< 25 October	27 October >

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Denny-Brown (software engineer)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a software developer. I'm unable to find any information about this individual in reliable sources; just his blog and resume. (A notable neurologist shares the subject's name.) Pburka (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable biography.Stormbay (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Non notable biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.153.69 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 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. v/r - T P 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J-P E. Mattila[edit]

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

person of low notability - with a legal case attached to it, imo not notable either - one of the externals is registering on my system as a threat - If anyone thinks its worth keeping it needs a complete rewrite and some independent sources discussing him - possible move to a legal title - the current article begs the question what wikipedia notable thing is this article about? - as it is if its kept and not improved I intend to stub it to a single line. Article was the subject of a report at the BLPN - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J-P E. Mattila - Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article, merging relevant parts to Human rights in Finland. First of all, this article is so bad it is almost funny. "Jukka-Pekka Ensio Mattila (born 13 August 1963 in Helsinki, Finland) Finnish citizen, married with three children." Talk about violation of WP:BEGINNING? But according to the more readable fi-wiki article, he might be notable, and even on multiple grounds. Before the recession and prison sentence he has been the CEO of a construction company employing 400 people and an investment company listed on London AIM, but given none of these companies have en-wiki articles I can't think they are notable, and neither would be his position as their CEO or board member. He has met some success in offshore powerboat racing, but there is not enough information to conclude whether he meets WP:NMOTORSPORT, and according to wiki-article this is a luxury sport where participation is not necessarily limited by professionalism but financial resources (i.e. a "luxury sport"). But there is some good-quality RS publicity in Finnish sources on the court cases. He might be notable as an example of where an international court has sanctioned a human rights violation in Finland, but per WP:1E it is better to merge to a larger article. --hydrox (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC) ed Made my 'vote' more clearer. 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, there is zero value in this article. The so called human right violation is not remarkable per se as there are dozens of similar violations confirmed due to the slow Finnish Court system. Also, for some reason some editors seem to be keen to delete all the entries stating that Mr. Mattila is a convicted criminal. It makes me think that perhaps it is Mr. Mattila himself who is lurking behind some of the usernames? --Tutkinnanjohtaja —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG. I checked each of the current (weak) references and external links. They show that the subject was a CEO, was involved in helping earth quake victims in Haiti, won a boat race, was alleged to have been a "fugitive white-collar criminal", and features in a primary source related to a court document. There is no claim of notability, and no known source showing the subject has some long-term significance. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 21 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} 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit puzzled by the renomination. There are three users supporting the deletion of the article, and no users opposing. --hydrox (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The powerboat competition is sufficient for notability, regardless of the other considerations. Whether or not it is a luxury sport is irrelevant--we cover all amateur sports as well as professional ones, and we cover them equally. The business career is possibly relevant also. Probably being the subject of a European Court of Human rights case is also, though that part will have to be rewritten, and I would be a little concerned if that were the sole notability. If there are dozens of such cases, perhaps they are all notable also; in any event, that's no reason why this one isn't. I think the delete recommendations were based upon the frankly propagandistic nature of that part of the article, but it does not mean he isn't notable, either for that , or (certainly) for other things. Long term significance is not necessary for notability in sports--once notable, always notable. We do not usually deal with POV and COI attacks on an article by deleting it, or anything controversial would find itself deleted. I think the relisting was based on the very reasonable recognition of the inadequacy of the delete arguments, and the need for some additional attention. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be notable enough if it is all true (what was his involvement in the banking scandal???). But the article is a total mess, especially the lack of references. Furthermore it is overly promotional (like a résumé) and probably COI. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:11, 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 leans towards the article narrowly meeting the notability guidlines. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Rhodes[edit]

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

BLP of a person with very doubtful notability. President of community colleges is not enough notability for Wiki D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC as president of an accredited college. Has been president of more than one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep He does seem to meet #6 of WP:ACADEMIC, per Cullen. However, the guideline requires that he "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution" (my emphasis), which is a little vague. In my personal opinion, J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College looks just about large enough from its article to count as a "major" institution, but others may disagree. Yunshui (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I live around this college and even around here it's of dubious notability. It's here, everyone knows about it, but it's not really a big or notable institution as far as listing every university president goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. A Community College does not qualify as a major academic institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. I think a community college presidency, while of some note, does not rise to the level of automatic notability of WP:PROF#C6. So instead, we need to search for enough nontrivial coverage of him in reliable published sources to pass WP:GNG (and also to provide enough material to write an article on him). But I was not able to find much in Google news — a couple stories mentioning that he's president of Reynolds Community College but none with any nontrivial detail about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 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} 00:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources I can see except passing mention that he's president of the college, which on its own isn't notable. EEng (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — a community college is not a major academic institution. If any academic institution qualified as "major" for this purpose, I would have written articles long ago about the presidents of my alma mater, a small liberal arts school. People can be notable for many reasons other than being presidents of major academic institutions, but I don't see Rhodes qualifying for any of those reasons. Some of this information might be useful in the college article: I don't know how much, but not much, and the current content (the wording, not simply the facts) is a bit much to merge, and this is not suitable as a standalone article. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being president of an accredited public college with an enrollment of roughly 20,000 (40,000 if you count non-credit/public service/non-degree vocational courses) may not be glamorous, but it's certainly significant, not a minor institution. There's significant coverage in relevant media; here, for example, is a newspaper profile [1]. Wikipedia does a lousy job of covering people like this, whose activities are significant and well-documented. Not all of the notable people out there fit into the Kardashian mold. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge to J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College. He's not really notable per PROF, as leaders of community colleges are just not normally notable. (I work at a junior college.) Bearian (talk) 21:13, 26 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} 23:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure that every community college president should automatically pass WP:PROF but there's enough coverage here (such as the profile cited by Hullaballoo) to lead me to the conclusion that this one is notable enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Meets all the requirements for a stub article, has a few sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the basic requirements at WP:PROF. A community college counts. That the credits are interchangeable with those of a college indicate their fundamental equivalence, they are organized similarly, and classes taught in a similar manner. In terms of community significance, The various associations of colleges and college teachers include them. They are accredited in the same fashion. most of the larger ones like this can be much more significant than the average 4 year institution. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but just barely. Seems to meet the basic criteria of PROF, meeting criterion #6, but only just. I'd like to see some more references with significant coverage, but the ones that have bee presented by other commentors to this debate make me think that deletion isn't the right outcome here, improvement is. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:05, 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 delete. Tone 17:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars named after animals[edit]

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

Some of the entries in the list seem unlikely - Monterey and Buffalo are probably named after the cities, and Dino is from a person's name, according to the linked article. Because of inaccuracies such as these, and the lack of references, the page should be deleted or moved to a user page until enough information can be verified for the list to be useful. Peter E. James (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it to make it better. I have deleted the Dino, and will delete Buffalo. The Buick Skylark was really named after the Skylark bird.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - really, now. If this was a category, it'd be trashed as WP:OC. As it is, this is WP:LISTCRUFT and, frankly, meaningless. Why not List of cars named after people? List of cars named after mountains? And so on, and so on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an encyclopedic categorization, unreferenced, legitimate concerns about misinformation and incompleteness, likely violates WP:OR. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Listcruft that is inherently original research. Reyk _YO! 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others, listcruft, original research, everything that is bad about wikipedia! --Biker Biker (talk) 20:21, 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. Tone 17:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jain Bhai[edit]

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

This is more-or-less the same article as the previously deleted Harsh Vardhan Jain article. (Same subject with a new name, and created a few months later.) While it contains many references, few are relevant, and none outside of the primary sources have any real information about the subject.

As with the original article, it uses misnamed sources, forum posts, and general informational sites unrelated to the subject in order to appear researched. However, it fails to show any notability of any kind for Mr. Jain.

This is probably close enough to the original article to qualify for speedy deletion, however I felt discussion here would be better, as I was the involved in the original AfD discussion and was the nom for several related AfDs at that time. Addionne (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability issues. No third-party References that detail his life. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article are mostly primary / unreliable sources. The few that are actual reliable sources don't mention the subject, or in one case, it is apparently a comment posted by the subject in the reader comments section of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 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 keep. Without prejudice as to the issue of good/bad-faith, the nomination presents no valid reason for deletion. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild skull[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think a Deletion is in order, as Wikipedia should give fair and unbaised facts. The page only gives views that could be deemed as Baised Peterpanpirate (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bad faith nomination GDallimore (Talk) 08:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bias is not a reason to delete an article, it's a reason to edit and improve it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editor didn't even complete the AFD process properly... GDallimore (Talk) 22:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a terrible article on a subject I couldn't care less about. The article seems to cover all the bases. While I don't think every weird thing that has a book written about it needs an article, over the years this one has been investigated pretty well, and the article reflects that. Greglocock (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as has been said, bias is not a reason to delete an article. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Lamont[edit]

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

Excessively promotional article for a poet of questionable notability. Possible COI from the page creator, definitely a single purpose account, to date. Not signed to any major label or publisher; most releases seem to be though his own company or other self-publishing companies. Most of the provided references are either primary sources, blogs, unreliable sources, or simple calendar listings. Google news search on "Billy Lamont" poet shows only 4 results, none significant coverage. Standard search on the same terms shows little significant coverage from reliable sources - a lot of blogs, user generated content, other unreliable sources, primary sites and social media. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find coverage about him. The HM magazine interview might lend some notability. However, the rest of the sourcign in the article fails to establish notability. The article itself is all pure promotion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Whpq. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:14, 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. Withdrawn by nominator per sources found. Article to be tagged for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Colossal) Pictures[edit]

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

The article has been tagged as being uncited for 5 months. I have been unable to locate reliable sources to establish notability for this company. All I have been able to turn up are press release announcements and derivative articles of the same. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The company definitely existed, but I can only find passing references, e.g. "a producer with Colossal Pictures, a San Francisco film production company." If the company was notable it would have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, which I've been unable to locate. Pburka (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of the sources uncovered by Arxiloxos. Pburka (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was a significant company, and coverage exists: here's an article that calls it "the famed San Francisco animation studio that thrived for 23 years before succumbing to financial pressures and folding in 1999"[2], and there's also stories like these: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - Thank you for turning those up, Arxiloxos! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:28, 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. Tone 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noble farming families of groningen[edit]

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

Call it a hoax or falsification, but this article contains too many mistakes/falsifications to keep. First: the article is about Friesland, not Groningen as the title claims. William the Silent was never king, but only appointed as stadholder. Charlemange was never king of Friesland. It has nothing to do with farming families, but with nobility. Not with Groningen and Delft, but with Friesland. And so on... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Totally unsalvageable incoherent nonsense from the beginning to the end. The article lead claims this is about medieval Groningen and Delft, which makes about as much sense as an article whose topic is Kansas and Charlotte. Then the article text seems to be about Friesland, but (apart from what nominator already mentioned) the De Vos van Steenwijk family is from Drenthe. The Roman Empire, even at its maximal extent, never included Friesland, and Friesland was never occupied by the Dutch. --Lambiam 00:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I see that speedy deletion by virtue of G3 has been declined because it is not an obvious hoax. It is, however, blatant and obvious misinformation, which is also speediable under G3. And Aristotle was not a Belgian. --Lambiam 10:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to what has already been said, it reads like an essay, and appears to be unreferenced WP:OR. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it is a hoax - it looks to be in good faith, but by a newbie who would benefit from mentorship. None the less, it is unsalvageable, as it isn't about any focused topic at all, and certainly not what the title says it is, nor is that namespace likely ever to prove useful for an article or redirect. None of the information would merit merging, being better dealt with already on the appropriate pages. Agricolae (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree this may have been well-intentioned, it is so completely off the mark that mentorship can only be expected to be frustrating for everyone involved. --Lambiam 06:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have advised him to seek contact with the Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie and the Nederlandse Genealogische Vereniging (Dutch Genealogical Society) to learn about genealogy first. I guess that is the problem. (Out of my own experience I know you have to learn genealogy) Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I get the impression this is a newbie whose enthusiasm far outweighs his Wikipedia clue-factor, and with appropriate guidance could become a productive editor (if that's really what he wants to do rather than just envisioning WP as just another forum for his genealogical pursuits). Either way, the article is dead in the water. Agricolae (talk) 16:06, 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. Tone 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Haunting in Salem[edit]

