standpoint even if it doesn't resonate with users who would like to keep based on non-policy arguments or arguments based on a misunderstanding of policy. A user above says "I know this will now be a crusade for you as Wiki-types," which I take to mean "people familiar with Wikipedia policy." N^oformation ^Talk 02:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn on request of nominator following article improvement. Neutrality^talk 19:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Benazzi[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source that I have cited in the article, taken from an edition of the Italian Journal of Zoology published in honour of Benazzi and a colleague, demonstrates that he is considered to have been a leader in the field of evolutionary cytogenetics. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In what way does this source meet the Significant coverage requirement spelled out at WP:GNG? It's evident from the title of the work that Benazzi was not the primary focus of the publication. Further, I'm not convinced yet that this person meets the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). 4meter4 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at the content of the source rather than just the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a member of the Accademia dei Lincei. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment membership in the Accademia dei Lincei does indeed indicate notability. Thanks for adding that to the article. However, their still is the issue of the lack of "significant coverage".4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure if I understand you correctly, but: Are you suggesting there might be too little "significant coverage" of the person himself? A scientist is notable because of his scientific work and the resonance it has received from his peers, so that's what most of the article's attention should be directed to. It's next to impossible for a recipient of such merits not to be the subject of "significant coverage", because the preferred media of such resonance are (scientific) publications. In other words: Meeting WP:ACADEMIC always means meeting WP:GNG (for some reason, you're already the second person to whom I have have to explain that today). Or are you referring to the article's current state? That's a quality issue, not one of notability, as given in your rationale. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that merely citing works which reference Benazzi's research is not enough. What I would consider a significant source is something where Benazzi himself or at least an aspect of Benazzi's career is the primary topic. Also, Who's Who is really not a good example of this as the Who's Who books are usually authored by the subjects themselves; many of whom pay to have themselves included in the book.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The academy membership is enough for WP:PROF and the obituary I added to the article (and another one I couldn't find online, "In memoria di Mario Benazzi (1902-1997), G Mancino, Ital. J. Zool, 1998") provide enough sourcing to serve as the basis for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That obituary is at doi:10.1080/11250009809386785. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add a cite. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom per the excellent work done on the article. Thanks everyone for your efforts.4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Roger Waters. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fletcher Waters[edit]

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

Eric Fletcher Waters was Pink Floyd bassist Roger Waters' father, but other than that rather tenuous link, I don't think he's any more notable than any of the soldiers who died during the Second World War. Roger Waters references him in quite a few Pink Floyd works, but this is usually to reinforce Waters' own feelings of loss (he died when Waters was a young child). Parrot of Doom 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Father of someone notable, but not notable himself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Roger Waters. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Fastily as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkness on Hill Street[edit]

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

Unreleased indy movie. No google or google news coverage. not notable. PROD'ed by two seperate users, removed by creator without comment or edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My page should not be deleted, because I have submitted my website to google but they have not posted it up yet. I also worked for an earlier company, R.E.S.S., productions, which is also on Google results. My site will show up in time. I also have the official website address posted, and have had over 100 visitors to my site. Please do not delete my page, as this is a scripted film in the making at this moment. Disastermaster16 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Disastermaster16[reply]

If you want to contest the deletion, you should post your comment on the articles for deletion page, not on this articles talk page. there is a link to the deletion request included in the box on your article. Based on your comment above, I believe you have a conflict of interest with this article, and are likely the creator, or related closely. Additionally having your own site listed in google is not satisfactory to have a page. You must recieve coverage. In this case it would likely be any newspapers or magazines covering your filming, or industry news. Since you have a relitively famous star, you may have some industry coverage as well, but I did not see any in my google searches. I will copy your comment to the AFD page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not seem to meetWP:N, a good faith search found no reliable sources.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 22:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7/G11 - Previous prod expired and it was deleted. Still makes no claims of notability, and can find no reliable sources to support notability. This appears to be an attempt to promote the future film release. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unremarkable film with void coverage in independent reliable media. — Bill william compton^Talk 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Greenwalt[edit]

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

This is a contested proposed deletion. The ProD nominee alleged that the subject edited her own article in violation of the rules, inserting puffery and spam. The newbie editor, Berlinetta1492, also stated that the subject fails the guidelines for creative persons. I take no stance on any of the allegations. I did a basic online search before coming here and found some sources that indicate marginal notability. Some of the wording in the article is florid, but could be fixed through the normal editing process. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: More laughable self-promotion, sources indicate the opposite of notability. EEng (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mm, I'm with EEng. The article claims that the subject has been "featured" in the San Francisco Examiner, but when you pull up the cite, it's a 168 word soundbite from one of the Examiner's bloggers, half of which is the subject boasting about her skills at gaming the Google search engine. The article's lead claim that the subject "has been a major influence on the recent 21st century turn towards more feminine styles and colors used in digital and print design" comes from her own response on a blog interview. She has allegedly been featured in "Design 360º," a publication which lacks a Wikipedia article, and indeed a search turns up, why, Greenwalt's Wikipedia article as the lead hit. The article also claims that she was named a "top designer of 2009" by Print Runner, but the company's website seems to have no record of the same. [8]
The bar of WP:CREATIVE is quite high, and alleged awards from spurious sources doesn't come remotely close. The subject certainly doesn't meet the GNG. Ravenswing 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that she is not notable enough for inclusion, due to paucity of independent sources required for all articles. I've found thousands of Ghits, but on further review, many seem to be cites of her work, rather than about her. Delete. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... if Greenwalt boasts about her ability to doctor search engine results, I'd say that nothing sort of impeccable print media sources will serve. Ravenswing 20:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Those objecting to the term "important" can use the article's talk page to help define the article's scope. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in chemistry[edit]

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

This is essentially per the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology - original research. St Anselm (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or, perhaps, per the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in medicine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in statistics, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in theoretical computer science, it is not original research, and the article should be kept. --Lambiam 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST, possibly restricting the list to those publications which are notable enough to have their own articles. -- 202.124.74.144 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per previous consensus as WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful article, as shown by its Page view statistics - 2322 views in Sept.2011 (70 per day) and 2807 so far in Oct.2011 (over 110 per day). So some readers are consulting it, presumably as a guide to historically important papers and books in chemistry. There was no community consensus to delete the biology article, but certain editors kept repeating that it was OR, and one administrator deleted the article unilaterally. Yes, the article could be improved, but that can be said of most Wikipedia articles. If you disagree with one selection, perhaps it can be removed, but to delete the whole article is very demotivating to those editors who have worked to produce a good list, and a disservice to the numerous readers who would consult the article if it remains. Dirac66 (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dirac66. This is a poor nomination, based on a deletion conclusion that has been disputed and the article is now being improved in the incubator. As Lambiam indicates, it was followed by a whole set of AfDs all of which have not resulted in the lists being deleted. They did result in the Science Pearls Project being revitalized and I am sure this list will be improved as a result. One issue was the absence of sources saying that listing publications is important. I added some sources of this kind to the talk page, but they have not yet been used on the list itself. I am sure more sources can be found. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom provides no evidence that this is WP:OR. This list meets WP:NOTESAL notability criteria with this source Bibliography of Chemistry and this source Bibliographies of bibliographies of chemistry. Ill-concieved and unsupported nomination. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has all been said before. I have added several general references for the list to comply with WP:NOTESAL. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable topic as per the references listed. LadyofShalott 01:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is extreemly notable and encyclopedic, no guidelines are violated, and WP:GNG is fully met, from a scholarly standpoint this is a useful tool for beginer chemists. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm wondering why this is even nominated for deletion. This is a very important topic with historical and technical significance. It will be a disservice to Wikipedia readers if this is deleted. PolicarpioM (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think that getting e.g. numbers like 'number of articles citing a paper' is OR, and the top-ranking articles in that ranking could be deemed 'important'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that this list should be trimmed to include only historically important works, and that the current version of the list is overly inclusive. But I reject the argument that the list as a whole should not exist. Keep. DS (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not original research. The word "important" is clearly defined. Not liking the name doesn't make for a valid reason to delete an article. We had this discussion many times before. Dream Focus 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As a useful WP:SETINDEX article, which improves the Wikipedia project by improving the browsing and navigation of articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lot of relevant objective scientific information. We can't have it lost because it does not fit well in the mental categories of a few. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all such articles like this should be deleted as "important" is subjective.Curb Chain (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, just suggest a change of name. When it was just called "List of publications in chemistry", it was clear that normal wikipedia criteria of notability were to be used. I am happy to change all these lists back to that format, but that can be discussed elsewhere such as the Science Pearls Project. We do not delete when a move can fix the problem. Some, of course, do not think "important" is subjective in this context. We just need sources that say it is. Dream Focus also deals with this issue above. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "important" is not clearly defined, as evidenced by the repeated attempts to delete these articles.Curb Chain (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, "important" is clearly defined, which is why these articles are almost always kept.

Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:
Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic
Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly
Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world or has had a massive impact on the teaching of chemistry.

See? Right there at the top of the article. Hopefully the closing administrator will see that too. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inclusion in this article is based upon original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the word Important is subjective but not meaningless. I would suspect the average reader of wikipedia would not be confused by its meaning or context in this article. The lead in this article does establish a context of importance by giving the word much more explicit contextual meaning. Something all good list leads should do. You claim inclusion is based on OR, but I am not sure what you mean by that. The list topic (if not explicitly) is clearly notable which is really the only necessary criteria for the list to exist. Individual entries are indeed subject to verifiability, and if their importance to chemistry (based on the lead criteria) cannot be established by sources, they shouldn't be in the article. But your are claiming (I guess) that the whole list is OR. That needs explaining as merely tossing out the OR argument doesn't help us decide here. What about this is OR? For example, the importance to chemistry of the first entry The Skeptical Chymist is well supported by sources, so how can that be considered OR? --Mike Cline (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while non-constructive debates like this are being initiated, Mike Cline is drafting a WikiProject for Bibliographies. It is very likely that this and related pages will soon be renamed bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources for the inclusion criteria. The decision in biology was an anomaly, and will be corrected , but just how it will be corrected willl depend on Mike's work. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

It would seem to me that the only particularly useful standard here would be to list the publications that we generally recognize as reliable sources. Therefore I would like to suggest that we consider moving all of these lists into Wikipedia space as reliability guidelines. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE, notwithstanding claims to the importance of the subject, because there is no showing that reliable sources exist to establish notability or even verifiability. Recreation may be permitted if and only if you can find legitimate reliable sources. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henryka Bartnicka-Tajchert[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: Seems like there is a case to be made for notability but the text needs sorting and clarifying. I'll get on it as soon as I can. Quis separabit? 21:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I searched the name in Google. The article is written by a family member who's in charge of http://tajchert.w.interia.pl/ website which is the source of our info. See also: Tajchert Janusz at http://bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/MediaSources.html linking to his own website with the following quote: "Moja tesciowa Henryka Bartnicka-Tajchert byla wiezniarka obozow Ravensbruck i Bergen-Belsen" (my mother-in-law was a prisoner of Ravensbruck and Bergen-Belsen). Inspired by it, I got to thinking about writing about my own family too. — A. Kupicki (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We know so little about many who suffered in the concentration camps and it is important to record that history. Here is a case where we do know something, so I am reluctant to delete it without an extensive search for other sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about sourcing. While I certainly think that what Bartnicka-Tajchert's family has done is worthwhile, wikipedia can not use the material on that website as a resource. Please read WP:Sources which states that sources must be independent of the subject. In order to establish the notability of Henryka Bartnicka-Tajchert we need to find and add substantial and reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Per WP:Verifiability, wikipedia is not interested in what is true but what is verifiably true.4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"wikipedia is not interested in what is true but what is verifiably true" is not the correct view. Of course we are interested in what is true. We are writing an encyclopedia. Using WP:Verifiability is just the means we do it. We need sources, I agree. We can use that material (COI is not banned, but it needs care), but we do need other reliable independent sources. What we are really interested in is writing articles on things that people want to know about. You admit that that is the case for this article, so we should be very careful before we delete it. Putting something to AfD is not always the best way to get people to find sources, particularly when they may not be in English. Finding reliable independent sources may not be easy or quick, but they are quite likely to exist somewhere, probably of course not on the internet. What did you do, before nominating this article? I would have sought help from Polish speakers. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you and I have a fundamentally different opinion about wikipedia's criteria for sourcing. The statement "wikipedia is not interested in what is true but what is verifiably true" is frankly a non-negotiable axiom per my understanding of wikipedia policy (ie WP:No original research). If the notability of this person can not be verified by independent reliable sources from the subject, than it must be deleted. It is not my responsibility to consult help from anyone. It was the responsibility of the article's initial creator to provide sources about the subject which are independent and reliable. 4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we are as far apart as you think. I do think you did not read what I said carefully or perhaps I could have explained it better. The guideline talk about "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth.". That is a long way from saying that we are not interested in truth. I agree we need a source. Among the reasons for deletion is "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". This applies here. I do not see that such thorough attempts have been made. If you nominate an article for deletion, where it seems likely that a thorough attempt would find sources, you do have a responsibility to make that attempt. The current reference is OK for content unless someone challenges it. I think it unlikely that anyone will. So let us allow time for people who know where to look on a topic such as this, to do so. A thorough attempt often requires such knowledge of where to look. We are not restricting wikipedia to articles on topics that anyone can find out by 5 minutes on Google. Some topics require use of libraries and reading documents in languages other than English. I wish I had those skills for a topic such as this. Some other topics, yes, but not in this case. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There could be thousands people in Poland with similar biography and I can't see why this one is notable.--Verdin 07:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdin (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 16 June 1968[edit]