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

Contested PROD (not mine), concern: Unreviewed brand new direct to video movie. No google news hits. Eeekster (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not necessary that a big budget or a well reviewed movie article is only eligible to be on wiki. And as per google search, one has to flip many pages to find right content what they are looking for. Just when an article is only 5-10 mins old ppl tag it for deletion. Have some patience. ASHU^IND 21:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in tha ta budget is not needed. An article is. Wikipedia:Notability Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking around for reviews or other sources and it's pretty slim pickings. I'm going to post what I've found here, but abstain from a vote since I haven't quite made my mind up about this. Most of what I found was either promotional pieces or non-notable blogs, but here's some of the better links I found: [10], [11], [12], [13]. I just don't know if any of these are really all that notable enough. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I think the film is a very low budget one. So you'll not be finding anything on well publicized websites. Will have to give whatever online published material and reference we find. And yes I admit Blogs are not a good reference. ASHU^IND 07:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All depends on the blog. Official blogs of news organization when overseen by staff of that news organization usually pass the test. And while agreeing that morehorror.com, horrorcultfilms.co.uk, and cantstopthemovies.com pretty much fail as WP:RS, 28dayslateranalysis.com has an editorial oversight and a somewhat beter reputation than the aforementioned for its offering of analysis related to low-budget indpendent films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note - if you are saying the film won't be covered because it was low budget, we are not looking for press releases, and interviews with the stars neccesarily. Plenty of low budget indy films get critical acclaim and reviews from film festivals, etc. A film can be low budget and still be quite notable. WP:Notability That is what we are looking for. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as receiving the attention of genre reviewers and, now that its out on DVD, is starting to receive attention and review from more mainstream sources, such as KTLA and Consumer Reports. It may never be earth-shattering, but it has coverage and is getting more. I again have a concern toward even unitentional WP:BITE when a new article was proposed for deletion 8 minutes after its creation[14] and just 4 minutes after an edit by its author.[15] An article being actively editied is not exactly an abandoned article, huh? I admire NPP for their work in quelling the flood of inappropriate new articles but, and with respcts to both prodder Gaijin42 and nominator Eeekster, wouldn't a polite tag for concerns been more appropriate and just as effective than so quickly suggesting the "fix it or lose it" ash bin as the only option?? I do not think anyone realistically expects new articles to spring miraculously perfect onto these pages when created, and WP:Deletion Policy instructs that we DO have other friendlier options than immediately proposing for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article is expanded, well cited and referenced. From next time please don't tag an article for deletion when it has an Under-Construction tag on it. Thanks ASHU^IND 15:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article is still under construction when nominated, and since its nomination it has already become better cited and referenced article approaching WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:45, 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 delete. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caligola (Secret Society)[edit]

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

This is a contested speedy deletion. It appears not to be an actual secret society, but a high-context musical group, albeit not realy a notable one, from Sweden. I'm leaning towards deletion but would be open to keeping it if someone can find reliable sources and remove the spam. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.musikexpress.de/das_heft/aktuelle_ausgabe/article119517/november-2011.html

http://powermetal.de/news/news-Neo-Crossover_von_CALIGOLA,28341.html

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=4067&artikel=4765494

Caligolaaa (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these links are what wikipedia would consider to be reliable links about the band. They're either promotional in nature or the band is only briefly mentioned. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Speedy delete This article clearly meets CSD:A7 since it does not assert notability. Indeed it goes out of its way to assert its non-notability: "Due to that circumstance,members as well as secret rituals and places for ceremonial gatherings are hardly known". The comments on the article talk page contesting the speedy make matters worse, clearly demonstrating this is a hoax and the article is simply there to promote a new band. The only attempt at claim to notability is arguing for inherited notability since members of Caligola are apparently part of Mando Diao (though no evidence is given for this); WP:N is very clear that notability is not inheritable, so this is not a valid reason to keep the article. So we have a hoax, a non-notable band and an attempt to promote that band through a Wikipedia page, so at least A7, G11 and G3 apply. The sources just posted suggest the group was formed today and won't even release its first music until next year. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Sparthorse (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete /\--- That. I couldn't have summarized it better, so won't try. I was leaning towards tagging A7 or hoax myself, but someone beat me to it with the A7 tagging. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for all the reasons Sparthorse mentioned. I wasn't able to find any mention of this band anywhere on the internet other than their facebook page and the wiki entry. This looks to be a pretty blatant advertisement for the band.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Speedy delete. Self-defeating article. By asserting that "members as well as secret rituals and places for ceremonial gatherings are hardly known", the article implies a lack of notability and/or a lack of reliable sources upon which the article could be based. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:14, 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. Tone 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conception: Ore no Kodomo wo Undekure![edit]

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

Unreleased still in development game,likely not in english, sourced by one non reliable article. Significant copying of content direction from said article (copyvio). This should be a CSD, but I don't think the criteria fit! PRODed and removed by creator. Submitting for AFD. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:06, 27 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). — frankie (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what it's worth, both "Famitsu" and "Andria Sang" are deemed reliable sources by Wikiproject Video Games. So there's 2 reliable sources there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the 2 reliable sources used already, I found 2 more relatively quickly. Coverage from Siliconera here and Gamespot here. It should be rewritten to avoid the copyright issues, definitely, but it can be re-written with these reliable sources. (Which I may attempt to do...) Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per current sources + Serge's ones. Articles needs clean-up to remove copyvio but not deletion. Salvidrim (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable game - found 5 RS - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Goodwin[edit]

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

References are included (including one from Wikipedia) but are arguably not entirely reliable. The titles of two for example: "See our new beach babe", and "Alice Goodwin gets naked!". This doesn't suggest why she is notable as opposed to other models. Cloudbound (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — frankie (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Is a current model and seems to just about be notable enough Tiller54 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only received bog-standard coverage for a model, nothing to suggest that she might be notable. Big Dom 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and BigDom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per nom. There is no notability here. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is quite popular [16], avging about 1,000 views per day, which immediately tells us there is some reason for this popularity. Under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, she's arguably noteable for her large following. You can search for the many many many mentions in "new sources for men". I would feel differently if this was one of those model articles where the only link is to her own profile on modelmayhem, yes, those are rightfully deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 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 delete. Tone 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theme software[edit]

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

Was speedied as spam but due to the extensive list of references, I believe a broader review is justified. Much of the problem is that the article lacks context, and it's unclear exactly what the subject software actually does. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally put the speedy tag on the article, but can see why the admin chose to AFD instead, as it took me several times reading it to understand what I was reading.... I nom'ed it due to the lack of clarity in reference to, well, everything from notability on up. At best, it seems to be a muddy attempt at advertising. In short, even if it was notable (and I can't see that it is, not clearly anyway) it would require a complete rewrite to become something that someone else can understand. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content provided is unencyclopedic in nature. It provides no context and needs a fundamental rewrite, not just cleanup. The bibliographic references suggest this might be a computer-science topic which merits encyclopedic coverage, but what's there is useless. --Pnm (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's some sort of pattern recognition software. Regardless of notability the article is an incomprehensible mess. As for notability, it might be notable, but "Theme" is such a simple word that filtering is difficult. As best I can tell, there's no coverage about it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 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. Consensus is that there is not the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources required to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Foreign Relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a very newly founded ~~academic journal~~ op-ed website, on the face of it the article is well-sourced, except none of the currently used references are actually *about* the ~~journal~~ website but rather are articles from individual contributors in other places and as we know WP:NOTINHERITED. No evidence of notability of the ~~journal~~ website itself is presented in the article or the references. Cameron Scott (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes something newly created becomes instantaneously notable. Sometimes something that has not been released yet is already notable (I received Time magazine today and its cover story is about a yet-to-be released movie, which also got already a lot of coverage here in France). However, the Journal of Foreign Relations (JoFR) is not one of these cases. Yes, notable people are involved. Yes, those people get cited/covered elsewhere and that coverage may even mention JoFR. That is not, however, the coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:NJournals for that matter. (This is indeed not an academic journal, but even if one would argue it is, it doesn't meet those criteria either). No independent sources about this website, hence: not notable. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to Wikipedia admins. I really would enjoy having the entry for the Journal of Foreign Relations kept. Is there anything I can do as far as adding or deleting information that will insure that the entry passes the smell test, so to speak? I'm still somewhat confused about how this entry meets the requirements for deletion and I would like to work with the admins of Wikipedia to insure that the entry is approved.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnllyman (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:NJournals and WP:JWG, that may help give you ideas. --Crusio (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as I argued in the previous deletion discussion... The first version of the article was deleted only per copyright infringement (thought it was ironically submitted by the very holder of this copyright), this version does not infringe any copyright, ergo it is legitimate. Do not worry however, whether or not this page is deleted here out of the efforts of wikipedia mass multiplayer gamers it will be back within about four months when its notability becomes only reinforced... In the meanwhile, I'll meditate upon the sad attempts of a few to turn WP into Encarta or a conservative peer-reviewed journal. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains five references. One shows that the editor-in-chief contributes to the Huffington Post. Two are self-references. The other two are articles that have been published on the website and re-published on other websites. I can't anything in reliable sources independant of the subject. Edgepedia (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotion of a not wikipedia notable webcite. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient third party sources for an article. At some point, reliable sources may write about the journal and then an article could be written. TFD (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of sources to establish notability. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems little to demonstrate that this is more than a new news portal and no external and non-tangential evidence of notability has been put forward. I can quote the WSJ or The Times on my blog, and relabel it as a "journal", it would still fail WP:WEB. Rather than encouraging the article to be created and deleted for a third time, I would not be against the article being userfied if the contributor genuinely wishes to do more than promote this website. --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information from John Lockhart Lyman to this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read both articles, you'll see that all info in the Lyman bio is already present here, too. And two sub-notable articles together don't make a notable one. --Crusio (talk) 14:08, 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 redirect to List of schools in Oldham. v/r - T P 01:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glodwick Infant and Nursery School[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. This school teaches children ages 3 to 7. Elementary schools, let alone nursery schools, typically get deleted or redirected or merged in AFDs, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. I found no references at Google Books or Google News archive. Presence in a government data base which lists all schools is not evidence of notability. It received an "outstanding" Ofsted rating, but so do 9% of the schools, not a convincing demonstration of notability. Edison (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-notable primary school, no different from any other. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect back to List of schools in Oldham. The references provided in the article don't really assert much independent notabilty or importance. I couldn't find anything decent with a broad web search/news archives. I think keeping a redirect behind would be worthwile for navigation however. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Oldham, notability not established but a redirect seems appropriate. Davewild (talk) 19:35, 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. Expanded so much since deletion that the nomination does not reflect the actual situation anymore. Tone 21:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diez segundos[edit]

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

This 1949 Argentine film has only sketchy coverage at IMDB, and Google Book search only showed a couple of dictionaries of films from Argentine which had any coverage, but the extent is unknown because no online view is provided. Does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films). Edison (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sketchy imdb coverage and only a few dictionaries of Argentine films mentioning it is to be expected for a 1949 Argentine movie! I've quickly looked into this and the studios and most of the leading actors were definitely notable. Yes, their articles now need expansion too. I see no evidence to indicate that this was anything other than a mainstream film in Argentina at the time, although the director has few credits to his name and is obviously not one of the blockbusters. I think given time you'd find more sources popping up in google books. I think we'd be better off keeping it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhy should we expect more sources 62 years after it premiered? Does being a "mainstream film" satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films)? That said, Dr. Blofeld did a fine job of expanding the article in less than an hour, and adding whatever refs any of us are likely to find with diligent search, and which did not show up in Google Books.Refs 1 and 2 are online film databases, comparable to IMDB, and while they may contribute information, are not really supportive of notability, per the film notability guide. The books he retrieved and cited do not have any viewable content online that I could see. Maybe his local library has a copy of each? The last 2 refs relate to a later film 2 of the actors were in, and thus do not support notability either, though the information is certainly appropriate for the article. Edison (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being able to view the Argentinian book sources offered, does not make them non existant. Being unable to read them when presented, we do not automatically assume negative notability when in cases of non-English coverage, editors are encouraged to do quite the opposite. Dr. Blofeld has done a decent job of showing particpation of Argentinian and showing that 62 years ago the film received coverage. Its enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with parts of what you say, but I am not assured that Dr. Blofeld actually saw the text of the book, since he was citing it within minutes of the AFD being placed. That would not have been possible unless he owned the book or lived near a library which had a copy, or he could access the text online somehow. Without someone actually having seen the reference, verifiability is not really satisfied. The Spanish Wikipedia quotes the book, with two newspaper reeferences (neither apparently available online) but a Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In other words, I do not acknowledge that verifiabiliity is satisfied by an anonymous editor of the Spanish Wikipedia stating there that they referenced the work. Even in cases of "Non-English coverage," more than knowing some book exists is required to satisfy the demand that there is significant coverage of the subject in it. Edison (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above rationale appears sound.Stormbay20:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book search on "Diez segundos" wehner shows that four different books discuss the film, which seems enough to establish notability. "Diez segundos" estol shows another. Presumably there was more coverage in the Argentine magazines and papers at the time. The film does not seems to have been very good, but that is not the point. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to article on a 62-year-old, post WWII, waaaaaaaaay pre-internet, Argentinian film made by notable Argentinian directors and starring notable Argentinian actors. As a part of Argentinian cinematic history that has made it into the enduring record, we have enough for this quite old Argentinian film to meet WP:NF. We do not expect nor demand that it have the same sort coverage as we might expect from something far more recent or made in the US. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it your view that there is a lower notability threshold for old foreign films than for recent US films? They just have to be mainstream films, and notability is inherited from the director and the actors? That is not consistent with the guideline for film notability. Edison (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a "lower" expectation, just an understanding that we do not have the same expectation of coverage for older films that we do for modern. I see this as reflective of guideline's understanding that the film was made in 1949 in Argentina, and consideration for inclusion is based upon verifiability of the topic, and not about whether it is the "most" notable or newsworthy event "now" for an event in a post-WW2 Argentina. We consider rather, that it may be "just" notable enough through its having been shown as part of the enduring record of that country's film history. My view is that per WP:CSB, a film distributed in Argentina 62 years ago will not still be in the headlines, and it being shown as making it into the enduring record as part of Argentina's cinematic history through coverage in books is enough to allow me a reasonable belief that 62 years ago the film made some sort of impact through the particpation of those involved, even without me having personal access to possible Argentinian news archives from 1949, or access to books in Argentinian libraries. With respcts, the essay WP:NOTINHERITED does not mean we disregard that the guideline sanctioned consideration of involvement of notables, specially when that involvement can give clues to other search parameters... and this is consistant with the applicable guideline, as WP:NF itself considers the value of participation by notables when it instructs "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." And through its having successful domestic distribution, even if only domestic to Argentina... as supported by the sources already found. And can anyone advise if Argentina was considered "a major film producing country" 62 years ago? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There’s critical commentary from the 2000s ([17], p 69, and [18] ). The latter source, the Latin American Art Museum of Buenos Aires, (MALBA) calls it a perfect example of a B-movie. (“Además lo es por ser un ejemplo perfecto de nuestro cine de Clase B.”) Wikipedia:Notability (films) mentions being unique – this is asserted in the MALBA entry (“Este es un film argentino único en varios sentidos.”) The film notability guideline also mentions “selected for preservation in a national archive “- this film is included in the Network of Cultural Heritage Digital Contents, Argentinian Ministry of Culture. [19] Also held by the Basque Film Archive [20]. Other reliable sources discussing the movie are already present in the article. Novickas (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The world existed before the internet, and things produced then can be just as notable as those after The sources are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 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 redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. v/r - T P 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MTV's Oddities[edit]

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

Non-notable show. Google search for sources turns up 1) sites selling DVDs of the show 2) forums 3)MTV channels 4)a passing mention when referring to another show.