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

not notable, discussed at length on military history page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 106#Is the shooting down of 1 aircraft during the Vietnam war notable? Does it deserve GA status? Mztourist (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - As expressed in the original discussion, I have concerns both about notability and neutrality (balance of sources) here. It's an intriguing article, but I don't see this being notable enough for its own page. That said, it might be possible to merge this, and the other article (Action of 16 June 1968) into (say) Aerial victories of the VPAF in the Vietnam War)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per The Bushranger. The incident definately has a place in Wikipedia, but does not warrant an article of its own. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom, and the WikiProject Military history discussion. Bushranger's solution is a good solution, which would allow some of the content to remain on WP. AstroCog (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced to reliable sources. Would the nominator have listed an article where the Americans had shot down a Vietnamese aircraft? Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails on notability, shooting down of 1 aircraft in a protracted air war is not notable, the fact that its referenced doesn't change that. Mztourist (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Hall (fashion designer)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All of the citations appear to be primary or trivial links to sites selling merchandise. Googling, including searches of Google books and Google scholar, turns up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. He does seem to be notable enough to warrant being part of an art gallery [9], but I can't find anything that talks about him specifically that isn't connected to his website. If/when more sources become available he should be added back in. It's just one of those circumstances where sadly there aren't enough reliable sources to prove notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Being represented in the Manchester Art Galleries would probably be enough for WP:GNG on its own, but along with the magnificent costume in the Victoria and Albert Museum (or V&A as it now mainly calls itself) - Britain's national fashion collection - I don't think Notability is in any sort of doubt really. Hall is a great artist and recognised as such by these two major museums. (Sorry about the order of posting, we had an edit conflict.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the Victoria & Albert Museum link in the article decisively proves Notability - the museum, which is Britain's primary museum of fashion and design, only collects what it believes best represents the finest and most notable designers of each generation. Malcolm Hall has created not just the costume shown at the V&A for Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, but for many other rock stars and celebrities including royalty - Princess Diana. But I agree that some of the article's other references could have been better chosen - remember it was written by a newbie Don't Bite The Newbies. I thought the article so obviously noteworthy even as newbie-drafted that I didn't bother looking for more sources... maybe I have to do that now. Chiswick Chap (talk)

Comment - searching is harder than it should be as a) Malcolm Hall is a law school in the Philippines; b) MH seems to have spent more time with scissors than pen (good on him); c) his real name is Malcolm Halter, which it seems he still uses. But I have found and documented some references in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into that same problem. I'm changing my vote to neutral since I do want the article to stay but I know that this might not be enough to satisfy wiki requirements. I think part of the problem is that there are articles out there, they're just not currently on the internet. I'll keep looking. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Oh good, hope you find some more. The other point (re Nom) is that in the case of a fashion designer, "trivial merchandise" is hardly a fair description - a Notably successful (ok, outrageously creative) designer has, guess what, his costumes and outfits on sale everywhere! If Wren's monument is his cathedral, then Hall's is obviously his costumes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chiswick Chap states "Being represented in the Manchester Art Galleries would probably be enough for WP:GNG on its own, but along with the magnificent costume in the Victoria and Albert Museum (or V&A as it now mainly calls itself) - Britain's national fashion collection - I don't think Notability is in any sort of doubt really." << If true, then perhaps the solution is to whittle down the article to statements that currently have the strongest sources; readding the other content as stronger sources are found. A trip to the British Library is in order, methinks! Clockmiles (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done a cleanup job - marked and then deleted every unsourced claim; and added a table of evidence from photographs at the Malcolm Hall.net Retro Gallery of exactly which rock musicians really did wear MH suits. I know it's not "independent" but since we all don't believe they've faked the photos, I think we can safely say it's "reliable". See what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks good. So, am I right in saying that, since we've established that he (probably) reaches the notability required by Wikipedia (given the remaining sources), and have deleted unsourced claims, that this article should no longer be listed as an AfD? (or do we need to wait until after the 7 day discussion period?)

I do think there is potential for a great article here, given some time for research. Forgive my boldness (I am but a lowly newbie, after all!), but would it have been better for the Nom to have considered whether this article could have been improved, rather than rushing to an AfD status? Also, considering its newness, might it have been more productive to have given the contributors more time to develop the article? See WP:BEFORE (point C). Clockmiles (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can just say "Speedy Keep" and let the nominator know that's what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. And now I want to try some of these things. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singing hinny[edit]

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

Looks like a neologism or a newly-revived term as per WP:NEO, but perhaps I just haven't heard the phrase before. Even if the term isn't new the article may never progress beyond a dictionary definition. §everal⇒|Times 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teacake#United_Kingdom. Since this is just a one sentence definition, I don't see why it can't be added into the UK section of that article. On a side note, it might be interesting to see an article that focused on the difference of teacakes per region in each country, if anyone is aware of how to go about doing this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Added it (albeit a little clumsily) to the UK teacake section of teacake. There's absolutely no reason for this article to exist now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Please see WP:MAD which explains the legal technicalities which mean that, once you merge content from one article into another, you should retain the history of the former. Warden (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as stated but whoever thought it was a neologism needs to work on their Google skills, as Charles Dickens refers to them in Volume 1 of All the Year Round, published in 1859. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, that's why I said it could be a "newly-revived term." §everal⇒|Times 01:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is neither a neologism nor a tea cake. A tea cake is a bun made with yeast and baked in an oven. A singing hinny is made with baking powder and plenty of butter so that, when it is cooked on a griddle, it sizzles or sings - hence the name. It is a distinctive regional food and the article just needs improvement per our editing policy. We have numerous other articles about such things - Eccles cake, Chelsea bun, Sally Lunn, &c. while North Americans may prefer Angel food cake, Boston cream pie, Twinkie &c. De gustibus non est disputandum. Warden (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pancake#United Kingdom and Ireland. The first four Google hits confirm Warden is correct that it isn't a teacake as it isn't baked; it's a pancake (aka griddle cake), but more similar to a North-American style pancake or a drop scone (scotch pancake) than the usual English pancake (which arguably would be better discussed with 'Crêpe', but that's another matter...). There are many recipe and name variants in the 'pancake' article already; this can be merged as another one. It certainly deserves a mention there. If it turns out there's much more to say about it, it can always be split off again. Qwfp (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pancakes are made with a batter while these are made with a dough. Anyway, I have rewritten the article to clarify such points. What's really needed now is a picture. Perhaps I shall try my hand at making one ... Warden (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{I'd call any deletion discussion resulting in cakes a success. §everal⇒|Times 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep at this point I'm sold on the point that they need an article of their own. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Neutral. I'd thought that they were just a different type of teacake, but there's enough here to change my mind. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep - A quick review of the sources shows that this is a valid term and a notable item. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to capitalism. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of capitalism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While there is at least some truth in what the article says, or so it seems to me, I don't think that the sources establish that there is a world-wide "culture of capitalism." Why not put the information in Capitalism itself? BigJim707 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capitalism until there is some substantive (i.e. non-essay-ish) material. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Like Tom said, it's an essay. FurrySings (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've got a 1935 book by Jerome Davis called Capitalism and Its Culture. An encyclopedic topic? It could well be. Is this article as it sits in essence an unsourced original essay? Yeah, probably. A redirect to capitalism wouldn't be out of line. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also it could be said that capitalism is a part of human culture, so "Capitalism" and the "Culture of capitalism" are really the same thing. BigJim707 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capitalism. Is there something that can be said about the culture of capitalism that can not be said about capitalism itself? Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capitalism. It's an essay. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G11. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amrutha Institute of Engineering and Management,[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), plus reads as blatant advertising. Tinton5 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Ayaz[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and obvious keep A simple search yielded hundreds of high quality sources, including university publishers. See a Google Books search for *"shaikh ayaz" sindhi poet*.[10] First Light (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a few sources to the first paragraph of the article. First Light (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom per First Light's efforts.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Downtown Missoula#Largest buildings. Black Kite (t) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Missoula, Montana[edit]

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

None of the buildings are notable because of their height and the tallest building is an 11-story university dorm, hardly unique for college towns of this size. Sources are all local and none indicate notability. JonRidinger (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" of what, tallness in Missoula? I see bluelinks in this list, so both the buildings and their location are notable, and listing buildings in a given locale by their relative height is hardly a novel presentation of information. We don't just limit list inclusion to facts for which subjects are notable, which in any event you are equivocating to mean significance. So we should ~~keep~~ this somewhere, either as this standalone list or merged somewhere. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick look at the main Missoula buildings category turned up list of buildings and structures in Missoula, Montana, which has a section that appears to duplicate this list. I am indifferent as to whether this list is just redirected there as a duplicate (which could hae been done without an AFD) or maintained as a separate split-off list. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The presence of some notable buildings and places does not mean the list itself is notable. List articles are still articles, so their main topic should also have some kind of notability. Some of the buildings, like the tallest Aber Hall, aren't even their own articles (Aber Hall redirects to Campus of the University of Montana, which itself is mostly lists). The link to Jesse Hall goes to a building at the University of Missouri. Four buildings on the list (Millennium Building, Garlington Building, First Interstate Center, and First Security Bank) have articles, but each have limited sources that simply verify the buildings exist, not that any of them are notable. Each article could easily get deleted on its own. The only buildings on the list that have proven notability are the Wilma Building and the Florence Hotel, both of which are on the National Register of Historic Places, which is mainly what List of buildings and structures in Missoula, Montana covers. This particular list seems to have been created because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In searching for other "tallest buildings" lists, though, generally much larger metro areas come up that have buildings that are notable because of their height and are part of notable skylines. Smaller cities like Missoula generally don't have notable skylines. Heck, my own hometown has some buildings even taller than what they have in Missoula, but that doesn't mean a "tallest buildings" list is needed or that the skyline is notable or even known outside this area. But really, the air traffic control tower? The Hilton Garden Inn? --JonRidinger (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Though the standards you're describing for lists are not that strict in practice (or at least do not apply to all kinds of lists; it is not necessary that all lists are notable themselves as groupings), you have a point about the misleading bluelinks. The best result would be just to redirect this to the corresponding section of List of buildings and structures in Missoula, Montana. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The other purpose of list articles that I thought about later is to prevent a list from dominating a "parent" article (like breaking off a list of notable natives and summarizing it in the parent article). There is no danger of this list dominating the Missoula article. And in this case, I think the topic of the list does need its own notability, even low notability. That's why articles on larger cities can justify having lists like these: the buildings and the skyline collectively have some kind of notability. I thought about a redirect, but what purpose does that serve? Are people really going to search for the List of tallest buildings in Missoula and need this to redirect them to the list of buildings? I wouldn't flat out oppose a redirect, I just don't see the point of it. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For a small town, a list of tall buildings is not notable because the height of buildings are very short and the skyline is not significant. These lists are intended for large cities only and should not be created for small towns.—Chris!_c/t 02:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly defined list of notable entries. So what if it's a small town with small-tall buildings? This is part of a bigger scheme of tall buildings by city. Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOTS of cities have buildings that are just as tall or taller than anything in Missoula, especially college towns with multi-story dorms. Without some kind of limit, then every city article can have a "list of tallest buildings" that could include people's homes and a host of other non-notable structures, especially in very small towns. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is a viable article for a large city with many tall buildings (many of which, as Lugnuts points out, have similar articles) is not a viable article for a smallish city without many tall buildings (and with no buildings at all of any great size). And yes, most of the articles bluelinked from here should also be deleted as non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Missoula, Montana. Look, I've been to Missoula six or eight times. This list makes as much sense to me as List of dwarf opera singers by weight. There are no notably tall buildings in Missoula. They've got a big M on the hill, I'll bet five bucks a sourced article could be written about that... But the content here should be a brief mention on the city page. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Downtown Missoula article (which I'm not excited about either) already has the chart in it at Downtown Missoula#Largest buildings. In the greater scope of city articles, there really isn't need to mention the buildings by height because Missoula doesn't have a notable (or even recognized) skyline. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Downtown Missoula#Largest buildings, as per the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of high buildings in this random small town is not notable because of the lack of works dedicated to it. See also WP:IINFO. Do not redirect; not a likely search term. Sandstein 07:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPerfumer App[edit]