Just because it was on MTV doesn't make it notable, and I can't find sources that would indicate otherwise. Ged UK 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with something close to it related to MTV. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MTV. Nothing here that establishes notability. Sailodge (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' or redirect to MTV. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about the show except for the two animated series it showed, which both already have their own articles. JIP | Talk 04:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This wasn't a "show", rather it was a "slot" (similar to Nick at Nite, Nicktoons, or Adult Swim - for some reason Viacom does this a lot), so it's unsurprising there are no DVDs of it (there aren't any DVDs of "Prime Time", either). All of the shows featured in this slot have had DVD releases (The Maxx, The Head). The article is in absolutely wretched, piss-poor shape (owing in no small part to someone copy-pasting text from other articles in violation of the GFDL - after I removed this text, the article became the stubbiest of stubs), but it seems to meet WP:TVSERIES ("Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on . . . a cable television network with a national audience"). A merge isn't a particularly good solution here, as this particular slot was rather short-lived and obscure in the grand scheme of things and would be somewhat WP:UNDUE on the main MTV article (it'd be like having a "Chevy Chase Show" section on FOX). I could understand a "delete with no prejudice towards recreation", but - based on my reading of WP:TVSERIES - this does seem to pass WP:N. Badger Drink (talk) 11:52, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most sources will focus on the specific shows within the time slot, not the slot itself. However, I still think this article would be useful to keep around, if only for navigational purposes. It's nice to have a little "hub" that links the two shows together. Think of it as a "complex redirect". Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate section in MTV. As it stands, the article doesn't assert notability, and is a pretty stubby stub. I couldn't really find any significant coverage anywhere doing a decent search, all the mentions were about The Head or The Maxx. If a suitable redirect target is not available, I wouldn't be opposed to deletion. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. Definitely not notable enough for a separate article, WP is not a TV guide. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:29, 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 delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Feathery / The Fowl Friend[edit]

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

A non notable article which is essentially a reguritation of the plot without third person sources therefore it should be deleted. It falls under WP:PLOT Dwanyewest (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason for this to have an entry. At the most it should be a redirect to the series itself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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} 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written in-universe fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 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. v/r - T P 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medifast[edit]

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

Promotional article on a company that fails WP:CORP; almost all of the references currently in use fail WP:RS and the majority are to the company's own website. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, per nom, the article is pure advertising with no evidence of notability (fails WP:GNG). It has been tagged for a year as needing reliable links, hasn't grown any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and keep. The petty trade awards and PR sources have got to go. But this is a fairly well established consumer business. I was able to find genuine third party coverage; apparently their marketing claims were too much for the Federal Trade Commission.[21][22] Nobody ever went broke selling abstinence based pseudovirtues to Americans. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article obviously needs improvement, but the notability of this company/diet plan is exactly the same as Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig, Inc., neither of which seem to have notability concerns. (But both of which have Wiki pages that are better constructed.) Jhortman (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All corporations with market cap above 200M are inherently notable. Several sources exist on Reuters, Google finance, etc. Jwray (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 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 keep. v/r - T P 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Colby's Incredible Adventure[edit]

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

Unlikely to meet GNG. Most references are to IMDB entries. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-release title:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment: While current state is a concern often addressable through tagging for cleanup and through regular editing, I would think it better to have tagged this pre-internet film for cleanup, rather than nominate for deletion with the opinion "Unlikely to meet GNG". As verifiability of the topic is not an issue,[23][24] why not give it a little time and then see it it has been fixed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Various additional release titles:
(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)
Comment: Well... it was not too difficult through regular editing to remove the improper IMDB sourcing, perform cleanup for style and tone, and then expand and cite the thing "somewhat" better,[25] to turn the problematic article as first nominated[26] into a more encyclopedic piece, but this particular Roger Corman project might be better merged and redirected to one of the Corman-related articles as an example of how Corman often recycled his earlier works. I'm open to suggestions as to which target would be best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be fairly developed and has plenty of references. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure. That was me.[27] I preferred doing some improvement through regular editing before coming to AFD and saying "issues were addressable". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:47, 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} 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The sourcing looks like enough to me to support an independent article but I would not be averse to a merge if that is thought to be a better way to organize the (fairly small) information. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:18, 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 delete. Tone 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Monteiro[edit]

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

Bad resume for non-notable guy. damiens.rf 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability and the page seems to be nothing more than advertising for his work. Tiller54 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as aboveCurb Chain (talk) 03:16, 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. Tone 17:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William "Bill" Couzens[edit]

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

With apologies to the editor, I do not believe this person is notable by our standards. What seems to be the best reference, from IndiaTimes, is actually no more than a link to a PR release. Other coverage is minor, and the plethora of photographs (with famous people...) is too puffy. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. What would deem him acceptable according to your standards? His work in cancer prevention appears as notable as some of the other notables listed through Wikipedia. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Note previous recent deletion after AfD on 20th Sept: [28]. And the history shows a subsequent speedy after re-creation. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom and the previous AfD. No sources to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There are references in the article. The Indiatimes "article" is actually an excerpt from a press release. The Middleburg Eccentric is a local community newspaper/magazine published monthly. AskMissA is of unclear reliability. The New York Time is an engagement announcement. Taken together, that's insufficient to meet the inclusion guidelines. (Note: this is the exact same rationale as I used at the previous AFD because it's the exact same sources in the article again). -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 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. Tone 17:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Akita[edit]

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

I declined this speedy, but it appears to fail WP:ORG because the only coverage is local. causa sui (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - I see no coverage beyond some local mentions that would establish this camp as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 20 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} 18:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There does not seem to be any significant coverage to suggest notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:19, 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 delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering spoon[edit]

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

Hoax article created by sockpuppet. Peter E. James (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you verify that this is a hoax? If so, it can be speedily deleted under G3. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing relevant on Google, and the user's other articles are unverifiable including blatant hoaxes. Peter E. James (talk) 18:28, 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. Tone 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ade (surname)[edit]

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

Superfluous and not notable. King Sunny Ade and George Ade already have their own articles. Wahrmund (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to work as a useful disambiguation page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Ade has already been disambiguated at ADE (disambiguation). There is no need for a separate article about Ade as a surname. Wahrmund (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wahrmund. Could add Ade (disambiguation) as a redirection. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the other surnames shared by multiple people have DAB pages, why cant this one? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it contains information (and a reference) that would not be relevant on a disambiguation page. Peter E. James (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just make this page into a DAB page. The reference is useless -- Ade was American, not British. Wahrmund (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - interesting point but it is not, IMHO, useless. Many surnames carried by Americans are, in fact, of British origin which is what the ref says. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is intended to be a useful reference, then why doesn't it refer to someone who was actually British? Wahrmund (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the source through I agree that it is not a useful reference. The fact that he is American would not be pertinent if the source stated, for example, that the family name Ade was of British origin but, now so far as I can see, it doesn't. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a disambiguation page is no barrier to a page on the surname. The advantage of surname page is that it can be developed to cover the etymology and usages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard disambiguation page - should never have been proposed. Arjayay (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful to have a disambiguation page for just the names, as Bridgeplayer and others note. That said, Ade (disambiguation) should probably redirect somewhere as well. But that's a side issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:30, 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. Big Dom 15:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dae Hui Cho[edit]

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot see anything to suggest notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:23, 26 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) 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Sourced, the Professional gaming history section does state his notability, however it isn't sourced so not reliable. Akjar13 (talk) 11:10, 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) 19:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet (slang word)[edit]

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

Policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Tinton5 (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this might move to Wiktionary perhaps, but is out of place here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary - this can be added as an alternative meaning to 'ratchet' in Wiktionary since we have a reliable source that can be used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:39, 26 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) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The NYT story does not support the contention that "ratchet" is used as a slang word other than in reference to the song or dance as the title of which it was coined. The other sources are not reliable. I would not know how to transwiki this to Wiktionary, as we do not seem to have a reliable source for this term's use as a slang word. Sandstein 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the 'slang word' in parenthesis is actually something of a red herring, I think. It is the use as a dance term that should be Transwikied and that is reliable sourced. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "ratchet, noun, a type of hip-hop dance invented by so-and-so?" I don't know - the NYT does not give a clear definition of what this "ratchet" is, and in any case I think that a single newspaper report won't suffice in view of Wiktionary's inclusion criteria. But even if something about all this is suited for Wiktionary, that entry won't reuse much, if any, of the text here. You can create it independently right now, if you think it worth the while, and this article can be deleted. Sandstein 20:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the entry in Urban dictionary is about right for this word. I personally wouldn't add it to wiktionary but if anyone else wants to they can. It shouldn't be a condition for deleting from wikipedia. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. →Σ τ c. 00:33, 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 delete. Big Dom 15:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AK squared[edit]

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

The references in the article don't even mention this alcoholic drink, and I could find no references to it online. Prod was removed by the article's creator. First Light (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references refer to the ingredients of a mixed alcoholic drink, named AK squared. While the drink is not endorsed by these brands, the drink itself exists, and is gaining popularity in Canada. 13:18, 26 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakolia (talk • contribs)

— Anakolia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You must provide references to your drink, and not to the ingredients. The references must be mainstream reports that have been published in newspapers, books, etc., that mention "AK Squared". These are called Reliable Sources on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References used to refer to the ingredients of the mixed alcoholic drink, AK squared, have been removed in regards to the drink not officially being endorsed by the brands themselves. The mix drink however, is in rotation in the public sector and deserves a wikipedia mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakolia (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless reliable sources are found which demonstrate that this mix of ingredients under the name 'AK Squared' exists and is notable, the article fails our WP:GNG. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this drink both ordered and served at various bars in Toronto, Canada. Though it has not been published, as with the 'Jager-bomb' originally, it's popularity is gaining ground through word of mouth and by being offered as a special at bars around Toronto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alduko (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Alduko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, or any coverage at all for that matter. Mere existence, even if this was verifiable, does not indicate that the subject is notable enough for an article. Hut 8.5 21:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any mentions of a drink called "AK squared" anywhere.Curb Chain (talk) 03:13, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley Driver Video Review[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Msquared3. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you User:King of Hearts for your assistance. I wish to nominate this article as an article about a subject which is not Notable. View these guidelines at WP:N and WP:WEB. 411mania, another site about the wrestling subject, was deleted and had references in CNN and other publications. 99% of the sources in this article are other wrestling sites. Sources numbers 2, 4, and 7 are broken links and are about to be updated as such. Sources 5 and 9 make no mention of the site. Sources 6 and 12 fall under the exception 1.2 of WP:WEB's Criteria section (sources "that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available"). Those sources have no bearing. That leaves few sources of substance. The article has not changed substantially since it was deleted in 2006 for this reason.

Most importantly of all, I am concerned that this subject is no different than the hundreds of other wrestling sites. Wikipedia is not a directory as it says at WP:NOT..Msquared3 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The sources TheCubsFan.com (operated by professional wrestling fan Joe Gagne), PWChronicle.com (operated by professional wrestling fan John Philapavage), and Alliance Wrestling (operated by professional wrestling fan Jay Cal, and even described as a blog on its Facebook page), are all blogs ran by fans of professional wrestling. Blogs fail to meet WP:RS in this case. The Cubs Fan blog is ran by professional wrestling fan Joe Gagne, who is a poster on Death Valley Driver's message board. His profile is at http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=200. Similarly, Jay Cal, who is the operator of the Alliance-Wrestling.com blog which is used as a source in the article and is the author of the particular blog page being cited, is a poster on the message board as well: http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=3630. As a result of these two facts, beyond the sources not being reliable (they are blogs), there is also a question about how third party these bloggers are from the subject of this article.

Most of the sources are not "reliable" by Wikipedia's standards. Also, blogs (including the three that have been pointed out above) are in no way "reliable" by Wikipedia standards, nor are:

1. radio shows operated by wrestling fans (the Blog Talk Radio source) 2. fan columns (The Oratory source is a site that revolves around wrestling fans sharing their self-published written creations with other fans and receiving feedback on their writing, while its parent domain, Rajah.com, is a gossip (news and rumors) site) 3. self-described "fan site"s (see the bottom of the main page of DoubleDecekerBuses.org).

That leaves few sources. What is "reliable" about these blogs, fan radio shows, self-published columns, and self-described "fan site"s?Msquared3 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being covered by other wrestling publications does make it notable. SOme at least have some independence of the topic. Even if I don't personally care for wrestling, I would like to see Wikipedia with good coverage of the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it doesn't. Sources numbers 2, 4, and 7 are broken links and are about to be updated as such. Sources 5 and 9 make no mention of the site. Sources 6 and 12 fall under the exception 1.2 of WP:WEB's Criteria section (sources "that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available"). Those sources have no bearing. That leaves few sources of substance. Also, will add this info to the above explanation. It is more important to base arguments in Wikipedia policy than what a person "would like to see". - Msquared3 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have a decent amount of independent coverage to establish its own notability. And, as an update, the "broken" links were easily fixed with hardly any more effort than it took to tag them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, not quantity, matters. This fanzine has received passing mentions (examples of which are included above) in sources, most or all of which fall short of Wikipedia reliability standards (WP:RS) by a mile. Without reliable sources, the article does not meet WP:WEB. Reputable, established sources which contain coverage of this fanzine are needed.

The sites TheCubsFan.com (operated by professional wrestling fan Joe Gagne), PWChronicle.com (operated by professional wrestling fan John Philapavage), and Alliance Wrestling (operated by professional wrestling fan Jay Cal, and even described as a blog on its Facebook page), are all blogs ran by fans of professional wrestling. Blogs fail to meet WP:RS in this case.

Can we get this debate re-listed? There are few people involved in this debate at the moment. - Msquared3 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to be notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quantity of sources seems fine. Please explain. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions and broken links is not notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Appears to be a bad faith vote, as looking at the article would have been sufficient to reveal that the "broken" links were fixed five days prior to this vote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of checking in the last three minutes, two archive.org links don't work for me and one link goes to a video that appears not to play. I'm WP:AGF in this matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I owe an apology here. The links are fixed, but the Internet Archive Wayback Machine is down for the weekend. This will make it appear as though they are not working until Monday. Sorry for jumping to conclusions here. On the bright side, this helps illustrate that your concern has already been rectified. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Delete as I'm not convinced WP:WEB criteria 1 ("The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms" - emphasis my own) is met by the cited blogs and references by internet wrestling writers. It should also be noted that the IGN ref is from 2000 (i.e. before the time that Wikipedia came to regard IGN as reliable). As pointed out earlier in this AFD, quality of references is more important that quantity when assessing notability. Clearly criteria 2 and 3 of WP:WEB are not met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources. There is a fairly large number of book sources as well, suggesting that there may be addtional offline coverage. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alpha Quadrant. Some of the sources in this article may not even be "third party." As stated, one source (The Cubs Fan) that is a blog is ran by professional wrestling fan Joe Gagne. What has not yet been stated is that Joe Gagne is a poster on Death Valley Driver's message board. His profile is at http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=200. Similarly, Jay Cal, who is the operator of the Alliance-Wrestling.com blog which is used as a source in the article and is the author of the particular blog page being cited, is a poster on the message board as well: http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=3630. As a result of these two facts, beyond the sources not being reliable (they are blogs), there is also a question about how third party these bloggers are from the subject of this article.

As stated, most of the sources are not "reliable" by Wikipedia's standards. As stated as well, blogs (including the three that have been pointed out in above) are in no way "reliable" by Wikipedia standards, nor are:

1. radio shows operated by wrestling fans (the Blog Talk Radio source) 2. fan columns (The Oratory source is a site that revolves around wrestling fans sharing their self-published written creations with other fans, while its parent domain, Rajah.com, is a gossip (news and rumors) site) 3. self-described "fan site"s (see the bottom of the main page of DoubleDecekerBuses.org).

That leaves few sources (far from a "significant" amount). Many of the sources in the article have been associated on this page with descriptions classifying them as "unreliable." What is "reliable" about these blogs, fan radio shows, self-published columns, and self-described "fan site"s?

As it pertains to suggesting that "there may be addtional offline coverage," there is not more "offline coverage" as far as I know. If there is, I encourage you to add those sources to the article. However, speculation "that there may be additional coverage" does not have bearing on aspects of the article or afd like notability or reliability. Based on the sources that are in the article, there is a lot left to be established as far as notability and reliability. There are concerns about your argument that the sources in the article are "reliable" or that they are "third party." - Msquared3 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is persuasive evidence that the article should not be kept. I've altered my "neutral/delete" stance in light of this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic likely won't be covered extensively in reliable sources, yet some exist. Perhaps time for article improvements, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM would be more appropriate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources exist, please add them. As far as FIXTHEPROBLEM, a year and a half (which is more than enough time) has been provided for improvements to be made. - Msquared3 (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Descricpive and heavily citated, very encyclopedic, I can not understand why this is continuously nominated for deletion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it seems to have been 5 years since it was last AFD'd. It looks like the previous debates were mostly due to POV editor warring. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phoenix. As it pertains to the number of sources, there could be 100 sources. Quality is more important than quantity. As explained, the sources fall short of the Wikipedia reliable sources standard by a mile. - Msquared3 (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has not been documented in significant, independent reliable sources. All the sources in the article are either unreliable, tangential, non-independent, or irrelevant. I will provide specific analysis of each source if necessary. Goodvac (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having taken the time to read the article, I see that many notable people have been interviewed by them, and they have been mentioned on sites that are established as reliable sources. Thus they are clearly a notable website. Not sure what their current Alexa rating means, http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/deathvalleydriver.com# but the referenced content of the article convinces me they are notable. Dream Focus 21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the content is reliably sourced. The assertion that the site has interviewed notable people is useless unless reliable sources have reported this. Goodvac (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The assertion can be found by searching their website and finding these interviews if you doubt they exist. Why would you need someone else to tell you what you can see for yourself? Dream Focus 03:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dream Focus, I am having difficulty understanding what is "reliable" about blogs, fan radio shows, self-published columns, and self-described "fan site"s? Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think conducting interviews with notable subjects is a criterion used by Wikipedia to determine if a subject is "notable." - Msquared3 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURO Wikipedia is not a set of rules. One of the founding principles is to ignore all rules WP:IAR and just use common sense. The ever changing guidelines are just suggestions, not absolute law like the policies are. Now then, a significant number of famous people have been interviewed on the popular website. I don't know if any mainstream media covers it, or would bother, nor do I care. You don't always need the New York Times or whatnot to to tell you what is notable. You can think for yourself. Dream Focus 03:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case of notability not being inherited from celebrities interviewed by the site. After all, famous people do interviews all the time across the range of media. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, this is a different case. Any review media is notable for who they review. And that many famous people would not do interviews with the site, if they didn't consider it notable. They just do interviews with any random blog out there. Dream Focus 12:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NOTINHERITED does apply. Wikipedia:NWEB#No inherited notability states:

Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable.

DVDVR does not inherit notability from notable interviewees. The site itself has not received notice anywhere; thus, DVDVR is not notable. Goodvac (talk) 18:25, 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, causa sui (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources treating the subject in detail, as required by the general notability deadline. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 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 keep arguments are weak and do not refute those arguing for delete who point out the lack of reliable secondary sources which are need to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-1 Auto Transport[edit]

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

My attention was drawn to this article in the course of reviewing a block. I can't see any particular notability in this subject. The claims of serving 16,000 customers per year are not independently supported. Indeed, all the references are to the company site, directories, blogs or editable reviews. In the first 10 pages of a gsearch, I couldn't see anything I would regard as reliable or independent in terms of WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article is about a trucking company that delivers cars. No evidence of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Needs reliable references however for some reason I think this should be kept. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:20, 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} 05:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article says it has 40 terminals around the US. Clearly important enough for an article. BigJim707 (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has been around the industry for over 25 years. Cars.com also sends them the majority of their business as well. Clearly enough for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.27.76 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The three "keep" opinions above are just about the weakest arguments that I have seen in years of monitoring deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. This is a very small trucking company according to its own website ("we move over 500 cars each year") which seeks to magnify its operation by describing its 40 drop-off and collection points as "terminals" and claiming more customers than vehicles moved (even if it moved 500 a month, 16,000 customers represents nearly three customers per vehicle moved). A fleet size of 30 transporters hardly seems significant but does seem under-utilised; either the numbers provided or the company's viability are dubious, and its notability yet more so. NebY (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I thought there were some SF Chronicle articles in a news search but they turned out to be press releases. E.g., [29]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 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 Keep. The consensus below is that his body of work and the coverage thereof is sufficient to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton James[edit]

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

This article provides insufficient notability. Considering the current low amount of Passions reference, how notable is this person? He truly exists; sadly, I don't see why this article must be kept, and his credentials are ~~not very major ever before and since Passions, especially at the time of his career there~~ merely short-lived majors in notable television serials, such as guest roles and soap characters. He may probably pass WP:NACTOR, but this article is very short right now. Even a list of films and TV won't help. --Gh87 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was not listed in the AFD log. I've listed it now and added the relist template. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Small parts in a number of well-known works is enough. The fact that he played MacGyver's long-lost son might be enough by itself. bd2412 T 03:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- That was a one-time role. MacGyver is a notable show; this actor can't be well-known for just one role or two. Even his Passions portrayal for the similar role did not last long; the different actor played that same character. Even the same character is non-notable for casual readers who barely know or care. --Gh87 (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ENT. Even discounting his role as a very significant character in the final MacGyver episode, we have 9 episodes of Crossroads as Dylan Hawkins, 12 episodes of Beverly Hills, 90210 as Mark Reese, and 4 episodes of Passions as Hank Bennett. Returning as a named character in multiple notable productions indicates a significance to storyline and plot that is not seen were he only in minor or un-named descriptive character roles. And beyond WP:ENT, we also have a meeting of WP:GNG when he and his roles are the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources.[30] Is he the most notable actor that ever lived? No. Is he just notable enough per guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia? Yes. Is the article short? Yes. Does that mean we toss it? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have been using IMDB, only the Beverly Hills 90210 is accurate. He appeared in hundreds of episodes of soap opera not listed in IMDB. --Gh87 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. Wrong. Immaterial. When using IMDB as a starting point for diligent WP:BEFORE, his work in multiple episodes of Crossroads is easily verifiable and has itself received coverage in multiple reliable sources,[31] just as has his work in multiple episodes of Passions,[32] and just as has his multiple episodes of Beverly Hills, 90210.[33] I need not concern myself with your alleged "hundreds of episodes of soap opera not listed in IMDB" if we already have enough with the 4 researched above to see he meets WP:ENT and WP:GNG. It is an error to judge any actor only by the least of his roles, as even the most notable have had minor roles. And even were he to vanish from earth and never be heard from again, notability is not temporary. Any article concerns are best addressed through regular editing... not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm persuaded by MichaelQSchmidt's comments above that the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 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 Speedy delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Smith Law Practice Ltd.[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability. Calabe1992 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article is about a law practice that makes no credible assertion of minimal significance. Google News has never heard of them. So tagging. Substantially similar article has been speedily deleted already for no claim of minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 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. — Joseph Fox 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Howard County, Maryland[edit]

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

also nominating:

List of roads in Carroll County, Maryland

as per WP:NOTDIR. these articles attempt to be some sort of street directory without a map. There is no encyclopaedic value just an alphabetical listing of roads. LibStar (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

keep—per WP:LISTN. clearly this kind of grouping of roads is notable as a reason for grouping. i don't see that NOTDIR applies here; the only possibility is #1, and this doesn't fall under that because it's not "loosely associated". not to make an otherstuff argument, but consensus, e.g. this search, seems to be that lists of roads in a place are notable, even fictional places: List of Middle-earth roads.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as indexes of encyclopedia articles about encyclopedic roads that pass through encyclopedic Howard County, Maryland or Carroll County, Maryland, and in furtherance of coverage of the transportation infrastructure of those two counties. These lists just seem to offend the nominator's idea of what kinds of subjects an encyclopedia should cover (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC), rather than having any actual policy-related flaws in concept or execution (at least in the absence of an explanation of how WP:NOTDIR specifically does and should apply here). A map would be a nice thing to add to the lists, actually. postdlf (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless list of minor roads. Anything useful is already covered in the appropriate category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—maybe read WP:LISTPURP for ideas on why category overlap with lists is considered a good thing to have in wp rather than a reason for deletion?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am fully conversant with the differences between categories and lists and usually vote to keep lists of notable subjects. However, my point is that this list is not of notable subjects, but of minor roads. Thank you for your concern. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your explanation! is "minor" vs. "notable" a well established case of mutual exclusivity?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, yes it is. Just as the roads in my hometown aren't notable, neither are these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the above comments, this is a list of major, notable roads rather than simply a "street directory". It's also not indiscriminate, as counties are prominent geographic areas, so WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:21, 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 redirect all to Yes I Can (Series). None of the individuals have any notability outside the series; all three articles are arguably candidates for speedy deletion under criteria A7 and G11, as the articles read very close to press blurbs for the series. Coupled with the conflict of interest by the articles' creator, the articles should go speedily; however, the article on the series is likely salvageable. —C.Fred (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Jameson[edit]