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

User:Gaijin42 had nominated this as A7 but given it does not qualify for speedy deletion so far as I can tell so I declined the speedy and am nominating it here. The article gives no indication of notability of the subject, and I don't see anything that indicates notability in a quick Google search. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete I thought one of the criteria for speedy delete was in fact "no indication of notability" ? Or are you saying since it is a product and not a person etc that that is the reason? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a product and also not technically web content so so far as I know it doesn't qualify. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to add some sources to give the page a fighting chance, but it's pretty weak sauce. To be honest I'm still leaning towards delete even after adding more to the article. I think that this would probably be better off as a brief mention on the company's article rather than an entry all to itself. 21:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Delete this article is not complete Bolillorocks (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)bolillorocks[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Avondale College, Auckland. Sandstein 07:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Lewis[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show that he is notable. The-Pope (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If notability seems lacking, should this be redirected to Avondale College, Auckland? Note also that WP:PROF criteria #6 may apply here. Sourcing should be greatly improved, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Avondale College, Auckland, unless sourcing can be substantially improved. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that in this case and often in NZ and Australia college means high school not university. The-Pope (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Stuartyeates. Schwede 66 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I improved the sourcing a little but I don't think it's enough. There are lots of news stories about Avondale that mention him but nothing in-depth about him personally. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to the corresponding XXXX Major League Baseball season article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball managers in 2010[edit]

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

Unsourced and single sourced annual lists that only go back to 1985, which I don't think benefit the project. I believe it would be better for the project to keep one of these, List of Major League Baseball managers in 2012, and move it to List of current Major League Baseball managers, similar to List of current National Football League head coaches. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up I see now in the process of tagging each individual page that the 1993 and 1994 pages are actually redirects: 1993 to 1993 Major League Baseball season and 1994 to 1994 in baseball. Perhaps we could simply merge and redirect info to the appropriate MLB season pages, if they don't already contain that information. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Fears of unsourced or "single sourced" status are misplaced, this is basic information. Useful source of in-links. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate Major League Baseball season articles... the information can easily be contained there... no reason for all these different articles. Spanneraol (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I find myself looking for lists like this all the time. They're great as a quick reference, rather than having to look deep in an article elsewhere. These lists do seem to need some clean-up, though. On the 2010 list, for example, the use of the word "Replacing" is misleading in most cases. A separate column with "Predecessor" would be a lot better. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument seems to fail WP:ITSUSEFUL. External links, like B Ref and the Cube, will have this info. Look there if you need it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pages on notable subjects in need of improvement should be improved, not deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it notable to have a page on managers for each year? What do we gain from this that we don't already get from the FL's we have for each team? Those pages list all of the people who have held the same notable position. This is throwing a bunch of them together solely on the basis that their tenures overlapped. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We gain the ability to look at a given year and see, at a glance, who the various teams' managers were. Which is something that I believe has value. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also: Category:Lists of leaders by year. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But cant we accomplish the same thing by adding these lists to the MLB season pages as suggested below? Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I could live with that, though I think some of those pages are a little on the long side already, and have the potential to become significantly more so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge, yearly lists is overkill. Having the team pages for managers is plenty. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge suggestion below. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the proper season article, I agree "unsourced" in a list like that isn't a valid excuse in this AFD, but I see absolutely no reason why this deserves a separate page neither, overlisting and perfectly fine. (Note) I was the one who redirected the 93 and 94 pages along with most of the other pages years ago before being reverted by a newish user, and I was in process of reverting, merging and redirecting the rest when the AFD was created. Secret ^account 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. Would anyone object to that merging? I think it's the best thing, as these pages serve little to no purpose as stand-alone lists. (And as for the unsourced thing, I was commenting on the poor status of the article, but did not mean for that to be the reason to delete or merge.) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to their respective "XXXX Major League Baseball season" articlea. Fails WP:LISTN with lack of sources that discuss the group as a whole. Merge in the interest of always WP:PRESERVEing when possible.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:01, 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) 17:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Discussion tilts toward merge and redirect but a larger quorum would be helpful to my sleep for an AFD on so many articles. causa sui (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why can't we have one list of Major League Baseball managers and set it up like a chart, noting their active years and teams that they managed? That one article would be more useful than all of these separate articles. Them From Space 18:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we already have List of Major League Baseball managers and all the corresponding team lists...adding every manager in history and putting it into a chart would be fairly unwieldy. Easier to group it by team like we do now. Spanneraol (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Then delete or redirect to an appropriate article as these are redundant to other, better presented articles. Them From Space 20:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to their respective season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in some form. This might have been better if presented as a merge suggestion, as even nom doesn't seem to be seeking deletion. I understand and empathize with his annoyance with sourcing, but I believe our approach is to call for sourcing by tagging the article (or adding sources), rather than to use that as a reason to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most are saying to merge due to lack of notability for a standalone article. Lack of sourcing is just a symptom of the notability issue.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started off believing deletion was the way to go. Now, I'm seeing the benefit of merging instead. Sourcing is not the reason for deletion or merging, insufficient notability for stand-alone lists is the reason. These pages should either be merged to the MLB season articles where they are relevant, or deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to their specific articles. We really don't need articles that are simply made up of tables and text and a tiny infobox. Hurricanefan25 | talk 23:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love reading paper encyclopedias as a kid at the school library and at home. If I'm interested in baseball, something like this article would be something that I'll expect from an encyclopedia. I can't cite which Wikipedia guideline or policy what it's about but I guess something like this article is the spirit and intent of an online or paper encyclopedia. The yearly entries are essential for someone who's doing research. PolicarpioM (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this argument fails WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus shifted during the debate and now is that this a valid article. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Market monetarism[edit]