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

Adding related articles of other participants in the same show:

Subjects have participated in a single episode of a not-particularly-notable reality TV show in Ireland. Fails WP:BIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All three will be in one episode of a four-episode TV series. Article appears to be the work of somebody connected with the show. Unable to find sources outside of the show. Bgwhite (talk) 21:06, 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vauvenargues Kehi[edit]

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

fails WP:NSOCCER. He plays in third tier league. His under 16 national representation is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Player meets WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. As stated in the article, he made his professional debut playing in the Coupe de la Ligue, a fully-professional league cup competition in France. — JS^{Rant Away} 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Joao10Siamun. Giant Snowman 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY. Not sure about GNG as I don't speak French, but the hits in the gnews archive look promising. Jenks24 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY, but lacks sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:31, 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 Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Everything, even the text, is taken from [34]. Hut 8.5 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by positive and negative influence[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and a standalone article about a single poll with a vague terminology such as "positive and negative influence" has no place in an encyclopedia. Hekerui (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Ridiculous reposting of work of someone else. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline copyright violation; a poll like this, regardless of its appearing in the newspaper sponsoring it, is too vague to really have any actual encyclopedic significance. Germany has had more positive influence than any other country? My, these mortals have short memories. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 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. I am more than willing to restore this article in the future if the game does prove notable. — Joseph Fox 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentou Gakuen[edit]

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

Unreleased game, unknown developer, no notability AmethystPhoenix (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article might be notable given that this game is the first of its kind as mentioned in the article and references. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the game is actually released and has any source talking about it other than the game's developer, it might be notable. At the moment there's no evidence backing the claims of being the first of its kind. It's solely self-promotion. AmethystPhoenix (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim that doesn't have backing Canestenmobile (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is my first article here so I kinda need you guys help. My article marked for deletion, any suggestions for this? I really want to make article regarding this. Is it forbidden to post article about unreleased game? Hmm how about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics;Notes. The developer of the game is indie, (doujin?) to know more about the developer you can check http://vndb.org/p2260 Canestenmobile (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant unreleased games with reliable third-party coverage (that aren't based on speculation as in WP:FUTURE) are fine. The problem is that with an unreleased game by an unknown developer, there is unlikely to be any coverage anywhere satisfying the notability guidelines. See WP:GNG - AmethystPhoenix (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to improve this article? Canestenmobile (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should create a page for the publisher and make it more noteworthy. Idk, but I don't think this article needs to be deleted. There's enough information. It just needs more details and references. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found information about the developer, it's on vndb producers list http://vndb.org/p/all?q=project+sentou 110.139.13.43 (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added more reference, http://visual-novels.net/vn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1202&Itemid=2 changed the TBA 2012 to January 1, 2012 Canestenmobile (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought it up was because as far as I can tell there is zero information on the game anywhere that isn't just posted by the game's creators. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. VNDB is a user-edited site. So is the 'apex web-gaming' site. The visual-novels.net post is a press release. The page author is clearly affiliated with the game and trying to create more references for it, but they're still all self-created. There is no reliable independent coverage. - AmethystPhoenix (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as promotional. Game is upcoming so well within the internet age and has only 136 gHits. Unless they are starting a local grassroots movement through offline newspapers, this game is not remotely notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On October 24, GamePro published an article about the game based on their recent press release. At this point, there appears to only be a single reliable source (GamePro) covering the game. Thus, I am sticking with my original opinion that it should be deleted per the GNG since the GNG requires multiple (more than one) reliable sources. --Odie5533 01:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this one can be used as a reliable source? http://www.gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/78891/PST_TEAM_ANNOUNCES_RELEASE_DATE_FOR_THE_UPCOMING_ONLINEVISUAL_NOVEL.php

or http://www.develop-online.net/press-releases/78891/Sentou-Gakuen Canestenmobile (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references. Please help me out improving the article Canestenmobile (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can be used, but they don't support notability because they are primary sources since then are press release. --Odie5533 02:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Added reference from another game news site, this one should be reliable and notable. It's quite famous, at least in my country.Canestenmobile (talk) 11:58, 25 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) 11:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah guys I've tried to gathers enough sources to keep this article alive, but in case I still miss something please point it out, this is my first article here so yeah, Please help me out Canestenmobile (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ without prejudice. Unfortunately I'm unable to find any additional sources beyond the Gamepro one already present, which doesn't satisfy the multiple non-trivial secondary sources needed to demonstrate notability. It's a case of either being too soon or being something that will not gain traction with sources. It's still early days yet, so that may well change, but I'm not in favour of keeping the article on the basis of the developer's grand claims of being the 'first' of its type in their press releases. Publishers and developers spout constant flannel about their products. I'm sorry I can't be of further help with the sourcing. Someone another 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about sources from GameQQ? Canestenmobile (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for me to judge whether that site is reliable (in Wikipedia terms), but putting that aside there is only a small amount of content within the GameQQ source in the article currently. I've run it through a translator and there is some usable content there, but with both the GameQQ and Gamepro sources there's still little that can be said about the game beyond what the developers themselves would impart right now, IMHO they don't combine to form enough info, and there is no guarantee that further sources will appear. If more sources do appear then I would fully support article recreation (it would be brought back as-is, except for the images) via deletion review. That's only if it gets deleted in the first place, if it is and further sources appear then please do not hesitate to bring it up at the videogame project or my talk page. I know it's frustrating when something you've worked hard at is deleted, but if you know how articles can be brought back easily, which in cases like this leaves the door open. Someone another 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or userfy Looking again there are alternatives to deletion and this article does have some secondary coverage and a chance that more could appear. Someone another 19:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. All current sources are primary, based on press releases, or trivial. This may be notable some day, but not right now. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think the article (which looks very good for a page created very recently) should be kept for now. I would like to praise the creator/editor who is actually making a decent effort. Sentou Gakuen should be improved, not deleted. I'm sure the "sources" will appear soon. --Hydao (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL. We don't write articles for subjects that may be notable in the future. We require sources now for articles now. Userspace drafts are an excellent way to work on articles until that point, and this article can always be moved to the userspace of a willing editor if/when it is deleted. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it before, but thanks. I think it is notable, that's all. --Hydao (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe it will become notable after release, but at this point, it isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 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. If anybody would like to attempt a merge to Hastings Aerodrome as suggested below, let me know and I'll provide the source text to you. m.o.p 04:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Hawke's Bay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP, WP:SPAM article. Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of this discussion has been made at WikiProject Aviation and at WikiProject Aircraft within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable just one of thousands of flying schools. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no opposition to a redirect to Hastings Aerodrome. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no need to delete the article that I created. If this article is deleted then why not delete 99 per cent of all articles on Wikipedia. SnakeEyesAndSissies (SnakeEyesAndSissies) 0510 19 October 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant to whether or not the subject of an article is notable through reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ~~doesn't seem~~ is not credible that a government regulated "air operator" with 16 planes founded in 1928 in a place with a newspaper hasn't been noted. Sources have been added, and as per WP:N, more are "likely" to exist in the newspapers since 1928. Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The organisation seems notable enough. The article has enough information and references. I can't see why this article should be deleted. Ovalise 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (continuing from my previous comments) - Air Hawke's Bay is a notable New Zealand flight school and is widely known in the NZ aviation industry. Just because it is not internationally noted does not mean that the organisation is not notable and therefore it shouldn't be deleted. SnakeEyes 08:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - despite all the claims here that the organization must be notable and the addition of some refs to the article not one of them meets the requirements of WP:CORP and WP:GNG to establish notability. Careful reading of all the refs shows each one to be mere passing mentions or directory listings. You need better refs that have significant coverage to show that this organization is notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." An example of a trivial mention is given in the footnote at WP:GNG, and additional examples are provided at WP:CORP. Because the content from the sources are more than trivial mentions, the sources have "significant coverage", and therefore contribute to wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. I was tempted to close this as Delete but leaving it for another 7 days to see if further sources can be unearthed.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relister, as per WP:Notability, section WP:NRVE, sources do not need to be "unearthed". It is WP:Verifiability that has a strong sourcing requirement. Also, a deletion argument must advance both that a topic and the content of that topic are objectionable, which not a single participant at this discussion has attempted. Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now had to remove an anonymous blog that was added as a reference to this article, Please see WP:SPS to understand why these are not acceptable refs. The very fact that editors are resorting to these sorts of references seems to support the notion that this topic is non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment represents that the quality of contributions of newbies are one of the measures by which Wikipedians define wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A healthy deletion discussion needs to understand WP:Deletion policy and the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion section therein . As per WP:Deletion policy, "Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view." This is an outcome for extreme cases, where both the material and the topic are objectionable, which is not the case here. WP:ATD says,
Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases....Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.
Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While those things are true, they are not applicable in this case, as this is not a content dispute. As you can see in the nomination this deletion discussion is about whether this topic meets the notability requirements to justify having an article on it or whether it is just an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable company. Just because something exists does not mean it should have an article in Wikipedia and so far the references in the article do not meet that minimum threshold to establish notability, which is "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." - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is both objectionable spam, and material that is not objectionable, editors can improve the article by editing options that do not require deletion tools. I have removed one sentence that some might view as objectionable promotion. Recognition by the government of New Zealand is not objectionable material. 16 airplanes and students coming from UAE and India is not a fly-by-night operation, recognition by Air New Zealand goes to establishing notability, and the great age of the institution speaks to the potential of being an even more interesting encyclopedia article. There is no coherent plan here as to what to do with the encyclopedic material in this article and the topic other than to keep them, but given that this is a deletion discussion, all that really needs to be apparent is both that there is encyclopedic material and that we will somehow retain the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is simply that the article doesn't have independent third party references in sufficient depth that show notablity to the minimum standard to have a Wikipedia article on the company. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier, the nominator stated, "...on Wikipedia companies need extensive independent third party coverage beyond directory listings to be 'notable' ". In response, I asked, "Where is the guideline that says companies need 'extensive' coverage to have a stand-alone article?" The nominator did not respond, probably because there is no such guideline. And yet also the nominator did not retract the statement. So the nominator may well believe that coverage for Wikipedia articles should be extensive. As to how this relates to the preceding comment, as long as the nominator defines "minimum standard" as "extensive coverage", this is not a policy/guideline based statement. Unscintillating (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing demonstrates that this company passes WP:GNG as there simply is no in-depth third party sources. Ravendrop 22:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that self-published sources can not be used as references. What I don't understand is this: another thing that proves AHB's notability is the fact that it operates a Doctor's Run from Hastings to Wairoa 5 times a week. Four sources - even though un-reliable, suggest that this charter operation happens. The very fact that as a student of AHB I know that this charter is run makes my blood boil that this charter operation can not exist on the AHB wikipedia page. It is another thing that helps to establish AHB's notability and yet it has quickly been blocked from doing so. SnakeEyesAndSissies (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are are confusing notability on Wikipedia with the fact that you think the flying school you are attending is important. It wouldn't matter if the company flies dozens of B-747s on scheduled runs every day, if there are no reliable third party references that have written about the company to the extent required by WP:CORP, then the company should not have an article on Wikipedia. What you know, that has not been documented in reliable third part references, is called original research and it is not acceptable because other people will disagree with what you think you know. You can add that this company runs five charters a week and someone else will come along and say "no they don't, they went out of business two years ago". The only way we can tell which one is right is through reliable third party references, which is why the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is "verifiability not truth". Without this requirement Wikipedia would be nothing more than a blog where people argue over their own version of WP:The Truth. The other factor here is that this company, while it surely does exist, is no different from ten thousand other flying school/air taxi operators around the world. It exists but there isn't much more to be said about it. My neighbour's cat exists and may even have its own You Tube channel, but it doesn't meet notability requirements and so should not have an Wikipedia article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge There's a rather obvious merge: since the company owns Hastings Aerodrome, which is I think clearly notable, the appropriate amount of content can be merged there. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebu-Arts[edit]

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

Subject appears to be a made-up new art genre that is not notable. No coverage in reliable sources that I could find. Artist not notable either. Article appears to be promotional. References are to poor quality sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is some awesome self-promotion - complete with actual blog mentions! I didn't realize I could make $60K by gluing all my duplicates to a board and calling it a new genre... If our guy had done more research, he might have noticed File:Unique Postage Stamps Collage by Filipino artist Nux Suzara.jpg, plus there's that one in some museum that I can't find the commons pic of now... :-) Stan (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree about the quality of the sources. Three of the sources are just the online archives of well-esteemed New Jersey-based newspapers. I would know as I was the curator interviewed by Kurt Osenlund for the Pennington Post article (source #2) and I have a physical copy in my possession. Also, those are authentic stamps being used, not duplicates. As they were collected throughout the artist's life, many of them are rare and valuable, thus contributing to the pricing of the piece. While I certainly concede that this artist may not be the originator of stamp collage styles of art, this is the first I've heard anyone try to give a formal name to the genre. Awederich (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE Self-promotion. No evidence of anything actually being sold or even in vaguely notable galleries. And blogs are rarely acceptable sources anyway. Edwardx (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Awederich says it is "the first I've heard anyone try to give a formal name to the genre". In other words, it is a made-up thing. In the unlikely event that this term takes off elsewhere and has some coverage in reliable sources, then it should have an article, not now. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Stan, and Edwardx. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:39, 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 delete. Big Dom 15:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory TK of Visual Proportions[edit]

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

Article on non-notable topic, referenced only with self-published sources. Possible conflict of interest from major contributor. Using WP as a promotional tool. No English sources. Poor english in aricle renders the topic indecipherable. Famousdog (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After proposing deletion of this article, I have had extensive discussions with the major contributor to this article beginning here. Perhaps other editors would like to review our discussions? Famousdog (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am just not convinced that it satisfies WP:N based on having multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. This appears to be a presentation of the research of an architecture professor, the creator of the article, with very limited English. His writing is very difficult to follow. The article seems to be an effort to promote work of limited notability. He never explains in the text where the "TK" comes from. In his diagram, "TK" equals the square root of "TC" which is not defined other than being some rectangle related to the height of an observer. He apparently claims that the area of distinct vision of an observer who does not move his eyes around has a certain mathematical formula, similar to the "shape of a mental image," which has implications for how architecture should be proportioned. Apparently TK refers to Spanish or Catalan abbreviations related to the square root of a product related to human proportions. From study of the perception literature, I know that the actual "area of distinct vision" varies between individuals and is not the neat ellipse he claims. Even if it were, people in a building are not forced to stand immobile, and they scan the scene, looking up, down, left and right. I am surprised that his diagram still appears in the article, since it is clearly marked as being copyrighted by him, violating Wikipedia's licensing requirements. The theory was apparently privately published in 1982 in Castilian, not any evidence of notability. It was published again in 1997 in Catalan, and it is hard to be sure how independent that publication was, but it appears to be associated with a university, though as an "eprints" from "upcommons" it does not appear to be a paper book.He mailed his publication to a disciple of famous architect Le Corbusier, who provided some kind words about his theory, hardly proof of notability. His references to show the importance of his TK theory include a dead link supposedly showing that some building was constructed according to it. Edison (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somehow the display of the next AFD is being merged with this one in the way AFD presently displays, so there is reference to the religious beliefs of Beethoven, completely irrelevant to this discussion of a theory of visual perception. Edison (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views (3rd nomination) is now fixed. GB fan 16:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless: a) its writer can rewrite it in English, b) it's explained what TK is, c) TK proves not to be telekinesis, d) it is proven that the article is based on secondary sources. At the moment it just lacks any sort of coherence. It is hoped that a deletion request can motivate its writer into tidying it up and making it worth keeping.

Oh, and I've followed some of Famousdog and the author's discussions and there's nothing I've read that doesn't sound like a religious cultist trying to sell his snake oil. Sorry and all that. --Matt Westwood 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and move to Kim Lloveras i Montserrat. So far as I can determine, only he has written at book length on this: OCLC title search, and this academic article is also by him. The three graduate theses don't add much to the notability picture, and I'm having difficulty accessing them anyway. On the other hand there's a substantial newspaper article on the prof himself: here (followed by this article by him in the same paper on the theory; and this is a prize awarded to him. This appears to be a decent publications list. I'm wondering whether he is department chair? He's described as "titular professor." We're all hampered by the apparent impossibility of tracking down what the abbreviation TK is supposed to mean - but I think a stronger case can be made for notability of the professor, enough to justify a short article. User:EspaisNT self-identifies on his talkpage as Kim Lloveras i Montserrat. There is also now User:Kim Lloveras, whose only edit is to the talkpage of the article, and whose userpage was created by EspaisNT - presumably a second account of the same person unaware of policy being against such. (He's demonstrably having trouble understanding how Wikipedia works - he's been adding lists of URLs to sources everywhere except in the article and in this discussion. That shouldn't have any bearing on the determination of notability, although I really wish he would explain what TK is intended to signify!) Hopefully the professor can point us to somewhere stating he is a department head or listing his awards in full; I had trouble finding a faculty listing at upc.edu. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading it I have no idea what the topic is. It's more like a poorly written, rambling essay than an article, with lists of points instead of paragraphs, other very odd formatting choices including random images with foreign captions. Whether Kim Lloveras i Montserrat is notable I don't know but I doubt an article on him/her would look anything like this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Highly questionable notability combined with almost total unintelligibility, evidently written by a contributor with a conflict of interest. In as much as I can make sense of the theory at all, it is apparently wrong, but that is irrelevant. Simply not Wikipedia material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My comments above about the theory being apparently wrong are not the basis for my Delete recommendation. I read Andy's explanation for his delete !=vote and thought I should mention that my unhappiness with the theory is not the basis for my deletion recommendation. Edison (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification My suggestion that the theory is wrong (if I understand it correctly), is likewise not intended as an argument for deletion - there are notable 'wrong' theories, and it isn't our job to decide anyway. I think if anything, my comment was more about me not being able to understand it. It might actually be 'right', profound, and meaningful - but unless it can be understood, my apparent misunderstanding is itself more relevant to questions about the suitability of the article than any ultimate 'rightness' - for Wikipedia to be useful, it must communicate, and whatever else the article does, it singularly fails to achieve this. We cannot include content in Wikipedia on the basis that we don't understand it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Musamies (talk) 03:41, 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 merge to Ludwig van Beethoven. — Joseph Fox 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views[edit]

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

Completely unnecessary article! This should be contained within Beethoven's own article. It is in no way deserving of its own page. Why are his religious views particularly significant in any way? They have very little bearing upon his music. If there's a religion page for him, there may as well be one for every great composer. Aerovistae (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs. Note that this article was split from Beethoven's main article in October 2004, and that we have Category:Religious views by individual. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article as it doesn't make sense to treat this separately. Warden (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a notable topic, and important for his notability since he composed music still performed in church services. However there is so little to say on the topic, and it needs to be said in his biography, that it doesn't need its own article. The Death of Beethoven ~~might have some possibilities as a stand alone article.~~ Ha ha, I didn't think WP would have it. The info on his last rite and last words belongs there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also that article has more information, some of which contradicts what is said in this one or at least adds to it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pps I don't think discussion of religious belief or lack of it would be out of place in the biography of any important artist, the two (religion and art) being so often related. But for the reasons I mentioned here it wouldn't need its own article, unless it had become notable through prolonged controversy.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ludwig van Beethoven#Religious views. There is simply not enough useful content here to justify a separate article. The "Compositions" section just notes that Beethoven composed music with religious themes before noting that this doesn't imply anything about his religious beliefs and should probably go. Most of the rest of the article notes things about his life that are either unsourced or highly disputed. If someone does add a lot of material on his religious views to his biography then it could be split out into a separate article but until then it's not necessary. Hut 8.5 21:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is certainly enough potential content,as it's discussed in every biography of this exceptionally famous person. and that the article has not yet been developed fully is irrelevant; Wikipedia is a work in progress Highly relevant to his notability, since among his most important compositions are a number of religious works. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ludwig van Beethoven#Religious views as per Hut 8.5. No-brainer to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:42, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 21st-century earthquakes in Europe[edit]

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

Newly-created "fork" of List of 21st-century earthquakes, designed to extend the accepted inclusion criteria to include non-notable earthquakes, when all the notable ones could easily be covered in the existing article see similar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of earthquakes in Europe 2011-2015 Mo ainm~Talk 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The logic would dictate that the List of 21st-century earthquakes is only going to grow and grow and become a size issue. WP is not paper, so there's no problem of having a comprehensive list of all earthquakes (with sources, of course) in a given region/timeframe. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the non-notable earthquakes are removed (per the inclusion criteria on the main article), you're left with not much at all therefore it belongs in the main article. The time for forking from the main article should happen when needed and not before, and especially not forking off a continent which isn't particularly seismically active. And as such deletion now wouldn't prevent a future fork being created if consensus on the main article says it should happen. Mo ainm~Talk 12:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is an encyclopedia. Articles that are non-notable in their own right would be merged into this list via the AfD procees. Take out all the non-notable entries (by your definition) from this list, for example, and you don't have much of a list. Just because the individual earthquakes don't have an entry, doesn't mean they should be excluded from a list of earthquakes. Lugnuts (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#G5. This article was created by a confirmed sock of Ryan kirkpatrick, a rather prolific sockpuppeteer. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both Mo ainm and HelloAnnyong. User:Ryan kirkpatrick has almost 50 sockpuppets now (not counting his continuing use of IPs), and WP needs to crack down on his continued violations IMO; apart from that, he seems unable or unwilling to follow guidelines or community consensus pertaining to notability, hence this list. I think the subject doesn't require a separate list at this stage, but would see no reason not to recreate in the future by an editor in good standing if it is warranted. YSSYguy (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So this could be deleted due to a technicality, then recreated 1 second later. What's the sense in that? Lugnuts (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be recreated when there is consensus on the existing article for a fork to be created, not because a de facto banned sockpuppeteer decided to circumvent consensus and the existing inclusion criteria for earthquake articles to create a fork similar to one previously deleted. Mo ainm~Talk 20:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to List of 21st-century earthquakes. Let's fork it later when necessary and only with the same criteria. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:48, 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. Big Dom 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Leong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom, not notable, nor particularly encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given coverage here and here for example. Pburka (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "Torontolife.com" a reliable source? Sp33dyphil © • ©
- I'm kind of stunned by that question. Toronto Life is a monthly magazine published by a well known publisher (St. Joseph Media). It's been published for 45 years. What makes you question its reliability? Pburka (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many third-party sources easily accessed by even a superficial online searchGrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:09, 26 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, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CREATIVE number 4 is met. Plenty of exhibits have his stuff. Dream Focus 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not wikipedia notable artist, minimal independent coverage, resulting in promotion using En Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned above by Pburka and Dream Focus, this artist has signifigant notability. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, per reasons mentioned above by Pburka and Dream Focus above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:23, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MeetYourMakers[edit]

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

Non-notable gaming organization. Ridernyc (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable group. No, or very limited reliable, third party sources. Many "references" are straight from their own website. At least one reference is another wikipedia, which is also obviously not acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources These I think are the best sources I could find: gry-online.pl, ggl.com, gotfrag.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Find More Sources - I would love to see this page stay up as mYm are a big team in the e-sports realm. I do agree that we need one or two independent sources though. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:39, 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, Davewild (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete gnews reveals nothing in-depth and article is full of primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 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. WP:NOTANCESTRY.COM perhaps needs to be created. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceziah Strickland[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Being someone's wife or having a notable ancestor are not sufficient for an encyclopaedia entry per WP:IINFO. Any general information on the surname is sufficiently addressed by Strickland (surname). Fæ (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. -- 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone is willing to merge the content to the parent article, let me know. Tone 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fridays (Cartoon Network)[edit]

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

Deleted in 2008 for lack of secondary sources. Still unsourced OR and fancruft. Possible G4? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a creator myself. No sources to provide it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect This is legnthy and well written, but it contains no sources, I dont want to see this one go, but without sources it can not be kept, I have searched but can not find relaiable sources over the internet if there is anyone whom owns any please add them now, so we could stubify and merge this into the article Cartoon Network by adding a section on "Fridays". – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's some mentions that verify existence, [35], [36], but not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 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. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of microcars by country of origin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

These seem to have been created as placeholders, but they have remained empty for nearly a year. No prejudice against recreation should there be some actual content to put in them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I would have thought this was covered by WP:CSD#A3, but by the letter I guess not... wiki markup with no actual text content isn't explicitly mentioned. Nevertheless, nom said it all, really -- just unnecessary placeholders. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:35, 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 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Loo[edit]