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

Article is for a neologism. The only references are to blogs and an unpublished paper by the term's originator. In the paper, the author states "Throughout this paper I ahve used the term Market Monetarism. However, none of the five main Market Monetarist bloggers uses this term." Bkwillwm (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I couldn't find a single neutral third-party reliable source on this particular use of the term. The only sources are blogs by a couple people who are using the term. It certainly doesn't meet the standard of being a "school", or a Wikipedia article, until reliable sources start covering it widely. First Light (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Change to keep, now that a notable third-party economist, Paul Krugman, has started calling it this in the last couple of days, as people have been pointing out. First Light (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—this is an interesting case, though, because once you sort out all the false hits to "free-market monetarism," there are actually some reliable sources using the term, and even discussing it, but they uniformly seem to be treating it as a nonce-construction, and they all seem to mean something different from each other, and definitely all different from what this article's about. here is an example, where it seems to mean something like a doctrine encouraging a metamarket in monetary soundness. but the guy even puts it in scare quotes. here's noam chomsky using it for something else entirely, and clearly not intending it to be a technical term. i'm guessing that lars christensen, who demonstrably did not coin this phrase in 2011, is yet another in a long line of economists to whom that description made sense for whatever they were talking about at the moment. if that's the case, this article has the potential to be quite misleading, as well as the subject not being notable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as a non-notable neologism. Saith the piece: The term "market monetarism" was coined by Danish economist Lars Christensen in August 2011, and was quickly adopted amongst prominent economists of the school. Ummm, not exactly... Yielding per use of the term by Krugman in a subsequent piece, cited below. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sigh—surest sign of a spa at an afd is that they post unsigned stuff to talk page instead of here. i'm tired of moving it over for them, so i'm not going to, but if you're just joining the discussion, it's over there (unless someone kinder than i moves it here).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sort of backward cretin would want to delete a page about a rapidly growing school of thought with monetary policy. Recently, Goldman Sachs issued a supportive study of nominal GDP targeting, while Scott Sumner, one of the movement's greybeard's, was recently noted by the New York Times as among the most influential economists in the United States. The history of people posting "delete" seems to suggest they are alienated malcontents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthman2011 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article on NGDP targeting would be a good a good addition to Wikipedia. I think contributors to MM would best devote their energy to creating that article. "Market monetarism" doesn't seem to be generally acknowledged as a movement or a school of thought. A term needs to have moved on from the blogosphere before it's worthy of a Wikipedia article. If you really want to save the article, you should focus on finding published sources that use the term "market monetarism." That's what you need to meet the criteria for inclusion.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% confident in the next six to twelve months, at least one major publication like the NYT will use the term "market monetarism". Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Bruce Bartlett, Greg Mankiw, Tyler Cowen and other notable blogging economists (many of these guys also have newspaper columns/op-ed spaces BTW) have already engaged in very public debates/discussions with Scott Sumner about market monetarism on their blogs. The only reason they haven't used the term is it was coined maybe a month or two ago (and this is the only reason I don't support keeping the article at this title). The school itself is a phenomenon of the econ blogosphere, which is why all the sources for it so far come from bloggers, but none of these bloggers are anonymous/unreliable; most if not all are bona fide academic economists (Sumner, Nick Rowe, Christensen, David Beckworth -- all advocates of market monetarism, and all either tenured or tenure-track economics professors or in Christensen's case, Head of Emerging Markets Research of a Fortune Global 500 bank). Blogging is just a far more realtime medium than journal publishing. Since opinion/news is somewhere in between, I fully expect the term to appear in the media soon, rendering this whole discussion, whatever its outcome, moot. Johnleemk | Talk 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I called it. Though since this happened within 2 days instead of 6 months, one can argue I was wrong. Johnleemk | Talk 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect or disambiguate with an article on NGDP targeting (maybe Scott Sumner if no better alternative can be found) -- I am a market monetarist but this term isn't established enough outside the blogosphere to merit its own heading. The school of thought promoting NGDP targeting is very well-established with references to it in academic economic literature, business publications (most recently Goldman Sachs discussed it in a proprietary report), and news media. The problem is there's no well-established term for what to call this school, and although many advocate market monetarism as the term to use, it's not established outside the blogosphere yet. The subject itself definitely deserves an article. But not under this heading. (adding new comment to end of page) Johnleemk | Talk 23:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete—This is definitely a school, albeit a (young) child of the recent troubles. The term is only months old, but has been accepted by numerous practitioners. The school lacked a name until Christensen's proposal, which has been adopted by the school's founder (Sumner) and others. The link set needs work, but if this page is deleted, it will be back, with the same content. I've added some non-bloggy links and will continue. I don't understand the reason for retitling the article with something far more cumbersome. Lfstevens (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think NGDP targeting would probably be an ok title in the interim until "market monetarism" or some other label for the school is clearly established. At the moment we are in a weird situation where a school of thought clearly exists and its main idea (NGDP targeting) has a label, but the school itself does not. Johnleemk | Talk 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not suitable for deletion The term is used in outside sources in mainstream newspapers and corporate papers. It is not a neologism intended in the spirit of the "no-neologism" policy. companies with shorter histories have pages on wikipedia. papers have been published for 20 years on the exact topic. its simply a new monetarism. it is called quasi-monetarism by krugman. market monetarism and NGDP are not congruent despite the fact that some editors of the page think it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C8to (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links or at least references for the use of "market monetarism" published sources.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a suitable article per Johnleemk. I can find at least some mentions of the term in books. utcursch | talk 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
everybody up there who wants to delete the article did that same gbooks search. if you look through the hits, you'll see that most of them are either for "free-market monetarism," which is a totally different thing, or else false hits on "blah blah blah market. monetarism blah blah blah." can you sort through them, eliminate false hits, and come up with even one which uses the term in the way that this article does?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I abstain. utcursch | talk 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Expand" This article actually needs to be beefed up by leading proponents of market monetarism. And only a galaxy-class anus would suppress such a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthman2011 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's interesting that this MarketWatch article today (published by The Wall Street Journal),[11] discusses the exact concept without ever calling it "Market Monetarism". It seems that someone is trying to propagate and promote their recently made up term for something that isn't new, according to the MarketWatch article: "The idea of targeting nominal GDP isn’t new, and the Goldman economists cite a 1994 study by Robert Hall and Gregory Mankiw". I think that any relevant information (i.e., reliable sources and not blogs) could go into the Monetary policy article as a new sub-section along with many others under "Types of Monetary policy". And that it be titled something that is actually descriptive, such as the real reliable sources use (not the blogosphere), like "Targeting GDP". First Light (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying "market monetarism" is "made up" is a bit unfair. Scott Sumner, who is without question the leading modern proponent of NGDP targeting, favours the term and uses it widely. Because until very recently NGDP targeting was not really a concept outside theoretical academia, there wasn't any need to develop a label for its advocates/adherents. Since Sumner favours the term, I think that is a point in favour of "market monetarism". This is a neologism, but it's not simply something a bunch of Blogger or Wordpress users "made up" -- Sumner has adopted it. The only reason I don't favour keeping the article at its present title is that it's still too early to say "market monetarism" is the commonly accepted term for the NGDP targeting school. Johnleemk | Talk 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right, it is unfair to say the term is made up, my apologies for not paying attention. As you say, it does seem like it's too early to say what the commonly accepted term will be. A descriptive term is generally the default for article titles, when there is no specific term that has wide acceptance. Why not just merge it under Monetary policy#Types of monetary policy until sources start covering it more widely? I would be support that over a straight "delete". First Light (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On merging i created a page nominal income target - nominal gdp target should redirect here as the nominal income target is used in literature and is more general (there are different measures of income/production) but this is not exactly the same as the market monetarism — Preceding unsigned comment added by C8to (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we arguing a lot about a little? Why not let this play out a little? The article is already prominent in Google search, and its substance is improving (possibly under pressure from the afd.) If we move the article, won't we quickly end up with a redirect from this title, anyway? I like keeping an article for the school distinct from the policy because this gem has facets beyond just NGDP targeting. Lfstevens (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a lot of problems. It violates Wikipedia:Neologism and has no Reliable sources that actually use the term "market monetarist." The lack of reliable sources means much of this article is sloppy. Take a look at the "Prominent supporters." The prominent supporters tend to be from other schools Krugman (Keynesian), Bernanke (Keynesian), and Friedman (Monetarist). Friedman was also dead before this school developed. Also, Friedman is the archetypal monetarist. If he was a "market monetarist," then how is it different from monetarism? Problems like this crop up when you don't have any reliable sources to turn to--part of the reason why articles on premature topics get deleted. The fact this appears high on Google search probably has something to do with the fact no one else is using this term. We should just wait until something actually gets published on this. Otherwise we'll just have a mess of blog banter. The only cited, reliable sources are on nominal GDP targeting (and those sources don't use "market monetarism"). We should save that info, but's about it.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source for Friedman. Working on further upgrades. Keep the heat on! Lfstevens (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem with simplistically assuming all blogs are unreliable. As I mentioned above, the leading people who use the term "market monetarist" to describe themselves and who promote it are Scott Sumner, Lars Christensen, Nick Rowe, and David Beckworth. Three of these guys are tenured professors (i.e. they have been published in academic journals and their work was found meritorious enough by their colleagues that they have a job for life just doing research) and Christensen, the coiner of the term, is Head of Emerging Markets Research at a Fortune Global 500 bank (and has been quoted in this capacity by news outlets like Reuters). And by WP:RS, these guys' blogs are reliable sources: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You don't get more established expert than tenured professor. You don't get more reliable third-party publications than economics journals. I don't think the article should be at its present title, but it's ludicrous to argue that all bloggers, even academic economists, are automatically unreliable sources. Johnleemk | Talk 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's ridiculous to have an article based on blog posts. This is pretty much a textbook case of a neologism article. The problem isn't just a technical application of Wikipedia policies. When you don't have published sources to base your article on, it's hard to come up with something coherent. The article has gone through some ridiculous edits (like Friedman posthumously becoming a market monetarist). The article lacks a clear explanation of what MM is, and that's not just the fault of Wikipedians. It's hard to write about a subject that hasn't been documented. You could try to piece something together from economist's blog posts, but it's clear they're still sorting out exactly what defines their group (see this post by Sumner). It's one thing to cite expert blogs when an economist is explaining textbook theory, it's another thing to cite a discussion about new ideas. We could keep up our guess work about what constitutes this "school", but I don't think that helps anyone. As C8to notes below, editors shouldn't conflate NGDP targeting with MM. This is the type of problem that will arise until we have good sources to work from. Right now, most of the references don't even mention MM, most are on NGDP targeting. If you stripped out these misused references and uncited puffery (like "The emergence of "market monetarism" also marked a shift in the discussion of macroeconomic and monetary policy to the blogosphere.") the article would effectively be deleted.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krugman himself calls it market monetarism. Everyone knows Sumner, despite not inventing NGDP targeting, is its leading advocate, and refers to this thinking as market monetarism. If a university professor were to post something on his personal .edu page, we'd have no problem citing it as a source. But when he posts it on his blog, suddenly it's a big effing deal. The Sumner post you cite is over a month old, which as we know on Wikipedia, is a lifetime on the internet. Sumner's been referring to himself as a market monetarist and to his school as market monetarism for weeks now, as have most if not all the "market monetarist" economists Christensen mentioned as founders of the school in his working paper. Should we not say in his article that Scott Sumner describes himself as a market monetarist because of his views on income targeting? One last point: I don't think Wikipedia is in the business of deciding whether an idea is too new to be included. We're only in the business of deciding on whether a source is reliable enough to use for our content. To my mind, there is no question that a Nobel laureate writing on market monetarism on his NYT-published blog, along with a whole host of tenured economics professors and other quotable figures, constitute reliable sources. All the guys who have been pushing the NGDP targeting revolution now call themselves market monetarists. All these guys are reliable sources. We're not in the business of deciding what's textbook versus what's not because that violates WP:NPOV (Sumner and other economists sympathetic to market monetarism argue their views are the logical conclusion of textbook macro; others disagree; we can't decide who is right, we can just decide whether Sumner and his peers are reliable sources). Johnleemk | Talk 14:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further editing Market monetarism has been clarified to reflect the difference to term nominal income target. prior content on NIT has been removed and merged into that article. Re-deletion: this term is a neologism in the letter, but not the spirit of the law. it will be referred to by mainstream publications so premature deletion may create added un-necessary burdens. Nominal Income Target has a rich literature going back 20 years so that term is safely used. market monetarists is merely a new term for an existing school of thought that also has a rich literature of also a long time span, but no single name existed for these thoughts (combining rational expectations, monetary policy, problems with monetary aggregates, problems with interest rates).

krugman weights in on blogosphere: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/our-blogs-ourselves/#more-25365 -- it is somewhat ironic that wikipedia (the digital open encyclopaedia) insists on published papers when this hasn't been the practise in economics for 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C8to (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to further editors (of the actual pages -- das ding an sich): Please read at least lars' original paper and a paper on nominal income targetting so as not to further conflate the two terms. also please don't throw in additions that are false/a stretch/unnecessary (eg. that krugman supports monetary policy in a liquidity trap??!! - he doesn't. or that milton friedman would agree with the focus on expectations and sticky prices wages). so just reference everything and clean up where appropriate always appreciated. but it doesn't always help to add wily-nily — Preceding unsigned comment added by C8to (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, people claiming WP:RS prohibits blogs entirely are wrong. Blogs from reliable third-party sources like academic economists are acceptable and have been acceptable for as far as I can remember. Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

based on recent events - no deletion please update each page as relevant: comment added by C8to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.234.73 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- after looking over the blogs of actual tenured economists who've either described themselves as market monetarists or explicitly used the term (Krugman just publicly endorsed market monetarism today) I think my original rationale for merging doesn't stand. I see no reason to delete the article now when respected academics describe themselves as market monetarists and a Nobel laureate publicly endorses the school's policy recommendations. Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Make a Bigger Entry" Today, 10/19/11, Paul Krugman of the NYT used the term "market monetarism" in his blog. If Krugman used the term, this "debate" is over. Only a jackanape would try to prevent an entry now. The Krugman post----

"Getting Nominal

“Market monetarists” like Scott Sumner and David Beckworth are crowing about the new respectability of nominal GDP targeting. And they have a right to be happy.

My beef with market monetarism early on was that its proponents seemed to be saying that the Fed could always hit whatever nominal GDP level it wanted; this seemed to me to vastly underrate the problems caused by a liquidity trap. My view was always that the only way the Fed could be assured of getting traction was via expectations, especially expectations of higher inflation –a view that went all the way back to my early stuff on Japan. And I didn’t think the climate was ripe for that kind of inflation-creating exercise."