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

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

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

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

Appears to be about a non-notable professor and author. Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF in that he hasn't won any major awards, his books aren't particularly notable, and is only an associate professor. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Strong keep even a student can be entried in Wikipedia if he has enough third-party references mentioning and/or discussing his works. Google books references enough of Loo's works to me, not to mention the web at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilliesFan (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But would you consider those to be links that wikipedia considers reliable? Most of the ones I saw were blog entries and promotional pieces. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Dennis Loo has won Project Censored’s National First Place Award for “No Paper Trail Left Behind: the Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election,” The Nation Magazine’s “Most Valuable Campaign” Award for the “wear orange” against torture campaign, and the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award from the Society for the Study of Social Problems and he’s a Full Professor, not an Associate. His work has been headlined at Al-Jazzera, Middle East Online, and Consortium News and he’s a Steering Committee Member of the World Can’t Wait and a co-author of the Crimes Are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them Statement that ran in the New York Review of Books, The Nation and The New York Times. Articles of his have gone viral such as “DoD Training Manual: Protest is ‘Low-Level Terrorism.’” He also began appearing in Who’s Who in 2010. KMulleavy (talk) 2:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)— KMulleavy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you find one of those and link to it please. Dream Focus 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched for the guy and narrowed it down to include one of his two books. "Dennis Loo" "Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney" OR "Globalization and the Demolition of Society" [37] He gets some coverage for his work. Dream Focus 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotion of a not independently notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and pretty obvious promotion of the author and his latest book. On KMulleavy's comments, a response: those aren't major awards (per WP:PROF). Reading our own WP page for Project Censored, it seems even the progressive community have started to disown them, and I can't even find a website listing winners of the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award. Being a full Professor (which he is, according to the faculty listings page where he teaches - thank you for the correction) doesn't automatically grant WP:PROF status. "Who's Who" is of course a joke. I'm not even sure what "his articles have gone viral" is supposed to mean and how one can really prove that in an AfD discussion. As far as his books: one is published by a vanity press which has published only that book, the other is an independent publisher with some credentials but I don't see any cites that this book is particularly noteworthy (not like, say, Bugliosi's book on a similar subject which received much more notable attention.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for that award and did find a listing, but was unable to locate any awards for the study of social problems. What I did find focused on scholastics and did not include Loo's name in any of the previous winners. [38] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  - A search under the terms "Alfred R. Lindesmith Award" and "Dennis Loo" only brought up articles posted by Loo. I'm not sure if this is the exact Society for the Study of Social Problems that Loo refers to, but they don't appear to give out Lindesmith awards and I can't see anything on their website to where he has won one of the awards[39]. I believe that only the Drug Policy Alliance gives these out. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    - I did a little searching prompted by Tokyogirl79's question, and she's right. I cannot find any evidence of that award by "The Nation" magazine, as all links are to pages by or about Dennis Loo - "The Nation" website lists their award categories and there is no "Most Valuable Campaign" award. Additionally, "Crimes are Crimes..." is just an advertisement that appeared, and I fail to see how someone can be notable because an ad they were involved with appeared someplace notable; it's not like the NYTimes invited Loo to write for them. Something stinks - or more likely just WP:PUFF in action. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet wikipedia standards for notability. Blueyez941 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not very long, not up to WP:GNG, contains only a few reliable sources, do not nessisarily agree with the subjects book, but respect his opinion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above vote previously read "Keep per Reliable Sources." until the user "[withdrew] nomination [sic]". What reliable sources? Goodvac (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dennis Loo fails WP:BIO. Analyzing each source through the lens of the WP:GNG:
- "Higher Ed in Peril" is a document written by Dennis Loo inter alios. This source is not independent of the subject.
- "Dennis Loo's Blog" is, of course, Loo's blog. Sources that establish notability can neither be blogs nor articles written by the subject.
- "Administrative Directory" is a directory of faculty at Cal Poly. Directories constitute passing mentions and do not establish notability.
- "Impeach the President! » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names" is an unreliable article written by Gary Leupp on CounterPunch. CounterPunch allows user submissions. There is no indication that Leupp is actually an author of CounterPunch and not someone who sent in a submission.
- "Interview With Dennis Loo, Co-Editor of 'Impeach the President, the Case Against Bush and Cheney'" is an interview of Loo conducted by non-notable David Swanson and placed on his blog. This source is tantamount to a blog post I make after interviewing someone. Articles published by non-notable people in reliable sources do not establish notability.
- A Google News archive search for "Dennis Loo" -"by Dennis Loo" -"by Dr. Dennis Loo" yields no reliable sources beyond passing mentions.

In sum, there are no significant, independent reliable sources covering Dennis Loo. Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This person does not fit the standards set by Wikipedia for notability. Primus128 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Strong Keep~~(user has vote commented twice, so I am striking this one - Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)} - Larkmead Press is a small new press: "Larkmead Press features fiercely independent voices in fiction and nonfiction. We are committed to bringing challenging analyses, evocative prose and poetry, and engaging literature to wider audiences." Furthermore, according to Larkmead Press' homepage, they have two or three titles in the works for the future. See: http://larkmeadpress.net/[reply]

This refutes the claim that Larkmead Pres is a "vanity press."

Seven Stories Press is a reputable NYC publisher that has published well-known public figures, including but not limited to, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Kurt Vonnegut. Chomsky, Zinn and Vonnegut's works published by Seven Stories Press have had wide appeal beyond academic circles among the public. Furthermore, Chomsky, for instance, is "the most cited living person, being a strong reference point in the sciences. "Chomsky is one of the century's most important figures, and has been described as one who will be for future generations what Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Mozart, or Picasso have been for ours." See: Barsky, Robert F. Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997.

This refutes the claim that Seven Stories Press is "an independent publisher with some credentials."

Project Censored is a respected although controversial among some sectors organization. Project Censored has been exposing key stories that the US media and government have outright censored and/or in part concealed. PC has played a pivotal role in raising public understanding and awareness; the standard for what PC publishes are of the highest intellectual rigor. If you have not read a PC publication, I encourage you to do so and see for yourself. Loo has both won a First Place Award from Project Censored and wrote the Introduction to Censored 2008 (Loo, Dennis, 2007. “Introduction,” Pp. 29-34 in Phillips, Peter and Project Censored, Censored 2008, NY: Seven Stories Press). The honor of being asked to write the Introduction to Censored’s annual volume has been bestowed on the likes of Norman Solomon, Michael Critchton, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Gary Webb, Robert W. McChesney, Amy Goodman and Greg Palast – all of whom have a Wiki bio.

This refutes the claim that the awards PC grants are a "joke."

Loo's new book, Globalization and the Demolition of Society, has also been selected by Red Room - a website for authors and readers that features people like Maya Angelou and Salman Rushdie and that restricts its author membership to writers of books that have been published by recognized publishing houses or to journalists who have a recognized body of work or in rare instances, self-published authors whose books have been substantial successes - to be one of three prize books for a Red Room Civil Disobedience contest. The other prize books besides Loo’s Globalization and the Demolition of Society to be awarded to the contest winners are Naomi Wolf’s Give Me Liberty and Gina Misiroglu's three-volume American Countercultures: An Encyclopedia of Nonconformists, Alternative Lifestyles, and Radical Ideas in U.S. History. See: http://redroom.com/member/red-room-well-red/blog/blog-topic-civil-disobedience KMulleavy (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — KMulleavy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment (1) Quoting Larkmead Press' website means nothing, right now they only have one book. (2) Other authors that Seven Stories Press publishes is not relevant because notability is not inherited. (3) That's all well and nice about how Project Censored is publishing censored/concealed/whatever (including 9-11 Truthers apparently), but once you get into the latter category promoting 9-11 conspiracy theories, guess what, you are a joke. And notability still isn't inherited. (4) Red Room's own site says they are place for authors to promote their books, and by "prize book", they mean bloggers could win a copy in a contest. Wow. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from voting twice in the same AfD process. Firstly, these things aren't decided on a vote and secondly voting twice (vote stacking) does not actually give you two votes and generally never reflects well on the person doing such a thing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I struck the double vote comment. It sometimes happens and is usually a good faith mistake. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon claims that Larkmead Press is a "vanity press." I cited Larkmead Press' page as evidence that it is NOT a "vanity press," but in fact, a small, new press. This is what we do on Wikipedia--we cite evidence to prove our claims. Vernon's opinion of Larkmead Press isn't what holds; Vernon can call it what he wants but there is evidence that shows that his opinion doesn't match up with reality. I have used the available sources to disprove his point. New presses typically start off publishing one book--Larkmead Press currently has other books in the works, as I previously evidenced. Are Vernon and others aware of how the publishing world works?
Vernon also claims that Seven Stories Press is "an independent publisher with some credentials." I refuted this claim as well by establishing that his characterization of Seven Stories Press was also, quite simply, nothing more than his subjective opinion. There are in fact several other notable figures, including Loo, who have had their work published by Seven Stories Press and they all have Wiki entries. The articles Project Censored publishes explain reality--not hunches, not guess estimations of what happened--they get at the truth. Each of their articles are based on factual evidence that has been proven; their articles do withstand the test of criticism and time. Anyone can disagree with what they publish and Vernon can attempt refute them all he wants, but it is misleading and inaccurate to state "publishing censored/concealed/whatever (including 9-11 Truthers apparently), but once you get into the latter category promoting 9-11 conspiracy theories, guess what, you are a joke." There is nothing "conspiracy" related about Project Censored. Furthermore, Vernon's lack of intellectual rigor is astonishing when he tries to debunk my claims with words like "whatever" and baseless attacks such as "you are a joke." If Vernon and others on here are going to personally attack people who provide them with alternative evidence refuting their arguments, they lack the objectivity necessary to truly review this Wikipedia entry.
Vernon’s claim that notability isn’t “inherited” is not germane because the point that was made that Vernon’s defending is the idea that Seven Stories Press (SSP) is not that notable. When I showed exactly how notable they are, that goes to the issue of why they would publish Loo’s first book. It shows that the criteria they use to decide to publish Loo’s FIRST BOOK is also the SAME high standards’ criteria that they use to publish best selling authors like Kurt Vonnegut, Chomsky and Howard Zinn and NOT to publish others who would like to be published by SSP because of their prestige. The fact that Loo was able to get his very first book published by SSP says something about not only the quality of that book, but the quality of his work in general. This point also applies to your nonsense argument about the non-heritability of who is asked to write the Introduction to Project Censored’s annual volume. The list of who has done so reads like a Who’s Who including Michael Critchton et al and guess what, Loo is in that group. Why is that, because PC isn’t using the same criteria of notability to decide who they’re going to ask to write their introduction? It means that they, like SSP, are using the same high standards to decide who they will have do their introduction and that the same people besides Loo who has done an Introduction for PC who all have Wiki bios and are seen as in the same general importance, which includes Loo.
By prize book, Red Room means that Globalization and the Demolition of Society is a book that has been selected by the authors of Red Room as a book warranting serious discussion and debate among Red Room contributors and reviewers. Yes, Red Room exists to help authors promote their books. But look at who is on that website – Salman Rushdie, Maya Angelou, et. - and look at their criteria for admission to premium book author membership. You have to be a serious book author to get admitted to that status. The fact that they would choose Loo’s new book as one of three to be singled out for this contest as the prize indicates that this book author’s site that includes the most famous authors on the planet means that they don’t think Loo’s new book is a vanity press product but a serious and important piece of scholarship worthy of being offered as a prize. KMulleavy (talk) 8:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — KMulleavy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Notability is not inherited. Please understand that. Just because a site or publisher carries authors Wikipedia states is notable does not automatically make Loo notable. Please check WP:Author and WP:NOTINHERITED. I also checked out Red Room and saw that it is a site where people pay to get their books advertised. The mentions to Loo on the site are all press releases or personal blog posts, meaning that they're pieces that Loo or one of his agents paid to get placed on the site. Furthermore, being published at all doesn't guarantee notability either. Loo could have had every single one of his books published through Harper Collins, one of the top publishers in the field, yet that still wouldn't give him automatic notability. Whether the publisher is large, small, vanity, or self created does not matter. Being published does not give you automatic notability regardless of whether or not the publisher is highly notable or not. It doesn't matter what their "standards" are, that still doesn't mean that Loo is notable. I have to repeat myself in saying that I have been unable to find anything that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Everything that I've found would be considered an unreliable source, being either promotional or being on a site where anyone can submit anything to get placed on the site. They're all user generated pieces, which rarely counts as a reliable source. See WP:RELIABLESOURCES. He fails notability guidelines, plain and simple. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  - Additional: I also want to note that the sole requirement of premium membership on Red Room seems to be a $250 price tag and the free membership is pretty easily obtained. Even if the site was ultra exclusive (which it's not), belonging to an exclusive club still doesn't automatically give you notability. It's not inherited, meaning that just because he has somewhat of a link to sites featuring notable people doesn't bestow notability on him. It doesn't work that way. The same thing applies to any group that Loo belongs to. It doesn't matter if he contributed to World Can't Wait or any number of wikipedia-worthy groups. His allying himself with the groups does not bestow notability on him. There is nothing that names him as a particularly noteworthy member of these groups or movements other than Loo's own blogs and articles. I also feel like you are venturing into WP:OWN territory and I can't help but feel that there might be a conflict of interest (WP:COI) here as well. I'm not trying to attack you by stating these, just voicing a concern that I've had for a while now. If you are someone associated with Loo (friend, coworker, family member, representative, agent, or Loo himself), it's best to admit that you are involved with him because if it's found out otherwise it could undermine any arguments you make. (See Wikipedia:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest for information about that.) Being involved doesn't automatically mean that you can't contribute anything about him to wikipedia but it does mean that you have to be extra careful when doing so as well as when you are defending such contributions. If you're just passionate about his work then that's great, just be careful that you aren't over inflating things in order to keep the article on here. Stuff like that is pretty easy to see through and the closing admins are admins for a reason. Again, not trying to be nasty. I'm just giving you a heads up. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization and the Demolition of Society[edit]

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

A few reasons why I am proposing this for deletion: (1) This article is basically a book review, and in it's current state is non-encyclopedic.. (2) Author does have a Wikipedia article, but the book is published by a vanity house that has only appeared to published this book from gsearch results. I'm reading WP:NBOOK and looking through other gsearch results, and while I do see a few reviews out there on some blogs, I don't see any coverage on a major review site (e.g. NY Times), so it doesn't seem to meet criteria (1), and it doesn't meet (2-5) either. PROD declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does this not merit a wikipedia article, but I also noticed this entry was added shortly after the article's creator set up a lengthy article about the author as well. (Which I'll be nominating for deletion shortly.) Fails WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Both - it's Blatant Advertising, I'm afraid. No attempt at independent references. Please take this as my support for deleting the article about the author too. Well spotted, Tokyogirl79. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - this and Dennis Loo - self promotion of a not independently notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 02:28, 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. The consensus is keep. I am not completely sure myself, but that's irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Tank Man[edit]

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

This is an incident that occurred during the Egyptian Revolution that I don't believe qualifies as a notable event. Although it is compared to the Tiananmen Square Tank Man, there are vast differences between the two in terms of coverage and significance. This event doesn't appear to have been the subject of anything more than routine news coverage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see that you have one point concerning this article, which focuses on the "notability" of the incident. Actually, the incident is very famous in Egypt, specially that it occured on the first day of the revolution. Many of Egyptians and the media praised the act, and all of them considered this act to be the trigger that made more Egyptians -who were afraid to join the revolution- go down to the streets and protest against Mubarak's regime.