That's it, game over. This is a recognized school of thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthman2011 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Sources need to be independent of the topic, meaning in this case we need sources outside the school to be talking about it. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Re the above: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]" the nytimes is independant of the subject and paul krugman isnt a market monetarist, he's a keynesian that accepts we should use monetary policy in conjunction with fiscal policy. there is editorial oversight of krugman's column. goldman sachs is independent of the school of economists. its ridiculous to think this is self published material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.229.129 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a little reluctantly, it does appear that the term is used fairly widely. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was uncertainty for a while as to whether this viewpoint should be called "quasi-monetarism", "neo-monetarism", "new monetarism" etc. But now they seem pretty settled on "market monetarism" and it is indeed having a big impact on the current thought of economists. If the neologism fails to have legs, we can delete it then. But for now it looks encyclopedic. TGGP (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am far from an expert on economics, but it appears to me that this has been widely discussed enough (the recent Krugman piece, for example) to justify an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 24 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) 16:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment The appearance of the nod from Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman seems to have swung momentum. More input on that is appreciated. causa sui (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Given that multiple, highly reputable authors not part of the school have used the term in just the last few days, I don't understand what part of the deletist argument remains relevant. Notably, several of the authors have not only used the term, but done so in support of many its claims, increasing the school's ability to thrive. Lfstevens (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muar State Railway[edit]

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

Was tagged as copyvio, but I declined because of doubts raised on the talk page about whether the alleged source is actually copying us. Nominating without prejudice for peer review of copyright concerns, etc. causa sui (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I've been informed, the allegation was that the contents of the article was copied wholesale from this August 2009 blog post. But the Wikipedia article originally started out as a draft on my sandbox in 2008 and was posted in the mainspace somewhere in late-2008 or early-2009, before it was deleted in April 2010 due to "unambiguous copyright infringement"; an editor with privileges can check the creation date of the original article, but it doesn't matter because the draft existed far back enough that it is impossible for it to be a copyvio. - Two hundred percent (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the original tagger but following the discussion on the article's talk page I don't think it's clear cut. Probably a reverse copyvio. andy (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears the other page had the copyvio, not WP's. --Oakshade (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a case of mistaken copyvio application. This has also happened to me (an article I wrote on Wikipedia about a very notable government organisation was actually posted on that organisation's website by a lazy webmaster as their official history with no attribution, following which my article was tagged as a copyvio on WP), so I sympathise with the original author. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward Lincoln[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. --Weazie (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article has no notability, and notoriety for various reasons that would violate WP:BLP if included do not establish notability. Additionally, the article appears to be a vanity page created by an obscure ex-academic with no significant work and, for that matter, no work whatsoever in about 20 years. Muldrake (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of comments like this in AFD. Referring to articles about living people as "vanity" is inappropriate because these discussions are commonly read both by the subjects themselves and newsprint publications. Also, that the person's accomplishments are not significant enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia says little about their significance within their discipline. causa sui (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google Scholar and other resources under variants of the name Charles Lincoln fails to demonstrate citability or reliance upon his work by people in his field or elsewhere. Muldrake (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is indeed considered "significan[t] within [his] discipline," that fact alone, if properly documented by reliable sources, might provide sufficient evidence of notability. However, if it can also be reliably documented that he is in fact the former attorney who has been the subject of much notoriety, that information would also be relevant for inclusion. -- 74.78.32.56 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Charles Lincoln once assisted Orly Taitz. There is some circumstantial evidence that the subject of this wikipedia article was the person who assisted Taitz. But there is no WP:RS to support WP:BIO or WP:PROF in either regard. --Weazie (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think he passes WP:PROF for his academic activities. While I found enough reliable sources to verify some of his legal troubles and his activity in the birther movement (and also to verify that the birther/disbarred lawyer Charles Lincoln really is the same as the anthropologist Charles Lincoln), I didn't find enough to convince me that he is notable for those things. And given the huge number of lurid and highly unreliable sources out there for him, I think this article is a bit of a magnet for BLP problems as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with David on all counts. -- 74.78.32.56 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is horribly insulting, saying I haven't worked in 20 years---I have worked very hard for the rights of all Americans over the past twenty years. I am Charles Edward Lincoln, III, and I can assure you that I did not write this article. This article doesn't contain even list half of my publications in archaeology (including not even one of my publications in the Boletin de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de Yucatan or "Hidden in the Hills" at the University of Bonn, BRD). This article doesn't mention that at age 22-23, I received permits from the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia to work at Chichen Itza and Major Archaeological Sites in Yucatan which had been "closed" to Americans when I was 23, that my permits were renewed by the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology & History several times 1982-1987, and this article doesn't describe the detailed mapping or building and platform typology developed by my archaeological work at Chichen Itza, Izamal, or Xkichmook or Cansahcab in Yucatan. I offer no opinion about whether I am or my work might be "significant" or "notable" enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But I left archaeology because I was concerned for the state of Freedom and the Rule of Law and Equity in the World, and I am and shall always remain a Civil Rights Activist and Constitutionalist---both as a Licensed Attorney and Afterwards---and I deeply resent the notion that I am only notable for my "activity in the birther" movement. I never cared about Obama's birthplace-eligibility, but I always disliked Obama's socialism. I joined with Orly Taitz only because I was impressed with her apparent patriotic spirit. But she was incompetent. My contributions only involve strict advocacy of the rule of law and adherence to the letter of the Constitution. But my "notable" activism began when I filed the original Complaint in Atwater v. Lago Vista (one of Seven Civil RIghts cases filed against my hometown of Lago Vista, Texas, while I was a licensed attorney in Texas) in 1997---that case made it to the United States Supreme Court and we only lost by a 5-4 vote with a stirring dissent by Sandra Day O'Connor. That was ONLY the beginning of my Civil Rights Activism. Judges James R. Nowlin and Sam Sparks set out to disbar and generally discredit me as a result of my activism against Police Abuse and Civil Rights Violations in Central Texas. Judge Nowlin once said in open court that anyone who could bring evidence leading to my disbarment would be "in the eternal debt" of the Court. Since 2003 I have worked continuously for the reform of the Family Courts in Texas, Florida, and now in California. I drafted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson to the Supreme Court this year (Lawson v. Lawson, 10-1159) which raised the inconsistencies in Civil Rights Laws between the 1960s and today with regard to "race-based" standing to assert certain claims. I have been fighting against the Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud LONG before "Occupy Wall Street"---and my work is substantive not merely symbolic. I camp out in law libraries writing briefs, including a case regarding the intersection of Civil Rights and Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud 8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E pending before Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana, California, for two years now. I have been "ahead of the times" in both archaeology and law. I suggest that a review of my work will show that my legal research is always sound and never faddish or flaky or "movement oriented." I am NOT a "Birther" in any sense---I am merely a "Constitutionalist" and "Anti-Socialist Civil Rights Activist" in every possible sense. I could provide a long list of the cases I have filed, but I have mentioned (1) my work against Judge Michael Jergins in Williamson County, Texas, and against the Family Courts in Texas, for which I have been sanctioned a total of $200,000.00 ($50,000.00 to suppress my activities in State Court, $150,000.00 to suppress my activities in Federal Court---in a case where I was neither a party nor a witness), (2) my work with Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, including the aforementioned Petition for Writ of Certiorari, cited by its Supreme Court Petition number 10-1159 (3) my work in California against Non-Judicial Foreclosures and Summary Judicial Evictions, especially regarding the intersection of Civil RIghts and Constitutional with the California Commercial Code and California Civil Codes. I have given occasional Seminars and spoken on Talk Radio Programs from Time-to-Time. Those who write the editorial comments for Wikipedia appear to have a very limited view of my work and my writings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephistopheles 1660 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

You've had a very interesting and respectable life, Mr. Lincoln. I apologize for the harsh words in this discussion, some folks forget how public these discussions are and the line sometimes blurs between discussing the subject of an article and discussing a living breathing person with feelings.--v/r - T P 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once one researches Mr. Lincoln's statement above, he makes a very convincing argument that the entry should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreisman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Calicocat (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable unless one is into bad comedy. CEL3 is a known "birther", alleged (by him) lover of Orly Taitz, a self-centered fabulist and a failed purveyor of Mortgage Redemtion scams. He's all about self promotion. His current claims should be considered with the same jaundiced eye as all his other outrageous claims. Estiveo (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:IAR, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW, etc causa sui (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wykon[edit]

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

NN-mascot. Article had previously been deleted by prod back in 2007. Current article text is very close to the deleted text, though shorter (so looks like a cached copy). I declined a prod and a misapplied (IMO) A7. Syrthiss (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly lacking in WP:N, WP:GNG, etc. Barely worth mentioning on school page, even with "Mr. Foo designed it" removed. tedder (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I can't see this having any notability to the world at large outside the school. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls under WP:MADEUP I would think. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) — CharlieEchoTango — 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Anderson[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Holder of the Order of Canada and a Canadian mayor for 18 years. This article needs footnoting of those facts to provide verifiability, I will spend a moment on that now. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for finding a source. I see the date of death has been changed from 1997 to 1996 per the ref you found. This is probably why I was having issues finding sources as I was doing google searches using his year of death with his name. If one more reputable source can be found, the multiple sources requirement for WP:N will be met and I will change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a bitch of a time finding an obit, which is really weird. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a long-term mayor of a fairly large town and a companion of the Order of Canada, the subject is definitely notable. Sources could probably be found, if not online, then offline browsing the archives of the Lethbridge Herald. — CharlieEchoTango — 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As mentioned above, 18 years as mayor, and the Holder of the Order of Canada sounds notable to me. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An Order of Canada alone makes him notable. freshacconci talktalk 19:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom. With the much improved referencing substantiating the article I am withdrawing the nom.4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krebs Pigments and Chemical Company[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. no significant coverage, nothing in gnews nor gbooks LibStar (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are 2 correct sources given in the article. These establish existence but only the smallest amount of notability. I suppose the question is, does WP want to record minor companies of the early 20th century. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again per GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. '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." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources provided seem to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Seems to have enough long term historical interest to sustain an article on a defunct business, and there's no longer any possibility of commercial conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Floyd Coffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Davis Ticknor (New Jersey) for more nominations by the same person using this rationale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

other AfDs are irrelevant. This is an WP:ADHOM argument that makes no attempt to argue notability for this subject. Nice try, Richard. LibStar (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Sources, however a major rewrite is nessisary, it does have long term historical signifigance, as mentioned above. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable and verifiable sources establish that this company meets the notability standard. Having trolled through obituaries for quite some time, it seems that many people and companies from the pre-Internet era lack articles that would already have articles if they had lived / existed today. Part of this is WP:RECENTISM, in that people / companies that exist today seem more important or relevant, but much of it is a mixture of lack of awareness and difficulty on obtaining sources. Krebs served an important role in the industry at its time and deserves an article, though it is downright shocking that National Lead, a company that was both a major industrial firm of the early 20th century and a huge polluter, does not have an article of its own, which I think only proves my point. Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean what I said about National Lead to be a dare. An original stock of the Dow Jones should have an article. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casio. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casio FX-991ES[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, article was deleted after 7 days of being Proposed for deletion with no objections. Original author returned and wanted to know where their article was, I took that as an objection and undeleted the article. Original Prod rationale was: Article of individual calculator type. Non-notable. No high-quality secondary sources. GB fan 12:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casio. There is no reason why this specific model of calculator is especially notable (and no sources have been provided which suggest that it is). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant Casio series article (not sure which one this model is in) or, if no article exits, to Casio. — CharlieEchoTango — 21:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ItsZippy response. No indication of significance. Only refs are feature overview and functions of the calculator. -- Luke (Talk) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per ItsZippy →Σ τ c. 06:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy nuke under CSD G3: Hoax. Alexandria (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Cohen (vintner)[edit]

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

This article seems to be another of the Cruse-Cohen hoaxes - see WP:Articles for deletion/Baron Cruse-Cohen. The references show only that (a) someone called Jonathan Cohen, based in Chicago, contributes reviews to Wine.com, and (b) someone called Jonathan Cohen is executive director of a temple in Miami Beach. These are evidently not the same person. I can't find any confirmation of the rest - no trace of "Cohen Companies, a wine import and export company based out of Charlotte, North Carolina", or "Cruse wines" as "one of the largest and most respected wine producers in the Southern United States." I looked to see whether there is an un-hoax version in the history, but even the first version by Moc trojan (talk · contribs) makes false claims about owning the Old Stone Vineyard and Winery. That is a real winery, but its website says "Old Stone Winery was founded in 2001 by Mark, Barbara and Marcus Brown. In the summer of 2009, Darin and Naomi Griffin purchased it" - no Cohens. Conclusion: the references refer to two different people and do not show notability, much of the article is false, there has never been a clean version, so per WP:BLP and WP:V it should be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – hoax. --Lambiam 11:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the probable inspiration for all this see Sacha Baron Cohen. --AJHingston (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruse Wines does exist, but it's in the Bordeaux region of France (and apparently doesn't have Cohens...). Their wines are imported into the USA by the Kirkwood Group. I can't find any evidence for a Cruse Wines in either Carolina. There is a possibility that the Cohen in Chicago commutes to Florida, but then again it is possible that I might become the next Pope. Or the next Chief Rabbi. Peridon (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Collection (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

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

Nothing about this on the artist's website, sole reference is a three-line entry on a blog, evidently run by the WP editor who's citing it. Can't find any mention of it online from WP:Reliable sources. Possible WP:HOAX. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Angry Python (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Angry Python (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (note: I did remove the reference a couple of times as being not a reliable source, also noting the editors' COI). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article's creator has been blocked indefinitely for spamming. Angry Python (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. No reliable sources and violates WP:CRYSTAL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and no reliable sources as mentioned above. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hed Mohammad Shirzai[edit]

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

BLPPROD was removed. The inline links contain no biographocal content relevant to the subject himself. Notability is not asserted by other searches per per WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article has no independent links since he is listed as the founder and president of the All Afghanistan TKD Association. I wasn't able to find independent sources since the only seemingly independent links I found all triggered virus infection warnings on my computer. Besides the lack of sources, I'm unsure of his notability. He doesn't meet the notability criteria for a martial artist at WP:MANOTE, but he seems better known as an administrator. I don't know what would him notable for that--especially when he founded the organization. There's also a COI issue since the article was mainly written by Shafiullah Shirzai. Papaursa (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Is heading a national TKD organization enough to show he's notable? That's his only claim to notability, so I'm inclined to say no. I'll admit I'm not sure--it's certainly not listed in the martial arts notability guidelines. The fact that he founded that organization and that there are no independent sources in the article that show notability weigh against him. Astudent0 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Mondays[edit]

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

PROD was declined without addressing the issues of notability. Concern = Non notable YouTube video Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination - the video is not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Show fails notability. The charity auction is laudable, but alas, a mere $1500 raised isn't notable either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate, given the arguments here (I ignored "could become more notable shortly") it would seem to be best to put the article on hold. Article moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Rachel Traets.Black Kite (t) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Traets[edit]

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

Article was re-created after an expired PROD. PROD concern was "Non-notable artist per WP:SINGER. Only notable for one event, thus failing WP:1E. No reliable secondary sources to justify notability per WP:GNG either." Nothing has changed since then.

A similar discussion was made a few days ago concerning two related articles. (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidiya Zabolotskaya) Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 11:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Could become more notable shortly. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify / incubate not notable but very likely to be shortly. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:36, 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 10:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify or delete. We can't predict whether or not she'll become notable since she isn't right now, but there's nothing wrong with allowing it to remain on the user's page. If unable to userify, then it should just be deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep for now - will perform netherlands entry in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011. Lets wait until that is over for evaluation of her notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good sourcing too, makes it seem really unnecessary to delete it for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She'll only become notable if she wins. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, unless you can prove she'll win. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanians for a Better Future[edit]

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

PROD was contested on the basis that there were "tons of sources", but the few that exist seem to be neither significant nor reliable. The group may or may not have had an impact on the 2006 Tasmanian state election (the article only appeals to anecdotal evidence) but since it's a group that no one ever seemed to know anything about, it fails the notability guidelines. St Anselm (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I see some coverage in gnews, some of it more than passing. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic has been covered by the news, here[12] are a list of some potential references.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that list. I'm struggling to find a source on that list that is both reliable and significant. St Anselm (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So The Australian, The Mercury, the ABC, the Australian Financial Review and The Age are neither "reliable or significant", in your book. I think you have an interesting sense of humour. Rebecca (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So if you spend $100,000 dollars on political advertising does that get you a Wikipedia page? Ray-Rays 20:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Seems a legitimate encyclopedic topic in Australian political history. THIS ARTICLE intimates that Tasmanians for a Better Future was a campaign of the Labour Party to undercut the Greens. Big political parties and their publicized tricks are generally noteworthy, it seems to me... Carrite (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's ANOTHER PIECE from Tasmanian Times.com. Carrite (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the more notable Tasmanian political topics of this decade, and an according amount of references to boot. That a Victorian isn't particularly educated on Tasmanian politics is not a reason to delete a notable article. Rebecca (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, as a very experienced editor, there is no need to make snide remarks about the location of an editor. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since I was born and bred in Tasmania... St Anselm (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weak keep. I know we usually don't include modifiers in the closing determination but it seemed in order in this case as even those arguing to keep don't have much good to say about this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European chemical Substances Information System[edit]

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

No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you acting like a bot or did you actually read the article? Did you see that I added links to two webpages about ESIS? One is on the website of ECHA, the other on a website hosted by OECD. Futher more, there is a difference in the need for independent sources between e.g. an article about a company and an institution of an authority. --Leyo 07:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that you added two external links. One is a list of databases and the other is another listing ("glossary") on another EU website. How does this meet WP:GNG? --Crusio (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first link might be replaced by the link to the actual entry. --Leyo 08:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigh. Chris (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think the article has a lot of jargon and thus not a lot of people would understand what the article is trying to say, in which case I don't see any merits in its being included. Please provide me with at four understandable sources so if you'd like me to consider changing my stance. Sp33dyphil © • © 10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lists do not count. Where did you spot jargon in the other parts? --Leyo 12:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added an inline reference. It also gets 66 hits in Google Books and 583 citations in Scholar. Francis Bond (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The THE article is about REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) and only mentions this system in passing at the very end. --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Apparently not a research project. The article I read was reasonably intelligible and neutral, and there is at least one reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a research project :-) And the reliable source only mentions this in passing, so I don't think GNG has been met. Of course, as an alternative to deletion, the minimal information that is in this article could be merged to the article on REACH or European Chemical Bureau. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ECB as is does not exist anymore. Just as a remark, the ESIS article is linked more than 800 times in de.wikipedia. --Leyo 16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is poorly written, and poorly sourced, but there is salvagebility here, a quick google search reveals dozens of pages on this company, some of which may be suitable for references, and after a bit of rewriting this could be a proper article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My first reason for weak keep is that there is at least one reliable source, so WP:GNG is not a ground for deletion. My second rationale for keep is that there are no arguments presented for the deletion. The same short copy-pasted text for each AfD and PROD nominations (already more than hundred, I think) does not convince that the nominator has really and deeply checked the article and available sources, and concerned other possible actions. Deletion should be the last available action if the article really can't be salvaged, not something for starting the improvement process. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG specifically requires multiple sources with substantial coverage. This one is only an in-passing mention in an article about another subject. For what it is worth, the nom was not copy-pasted. But with so many Euro-cruft articles, it's difficult to remain original if they all suffer from the same problems: "non-notable, no independent sources". --Crusio (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even worth discussing if this database is notable or not. For instance, it is the principal database for classification and labeling of chemical substances. In addition, it is mentioned in many books. There are surely less notable databases in Category:Chemical databases. --Leyo 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you just used the worn out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. --Crusio (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you can believe me that I do not take seriously someone who uses terms like “Euro-cruft”. --Leyo 06:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, you can see the deleted articles that Beagel is talking about. Go have a look and tell me that stuff is not "cruft". At least this article is not written in an incomprehensible way full of unrealistic puffery. ("Eurocruft" was directed to the other articles Beagel was talking about; even though I don't think this article is notable, I'm not saying this one is Eurocruft). --Crusio (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was made extinct. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur species in Terra Nova[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub article that fails to establish notability of the subject. The article was redirected because of that, but the redirection was reverted without explanation.[13] While dinosaurs do appear in the series, which is set 85 million years in the past, they are not notable enough for a separate article at this time, any more than we would have Trees in Terra Nova, Vehicles in Terra Nova or Weapons in Terra Nova. The dinosaurs are essentially background objects, like the trees, vehicles and weapons. Even the episode in which dinosaurs featured heavily was more about the human reaction to them rather than the dinosaurs themselves. At this time, with only four episodes having been aired, this series doesn't even have an article on the main characters, so creating an unreferenced article like this, that doesn't even link to the correct article for the series, is pre-emptive and unnecessary at best. AussieLegend (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information would be best in the parent article - there is room - where this article should redirect. pablo 13:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the series article is a little less than 1,800 words so there's plenty of room to include them there. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dinosaurs are the only thing that has been named in Terra Nova, save for a few geographic points. There's little chance they'll start naming vehicles, as there's only a few in the entire show, send back from the future. Unless the trees start having evil spores, again, no chance of naming them. And their weapons are actually Nerf guns, so little chance they'll want to draw attention to them. Dinosaurs are really the only thing that they'll name and describe on a multi-episode basis. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They've certainly named people and we don't even have a character article. It's a little bit WP:CRYSTAL to say that they'll continue naming dinosaurs, given that only 4 episodes have aired. And, of course, there's the lack of references and the failure to establish notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not much to say about the topic. Besides that the article seems to be mainly someone's impressions from seeing the program. Tell us about the dinoes in the main article. BigJim707 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a fan has written a page which is non-notable. Ray-Rays 20:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep or Merge back to parent article Terra Nova (TV series). It's relivant information to the series, but unreference and short, it should probably be a couple sentences in the main article. Mathewignash (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. I removed a sprawling list of "featured" dinos from the main article two weeks ago because it already appeared as WP:TRIVIA based on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH (i.e. watching the show). Wait for an expert (dino professor or show creator) to write about the dinos or their creation on the show, not start a list mentioning every dinosaur that ever appeared there to have a huge WP:CRUFT-fest. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's not necessarely original research to put something in an article based on seeing it on the show. That's just a primary source. Pleanty of articles on fantasy fiction have an appropriate list of the "monsters" in that fiction. If you keep deleting it from the main article no wonder they moved to a companion article. A list of the reoccuring monsters on a show is no better or worse than a list of the characters. Perhaps the dinosaurs should be among the character list? Not a lot of information is needed, just a name, one sentence of description, and if necessary an episode where they were introduced or highlighted. Mathewignash (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of the article does not meet the general notability guideline. The content appears to be original research by synthesis, so, with no references, a merge is not justified. Jfgslo (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Crocicchia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only source cited is IMDb, and searching has failed to produce substantial coverage in reliable sources. (There is an "interview" on http://collider.com, but that publishes "user submitted" contributions, and is not a reliable source.) (PROD was contested by a single purpose account without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not really any coverage about her as an actress. The most I've found that looks legit covers a movie she was in but doesn't really cover her. Everything else appears to be advertising or other things wikipedia wouldn't consider reliable. I'm also a little concerned over the article's potential conflict of interest since the article's creator goes by the name of the actress and hasn't done anything to show that she isn't the actress or someone affiliated with her. (IE, to show that she isn't doing a COI.) Even without the COI, there's just not enough here to show that the actress is really notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete - I did find Review in SF Weekly among a batch of similar reviews. Agree with Tokyogirl79 that there really isn't much on Crocicchia in any of them - just that she played a part. COI also a concern. Olivia C had probably better wait until she's given reviews of her own before trying again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Davis Ticknor (New Jersey)[edit]

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

getting an obituary in NY Times is not an automatic qualification for a WP article. other coverage merely confirms his attendance at social events. [14]. there also appears to be a namesake who lived before this Ticknor in Boston. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets every requirement of GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Floyd Coffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey for more nominations using this cut and paste rationale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

using another AfD is not a way to arguing for keep. I see this one as much weaker than Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff. I have done searches in gnews and gbooks not done identical searches to Brinckherhoff which would be a copy and paste. that is something that you don't need to go to community college to learn. but nice tactic to divert against this guy's notability. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

surprised the "NY times it must be notable" rule is not being invoked here. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

simply being a chair of a company does not guarantee notability.LibStar (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG. The Steve 05:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in what way, all the coverage verifies is he being a chairman of a company. the rest is run of the mill life details. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing my single paragraph stub which contains about 10 facts with the multiple paragraph obituaries in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe that contain about 75 facts by my count. I choose to write a short entry because that is my style of article creation. Anyone else that has access to the source documents and a willingness to transcribe the pdf files can expand them in the future. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised by some of the discrepancies in his address -- I've been on Beech Street off of Jones Road many times and I want to figure out which house was his -- but the broad range of sources that cover him and his death are all strong indicators of notability. Coverage in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, along with coverage in out-of-town and industry publications are all strong indicators of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for a third source to see if it was 53 or 56. I will check the census. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep getting an obit in the nYTimes is, at least in the 20th century, definitive evidence that the person is notable, and I am not aware of a single AfD that has ever held otherwise in the 4 years I've been here. If that sort of consensus doesn't make for a practical guideline, what does? This echos the consensus of the world, that the nYT is sufficiently selective in this. The additional articles confirm it, but wouldn't be necessary. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qistina Othman[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I don't see anything regards being on the 'X-factor' on the net. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:N / Self promotion. The creator has disruptively created (or hijacked) several articles over the past few days for this purpose. It needs to come to an end. -- WikHead (talk) 18:46, 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} 05:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being on one show doesn't automatically make you notable. I tried doing a search but literally couldn't find anything that wasn't self-promotional in nature. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - Third place in a reality TV show?!? That's like WP:BLP½E. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Belarus Grand Prix 2000[edit]

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

also nominating:

here we go again. another useless series of qualifying results with no evidence of third party coverage to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can say nothing to you. Give me 10 days to copy the content of K-1 events, then you can delete all, ok? You satisfied now?

you have 7 days as per AfD rules. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant entire, all articles. People alike you do not deserve this dignity here. Make sure that I'm going to be faster than you to nominate them for deletion. Umi1903 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which law, could the judge and the advocate be the same person? How can you both open the case and also advocate against it? This is simply Inquisition, and NOT fare, at all! This policy is improper. Umi1903 (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to K-1 World Grand Prix 2000, except that someone redirected it to List of K-1 Events, creating a redirect loop. I will undo, as it was not listed for deletion and the content is gone. The Steve 09:57, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Procedural relisting as all of the "also nominating" articles, not having been tagged, had been blanked and redirected to List of K-1 events. I have restored them and tagged them for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - unnotable competitions that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We've been over this before... Neutrality^talk 08:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSPORT and WP:PERSISTENCE. Hurricanefan25 | talk 23:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable event. PolicarpioM (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Kling[edit]

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

Not notable: started as a puff piece, and hasn't improved much. Can find no evidence of passing specific (author) or general guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am tempted to say that any article that starts out "xxx is an author specializing in books that help change lives" ought to be instantly deleted. However, if that was the only thing wrong with the article, it could be corrected through normal editing. In this case, though, there are no reliable, independent sources that give significant coverage (rather than passing mention) to this person. Fails both the general notability guideline and our notability guideline for authors. The distinctive name leaves little room for doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find any reliable, independent sources that talk about her. Her last book, The Compass, in which she co-wrote, might be a semi-hit. But, I'm unable to find it was on NY Times or other big best-seller list. Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nielsen BookScan shows that The Compass came nowhere close to being a bestseller. Hunt for sources, even within the book trade, provides no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲水 09:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG (Google searches revealed hardly any third-party reliable sources) and WP:CREATIVE. Sp33dyphil © • © 10:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Note also that this was relisted on 24 October. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. Looks like a good summary of this information is now in Canada's role in the Afghanistan War, thanks to CharlieEchoTango. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion in Canada on the war in Afghanistan[edit]

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

A few days ago I noticed this ~~soapbox~~ article and, expecting I would have little time to deal with it, posted my concerns at WT:MILHIST. Wikipedians can read about the concerns here and here. Long story short, this article is the worst case of POV I have seen in my 13 months as a Wikipedian.

The article is way too big and way too detailed for the subject it covers; this is mostly due to the large swaths of irrelevant and/or semi-relevant content, added for obvious WP:POINT reasons : to give a very negative portrait of the war and Canada's involvement. Also, there is absolutely no need for listing all the available polls, this is simply not in the scope of an encyclopedia.
The use of the successive negative quoting is an interesting case of, again, WP:POINT and perhaps WP:ADVOCACY. Note the vast majority of the quotes are from those opposing the war and the Canadian mission.
Re WP:UNDUE : Absolutely no mention of support for the war. While virtually all the bad stuff is listed, no good stuff is. But that's not very important because listing the bad stuff and/or the good stuff in such an extensive manner is not crucial to give appropriate and relevant context to the public opinion.
It's just generally painful to read and gives an inaccurate portrait of the public opinion. This is a personal soapbox for one or two IP users, who have also been active in other articles on the same subject, and it has been alive for far too long. Regardless of how one feels about the war and Canada's involvement in it, any editor capable of neutrality and perspective would recognize there are huge issues with the article.

I realize that none of the points above are valid arguments for deletion. The valid argument I will make is that there is little to no valuable content that is salvageable in the article, and perhaps not enough valuable content to sustain a standalone article to begin with. Wikipedians should not be fooled by the length (almost 200K!) of the page, most of the content is either repetitive and stacked up to make a point, inaccurate, or both, and is covered in other articles. In light of this, I have added a 3 paragraph section to Canada's role in the Afghanistan War that gives an overview of the public opinion, its evolution through the years, and both opposition and support movements, without going into unnecessary detail. Now, if one day a neutral editor thinks that a fork is warranted and could be written with substantial AND relevant content, than I have absolutely no objection. In the meantime, I think that as this article fails every imaginable NPOV guidelines and its content is covered elsewhere in a far more neutral manner, it should be deleted illico presto.

Sorry for the long introduction, thank you for taking the time to give careful consideration to your !votes, and happy editing all. — CharlieEchoTango — 03:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — CharlieEchoTango — 03:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In all likelihood this article is irredeemably POV. This article has been constructed from the ground up to be a collection of factoids pushing a policy position and the only reason it's gotten away with it is that it's flown under the radar, until now. I'm not sure that after removing and trimming the 90% or 95% of this article that would be required there wouldn't be anything notable left not already covered in other articles. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator makes a satisfingly convincing case that what is needed here is a dose of WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a POV pushing mess that would need to be totally re-written to be a viable article. Including a high level overview in this topic in the Canada's role in the Afghanistan War seems to be a sensible way of handling this topic, and if someone wants to write a NPOV article it can be split out again in the future. Note that the same IP editor responsible for this article has done the same thing to the Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan articles, which are also huge POV messes as a result. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsalvagable POV. Although the topic can be uncyclopediac, I think it will do a heap of good to everybody if the article is deleted fpr a new start. However, those who haven't been adhering to NPOV will get away with it. Sp33dyphil © • © 10:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per consensus at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOV, biased, Undue weight. Also much too long, an obvious axe-being-ground. Couldn't be rescued. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not much point in my repeating the same arguments. Suggest we also look at Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan which is not dissimilar Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the CF casualties article as POV, it's fairly straight-forward and to the point. Are there specific concerns? The article is on a fine line regarding notability though, as a list of (I hate to say this) "non-notable" individuals. — CharlieEchoTango — 18:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't quite sure what was wrong with it, it just didn't read like a WP article and was far too long to be useful. I drew attention to it in the hope that a more experienced editor would take a look. Thanks for doing so. I know it's a very sensitive topic.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's bordering very close to breaching WP:NOTMEMORIAL if it hasn't already overstepped the line. 212.137.36.234 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Replied under your comment on that talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, there is a hell of a lot of work here. I agree that this is a POV nightmare. I suspect there's mergable content amidst the soapboxing, so be sure to userfy this if someone wishes to attempt that in a neutral manner. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if the author wishes to retain it for reorganisation/readdition in parts later. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with cleanup required. While issues have been raised and acknowledged here, consensus is that cleaning up these articles is the way to go. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geist: The Sin-Eaters[edit]

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

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

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

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

Massive, crufty plot-only summary of the game that smells of copyvio/close paraphrasing, and has absolutely no commentary on the game in real life, and zero references. This might well be notable enough for an article as part of a series on the World of Darkness universe, but if so it needs to be blown up and started over. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added Hunter: The Vigil, Mage: The Awakening and Werewolf: The Forsaken, other games in the series with many of the same problems and also needing a dose of WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All these are published offerings by a notable company that has been influential in the role-playing game world of the last 15+ years. I find it not very credible that sources to establish independent notability don't exist, but very plausible that the articles could use attention to bring them up to our current expectations. Furthermore, it should be entirely possible to merge such games by a notable publisher into either the publisher's article, or (more appropriately, perhaps) the World of Darkness article itself. I don't buy the "blow it up and start it over again" argument--while the articles may be substandard, they're far from unhelpful. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They're plot-only game guides, that make little to no reference to real-world reception or reactions to the games. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, not up to standards, but not unhelpful to readers looking for the topic. Don't confuse the two; they're not at all the same. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but there's no way to bring them up to standards without removing ~90+% of the current content anyway; and WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep articles that are in a state that's an embarassment to Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time imagining that werewolf and mage lack reliable reviews. I personally dislike these games, but they are very (very) well known in the RPG industry. I'll ask around. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should redirect them to World of Darkness for now. There's a bit of notability, but it isn't going to be easy to write sourced articles on them.[15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant games that are well reviewed, just need to find and reference them. Yes, the articles need cleanup, but this isn't a WP:COPYVIO, patent nonsense, advertising, or anything similar, so I disagree that WP:TNT applies. What does apply is that deletion is not cleanup. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as per Jcelemens. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. — Joseph Fox 00:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Rules Heavyweight Tournament 2007 in Poland[edit]

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

also nominating:

~~K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Amsterdam~~
Fights at the Border presents: It's Showtime Trophy 2007
It's Showtime 75MAX Trophy 2007 – Manchester
~~It's Showtime 2006 Alkmaar~~

another series of non notable qualifying results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. no evidence of third party coverage or enduring notability to meet WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Struck two articles from the above that have been merged to lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 24 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} 00:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including the two that were out-of-process blanked/redirected. WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE, all failed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSPORT and WP:PERSISTENCE, but I'd say this (borderline) meets WP:N. Hurricanefan25 | talk 23:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amerax language[edit]

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

This article (as "Amerax") was nominated once before, in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerax). However, in the intervening years the rationale for the "keep" !votes in that discussion has disappeared. The "language" no longer has an iso code from Ethnologue. Ethnologue's reasons for discontinuing the code can be found here (PDF): "There may be evidence that some distinct variety of English is in use by "Neo-muslims in prisons" (Gordon, 2005:298) but insufficient evidence to treat it as a separate language. It is presumably some variety of English with possible influences from Arabic. It may not in fact be "fully intelligible" with standard English but probably doesn't merit being separately identified as a language under ISO 639-3." I've had no luck finding any reliable sources on the language, and several other editors have had no luck either (see the article's talk page). The topic thus fails WP:V and WP:RS, at least for the foreseeable future.. --Miskwito (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete only existing sources are circular - i.e. they cite the ethnologue which cites a non-existing paper. It seems highly improbable that this is a language rather than a simple argot or jargon.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --Miskwito (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ethnologue, the primary source for the existence of this language, no longer recognizes it. The article on which Ethnologue used to rely for the language's evidence has not been fully identified or located yet. Even if the article could be located, I would think we would need more evidence than just the one article. Particularly given that this language (or whatever kind of variety one would want to call it) is supposedly spoken in the U.S. by native speakers of English, I would expect there to be a variety of newspapers, magazines, and books containing comments such as "He went to prison and learned to speak Amerax from other inmates", or "I couldn't understand them because they were speaking Amerax", if Amerax were truly notable. I can't find anything like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG, even if Ethnologue's lack of current recognition is irrelevant, as articles require multiple third-party sources, not a single questionable one. - Sudo Ghost 01:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Angr (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also looked for sources when this topic was mentioned on WikiProject Linguistics, but I also had no luck. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You'd expect an argot spoken by Muslim converts in US prisons would receive some level of scholarly attention. Unless it's better known by other names, this one draws a blank. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix Selection 2010[edit]

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

also nominating:

K-1 Rules Kick Tournament 2010 in Marseilles
KOK World GP 2010 Battle of the Dnieper
KOK World GP 2010 in Chisinau

Another useless series of fighting qualifying results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT for lack of third party coverage. Most competitors are non notable. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Couple of primary company sources. The odd WP:ROUTINE results report. And that's about it. If anyone can unearth substantial independent WP:RS sources, happy to look again, but seems like another total failure to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:27, 22 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} 00:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Procedural relisting; the "also nominating" articles were not tagged for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least K-1 World Grand Prix Selection 2010. Article now has got almost 20 references, following a extensive research of myself in local media, sources including high circulation rated national newspapers' web pages, and websites of eminent national online level newspapers, informative event, sports news, news agencies, tourism and 3 prominent martial arts magazine of the country. Since it's been enriched with independent, reliable and varied 3rd party sources, this article reaches the WP:SPORTSEVENT with no question.
keep, and thank you for referencing this article, Umi1903. Despite the fact that I can't understand Turkish at all, I can see that the event fulfills WP:GNG. The Steve 05:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references added to the article fail to demonstrate notability. Let's just go through them, or their Google translations:
- Ref #1 is a WP:ROUTINE results report.
- Ref #2 is primary and a simple announcement.
- Ref#3 is a WP:ROUTINE event annoucement.
- Ref#4 is a WP:ROUTINE announcement in someone's blog.
- Ref#5 is a bit lengthier intro to the event. It does not appear to be WP:RS, but if it could be shown to be RS, it would be a help here.
- Ref#6 seems to be a dead link.
- Ref#7. Not sure what this is, some sort of pre-event announcement. Short on content, long on pictures.
- Ref#8. At last, a WP:RS source! But article is totally WP:ROUTINE and looks like it's a straight reprint from a wire service or PR service.
- Ref#9. Brief mention on a site that seems to reprint wire and PR service items, presumably for revenue from the rather intrusive ads.
- Ref#10. Two-sentence blurb from indeterminate site.
- Ref#11. Primary and distinctly non-independent source. This is a the very-excited description from a Ticketmaster subsidiary.
- Ref#12. Another mirror of the press release. I think it's a straight copy of ref #2 or #3, but they are starting to blur together, I'm afraid.
- Ref#13. Three-sentence blurb, but at least the picture is different, although a little unnerving.
- Ref#14. Seems to be about some related controversy, rather than the event itself.
- Ref#15. A bit more than routine coverage from what appears to be a "power wrestling fanzine". Helps the notability argument a tiny bit.
- Ref#16. "Savulun! Celebrities were kickboksçı". And that's it.
- Ref#17&18. The mediocre TV ratings provided are consistent with an event that is not notable.
- Ref#19. Simple results listing on a fan site.

If every ordinary sports event that met this low level of notability could be included in WP, then we'd have a listing for every single American football NFL game, every college game for probably the top 50 schools, every major league baseball game, every English Premiership football match and second-division match and third-division match, and on and on. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobbes Goodyear. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I've got right to reply your comments. I'm having a tough week in real life and I will make a further explanation. And I'll post it asap. For the start, I should say that the sources are underestimated. Please wait until reply. Many thanks. Umi1903 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Hobbes Goodyear' analysis demonstrates no acceptable sources support notability. Neutrality^talk 19:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of these events seem notable based on WP:EVENT. These articles also lack significant coverage, with the possible exception of Umi1903's efforts on behalf of the Grand Prix Selection event. The problem is that even that event doesn't meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, there's a genuine misunderstanding going on regarding martial arts events and organizations on pro level, by nominator(s) and deletion supporters. These events are NOT simply sports events, they are "sportaintment" events, like WWE, TNA, TNT motorsports, DEW Tour and many others. Wikipedia has got tones of pertinent articles and they are kept in general. My apologies, I'll make a further explanation at earliest conveninence. Umi1903 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point here, although I'm dubious that I would find it ultimately convincing in this case. Would be happy for closing admins to allow you more time to flesh out this argument, or to demonstrate that analysis above gave too short shrift to the references. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these events pass WP:EVENT or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Umi1903, all sports are entertainment. Are you suggesting that every WWE, etc. event is notable? When those events come to town I often don't even find coverage in the local paper (except for ads). Astudent0 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Another useless AfD discussion that is far less worthwhile than catalogging information that is relevant to some segment of our readership. In any "event" these pass WP:EVENT. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — 143.105.13.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete all per WP:NSPORT and WP:PERSISTENCE. Hurricanefan25 | talk 23:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If these fights had Andy Hug, Francisco Filho, Mirko Crocop, Lyoto Machida, Buakaw Por. Pramuk or maybe Jean Claude Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren in them, then these would be notable. Unfortunately, it would take some Voodoo to bring back a legendary fighter alive or lots of cash to bring the really great and popular ones into these events. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as events concerning a notable promotion. No reason why at worst they would not be redirected to K-1, but certainly no pressing need to protest the public from this infromation. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighting Game[edit]

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

Unremarkable video game. Only external links are to the download site (which is a Megaupload link, and so potentially dangerous) and to a Facebook page. Nothing verifiable establishing this video game's notability. – Richard BB 00:08, 24 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) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted. All it does is advertize. KF5LLG (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until notable. Does not pass WP:GNG; WP:PROMO and almost WP:CSD#G11. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article is now bordering on failing CSD G11. – Richard BB 00:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rudransh Mathur[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. Main authors User:Devansh illuminati, User:Rudransh1 are SPAs, likely in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SPA and WP:COI? Maybe. Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER? The article published by The Indian Express (it is listed in our article) says: "Rudransh’s foremost film, Birds Through My Window, was also screened at the Vatavaran Environment and Wildlife Film Festival, where he procured the Golden Tree award, customarily conferred to the best child filmmaker." I consider that a significant coverage, and the information is verifiable also by the festival's official website. In my opinion this young filmmaker meets our notability criteria. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, clearly a notable filmmaker, in fact a "child prodigy" famous across India. The article in fact includes 8 good solid reliable citations, no problem with Verifiability at all. Mathur has been covered in good newspapers; his films have been widely screened and admired (and not just because he was a child when he made them). * Ah, there's a CoI/SPA: well, that is a pity, but it does not mean the subject is not notable. More likely a sign of youthful inexperience; and Dont_Bite_The_Newbies, remember: "It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing." Wikipedia:NEWBIES Everybody, even a child prodigy, has to start somewhere. No, Mathur is a notable filmmaker and the article should stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DWSA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Probable hoax. Bluemask (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the NTC list, frequencies in NCR (Metro Manila) are separated by 0.8. The frequencies 99.5 and 100.3 are already assigned to DWRT and DZRJ respectively. --Bluemask (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on a previous discussion, this was found as an Official Station, when it was active. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to establish this as an officially-licensed station with independent programming per Wikipedia:Notability (broadcasting). User:Dontforgetthisone's comment is misleading, unless he's referring to something other than the previous AfD discussion, which did not establish this as an official station. A link to the discussion he references, if it's something other than the previous AfD, may prove useful. Badger Drink (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, as above. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1999 Ontario provincial election#York West. If it's desired to merge information, it can be done from history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephnie Payne[edit]

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

Toronto school trustee who has run unsuccessfully at the provincial level. Not notable enough for standalone article. Recommend redirect to Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1999 Ontario provincial election candidate page. Suttungr (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete, per nomination, this belongs in the list of 1999 Ontario NDP candidates. PK T(alk) 12:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ixnay on the "merge and delete". If merged a redirect must be left behind per WP:MAD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. She has gotten into a few controversies[16][17][18] and a fair bit of other notice[19][20]. Is it considered local coverage if it's for the largest city in Canada? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Not notable enough to meet WP:Politician criteria. Let her get elected to a higher office and then this article can be resurrected. Atrian (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as per nom. Not notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom -- not notable enough for separate article. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nevarez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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. No longer affiliated with team. Alex (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 2011 with the Astros farm system... Are you sure he isnt with them anymore? Even if he isnt he'll likely hook on with another team for 2012 and can be merged... you really shouldn't nominate people until they've been out of the game for a year. Spanneraol (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was released per Milb.com. Alex (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, we can't really make a determination on his status for 2012 one way or the other until the winter signing period starts. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Unless he's hurt, he'll likely wind up in someone's organization by March, but likely not before February. I'd want some sort of holding pattern for now, or a nominator withdrawal pending further developments. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Putting this on hold seems to make sense for now. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has actually said it yet, and Alex hasn't withdrawn this one, I guess we should vote keep and prepare for a possible merge in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. While the characters do not seem to be notable on there own, there is no consensus as to whether it is better to have a stand alone list, a trimmed list in the parent article, or no list at all. All options have some precedent on Wikipedia and no overwhelming argument has been made below favoring one or another. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring characters in Postman Pat[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of minor characters in a kids' TV show with no sources or context. — Joseph Fox 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Postman Pat. Do you mean to say that no sources exist, or merely that there aren't any in this list at present? If you mean the latter, then that's not a valid reason for deletion. If you mean the former, that's simply incorrect, because at a minimum, the show itself can source whether or not these are characters, what their names are, and a basic description. I also fail to see how the list is indiscriminate, given that these are 1) characters 2) in the Postman Pat TV show 3) that have appeared in more than one episode (i.e., recurring). Now whether or not a standalone list should be maintained for them is a separate question, but if not then this would just need to be merged back to the main Postman Pat article, which is an editorial decision based on the size of the content and the degree to which descriptions of these characters further a reader's understanding. So I see no reason why this should have been listed at AFD. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as failing WP:GNG due to complete lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. It doesn't make sense to merge to Postman Pat, as that article is already long, and it makes sense to break out content out into sub article. So it's down to delete or keep. It's not very notable content. But Postman Pat is big, it's shown all over the world. So meh, I suppose it's OK. Article needs to be sourced, though. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping would require us to find sources from somewhere. Do you have suggestions? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the list-topic of this one does not meet the general notability guideline. This is an indiscriminate collection of information and, therefore, it is unsuitable as a list-topic per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. I do not believe that a merge is justified since the content is unreferenced. Jfgslo (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see how this list is indiscriminate as it concerns only recurring characters and even then only recurring characters who appear in Postman Pat. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we tell that, since there are no sources listed? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google...--173.241.225.163 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFICT#Lists of fictional elements. A list of Harry Potter characters is deserving, this is not. See also, to the above IP: WP:GOOGLE. Hurricanefan25 | talk 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find sources that establish the notability of each recurring character and the keepers didn't provide sources as well. This would have been different with Santa Claus' reindeers or the characters in The Lord of the Rings. And yet, not all of Santa's reindeers or all TLOTR characters are notable. PolicarpioM (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources that demonstrate notability of these characters. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds Characters: Agrestic Area[edit]

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

This page was created as part of a proposed split that was limited by consensus. The information contained here duplicates information contained in other articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)‎[reply]

I've added the AFD2 template and completed the nomination. No comment on the merits.UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or merge as completely failing WP:GNG due to lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the list-topic of this one does not meet the general notability guideline. This is a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information and, therefore, it is unsuitable as a list-topic per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. I do not believe that a merge is justified since the content is unreferenced. Jfgslo (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please don't move pages until after the AfD is closed. It makes the closing rather harder, and is arguably against policy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alipur Frash[edit]

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

I was looking for sources for this article and it seems that this place doesn't even seem to exist. SalfEnergy 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and just move to the more common English spelling, "Alipur Farash". See all of these Google news results for the place.[21] Looking the place up on Google Maps, it appears as two separate but next door localities, "Alipur" and "Farash", but the sources seem to call it by the single name. Verifiable locations such as this are typically kept as articles. Before nominating names of people, places, movies, etc., that have been translated (or transliterated) into English, it's usually a good practice to do some sleuthing to find the more common English spelling. First Light (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now moved to the correct spelling, added a reference, and geo coordinates so it can be seen on a map. First Light (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All settlements are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn Hollis[edit]

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

A footballer who meets neither the general notability guidelines, nor the specific guidelines for footballers, ie, he has not played in a match in a professional league. Pretty Green (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:57, 27 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.