The photo of this incident is widely popular over the internet and on the streets, as a symbol of peaceful resistance, bravery and strong will.
Also, the man that stood infront of the vehicle is still alive and refuses to go puplic, in spite of the media pressure on him and the people's curiosity to know him, and he become famous as "Shaab Al-Modarra'a" (The guy of the tank), or Tank Man, as I wrote.
The guy said in his only media appearance in Al-Ahram (link below - article in Arabic): "I did this for my country not for fame" and "I knew about the Tiananmen Tank Man after I return home and saw the western media comparing me to him. If I knew about him before I went to the streets, I would resisted the police vehicle more strongly as he did to the army tank".
That's why I included the Tank Man comparison in the article. I wish that I answered your point properly.
Ahram Link: http://www.ahram.org.eg/Al%20Mashhad%20Al%20Syiassy/News/83696.aspx
Ahmad E Shahin (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep, was even sourced in France 24 GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E. Perhaps a single line somewhere in the other articles on these protests. Not really comparable with an event that made the cover of Time magazine. --Crusio (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if it made the cover of a magazine that sells just as many copies, over in a different nation? Dream Focus 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is plenty of coverage from Egypt, and some elsewhere. At AfD we are not obliged to make comparisons with any other articles or events, just to examine each case on its own merits. This one is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – References in the article, and available references, surpasses WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw the video, and its one guy running out there while the police keep spraying water about, and then others soon run over to join him. I don't see as how standing in front of a single water shooting vehicle, is equal to that of a man standing in front of a column of tanks in China. But that is how the media is covering it. [40] Large numbers of protesters all around, and someone does this followed by others, all of which who keep moving back as the vehicle moves forward. If the Egyptian media is uses this as a symbol of their revolution though, so be it, it notable for that reason alone. Dream Focus 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. No inherent notability for getting your picture in the newspaper for standing in front of an armored vehicle and stopping it for a bit. Wikipedia is not a summary of everything that has been in the news. In the context of the Egyptian revolution, this was pretty minor. It could be mentioned, in one sentence, in the general article about the uprising. Edison (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfactory coverage in reliable publications. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reliable sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 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 keep. Big Dom 15:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Respiratory Care Foundation[edit]

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

Contested PROD by creator with reason article is notable. Fails WP:GNG with trivial news coverage. Almost all news mentions are routine and cover a local fundraising event with subject as a beneficiary instead of focusing on the foundation itself. Also no references and obvious WP:COI. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three times in the last 24 hours you have attempted to delete this article. The American Respiratory Care Foundation is an independent organization that funnels money into scholarships and research in Asthma, COPD and many other respiratory therapy and pulmonology/medicine research projects. This is not a "local fundraising event." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Sources may be difficult to attain but not impossible and its a little bit ridiculous to spam-attempt to delete this topic that is clearly at least minimally notable. Pulmonological (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep (changed opinion based on sources found by Edison) Wikipedia has clearly established guidelines on notability. While its true that this is not a paper encyclopedia, and particularly is not limited by size, every article must be verifiable - this is non-negotiable. If proper reliable sources can be found, then we should keep this, if it remains without sources we should not. If there are no published sources that meet Wikipedia's rules on sources then we cannot take your word (or my word, or anyone's word) about the subject's notability. Sparthorse (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep utilizing any of the above links gives ample sources. I can incorporate them into the article but the weight of this shouldn't just fall on my shoulders. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to provide notable and reliable information, not simply spam delete templates and then command the article creator to prove it can be admitted into your personal encyclopedia all on their own. Pulmonological (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:BURDEN does put it on your shoulders, to whit: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." For the record, I've had a look myself, but there seems to be no indepth coverage in news (a fundraiser at the University of Maryland seems to be the most significant coverage) or books (passing mentions only), and only passing mentions elsewhere on the internet. In the face of this lack of reliable sources, I too !vote Delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel trolled by serial AfD flaggers. Pulmonological (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way. Please try to assume good faith; we are all here to try and make the encyclopedia better. Part of that is the addition of new contributions, but another part is the management of content in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Our opposition to the inclusion of the ARCF is based on these policies; so far, I personally (and I assume Vanadus and Sparthorse as well) have been unable to locate any sources for this article which allow it to meet the policy for inclusion. This is not a reflection or criticism on you, your editing, the ARCF or its work. Yunshui 雲水 08:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article prior to your vote, which seems to have gone un-noticed. assuming good faith goes both ways. In the original delete statement above Vanadus says "and obvious WP:COI". Contributions by that user also suggest they copy and paste AfD templates on new articles without reading them. After a clearly notable article has been suggested to be deleted with no other templates for suggestion (how about the notability template?) by the same user on the same day it is hard to not feel trolled. Pulmonological (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of the article's refs before my earlier comment - without exception, they are either passing mentions (a listing by the AARC or EPA is not significant, in-depth coverage) or from the ARCF's own website (which means they are not independent). This is the main bone of contention - there do not appear to be reliable sources which discuss the Foundation in detail, and that is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per availability of reliable sources: [41], [42], [43]. A valid, encyclopedic topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply linking to the Google searches which, it may astound you to discover, I have already performed (and which any editor can view using the links at the top of this page), perhaps you might like to indicate which of these trivial, passing mentions confers notability, per the GNG? Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Books from Google search which appear to be independent and reliable which discuss this organization include Respiratory Care: Principles and - Page 1173, which has a nice paragraph, Comprehensive perinatal and pediatric respiratory care - Page 158 which briefly cites them as being an authoritative source for respiratory hazards, Fundamentals of respiratory care research, which calls them "the foremost medical professional association to which respiratory therapists turn for funding support." The Grants Register 2009, which says they are "dedicated to the art, science, quality and technology of respiratory care. It is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of supporting research, education and charitable activities and to promote prevention, quality treatment and management of respiratory-related diseases." A strong keep would need more extensive coverage. The numerous snippet view sources could not be examined to determine the depth of coverage, but someone with better online access to a research library's holding might be able to check them. Edison (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The EPA works with them and thinks highly of them. [44] Google news archive shows their scholarships get coverage. Dream Focus 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The EPA works with them and thinks highly of them. http://www.epa.gov/asthma/partners.html#National_Organizations Google news archive shows their scholarships get coverage. Dream Focus 02:40%
Comment So far, the only thing I see here that comes close to being a valid source for notability is Edison's discovery of the paragraph in Respiratory Care, and even that is minimal (it's in an appendix listing various respiratory care organisations in the US - essentially an extended list entry). The reference in Comprehensive perinatal and pediatric respiratory care is a passing mention that does not address the organisation directly (it mentions a statement that they made, but says nothing about the ARCF itself). The quote from Fundamentals of respiratory care research might suffice, although again it looks as though it could simply be a list entry. Finally, the Grants Register 2009 is simply that - a register of grants - which denotes no inherent notability (should we have a Wikipedia article on every postgraduate who obtained a grant in 2009, because they're all in there?).

For the rest, DreamFocus lists a source which is already in the article - a list entry - and Northamerica1000 has only contributed Google searches. The rest of the article sources are, as I pointed out above, either entries in lists on organisations which say nothing about the ARCF, or from the ARCF's own files. Much as I appreciate Edison's work in tracking sources down, above, I still don't think we have the significant coverage required by the general notability guidelines. Yunshui 雲水 07:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a charitable organization, the subject should meet the more specific criteria listed at WP:ORG. The arguments in this AfD appear to focus on guidelines for the depth of coverage, which specifically mention inclusion in lists of similar organizations and passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization as insufficient material for notability. The sources cited thus far have been lists, passing mentions, or the subject's own website. This includes the paragraph in Respiratory Care. Note the entire chapter 56 is merely a descriptive list of various groups in the respiratory care field. In any case, the difficulty in finding sources and the current lack of a singular substantial mention of the foundation indicate a lack of significant coverage. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is very clear that this organization is notable. It seems to me the question of how notable is subjective especially to those wishing to delete this topic. This topic is by far more notable than many articles that haven't recieved this much attention. The news is full of mentions of their continued support of individuals and research; there are hundreds of thousands of articles that mention them as funding supporters and they are partnered with the EPA, what about their relationship would the deleters prefer be sourced? There has been a lot of time spent on this debate that could have gone into actually improving the article and thousands of others that actually qualify for AfD nomination. Kastyn.rrt (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. The sources have been added after the article was nominated for deletion, so complaining that editors did not know about them is a bit rich. Sparthorse (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming "but look at all the Google hits, ITSNOTABLE!" does not get us any further towards finding an actual source that provide significant, in-depth coverage of the Foundation. I note that the source Kastyn.rrt recently added to the article doesn't even mention the ARCF (it references the American Association for Respiratory Care, an organisation for which notability is easily established). Simply throwing every minor mention of the terms "respiratory" and "American" into the article just doesn't cut it - what's needed are independent sources which have actually said something about the ARCF, as opposed to merely noting their existence. Yunshui 雲水 22:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:GNG is met in reliable sources, detail and the significance of what the company has done. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources, please? Yunshui 雲水 06:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This foundation is well documented in the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To which article are you referring? Yunshui 雲水 21:27, 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. — Joseph Fox 01:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Date A Black Girl, White Girl or Hallfie.[edit]

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

PROD declined by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern=No external sources, nor any indication of the subject's notability. Apart from a few routine reviews, it does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is not a book; it's a short story. Granted, the author, Junot Diaz, later won a Pulitzer Prize for a novel. But this article title isn't even suitable as a redirect, because it's missing two words and misspells another word: it should be "How to Date a Brown Girl (Black Girl, White Girl, or Halfie)". See [45]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I tried to flesh out the article some more but it still needs a lot of work. As I was looking for sources I did note that there are more than a few schools and colleges that appear to use this short story, which is one of the requirement of WP:NBOOK. I'm not sure if there's enough of them, but about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the links in a google search seemed to take me to various lesson plans and such. I don't know if this is enough to warrant keeping it, hence the weak keep. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

References alone (especially to routine book reviews) do not assert notability. Please see WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but I was more referring to the story's usage in classrooms as a potential reason to keep it. It (along with the anthology it's published in) seems to be used in quite a few classrooms. I just don't know if enough classrooms use it to where it can be considered notability under WP:NBOOK since I'm limited to the classes that show up under google search. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Merge and redirect to Junot Diaz. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it is a short story, however, some of the sources listed at G-books (Literary magazine review: Vol. 15, Creating Character Emotions (p. 140-141), Current Trends in Narratology (p. 111), Library journal: Vol. 126, Sí Magazine (1-5, 1995, p. 88)) suggest that there's a possibility to write an interesting article about this literary work. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to the correct title: How to Date a Brown Girl (Black Girl, White Girl, or Halfie). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the G-books search result for "How to date a browngirl, blackgirl, whitegirl, or halfie" (I assume it is the same story) gives a lot of good sources. In my opinion it is a notable short story. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is "very close" to passing WP:GNG, most How to novels are useful, however this one is not so much. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the criteria of classroom use is determinative in this case; part of the reason for this standard is that the article will be used by students. Though "useful" by itself is not a criterion, it adds to the reason for keeping an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 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 keep. It's a bit hard to delete an article with the rationale "it's not sourced right now". We wouldn't have this website if that were the case. — Joseph Fox 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N. Chandrasekharan Nair[edit]

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

Claimed to be a famous writer but no-one seems able to find any supporting references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the claim that "no-one" can find references includes you. Could you please outline the efforts that you have made to find references? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify to remove many claims unsupported by sources. I'm also weary about all the sources for someone who appears to be political coming from a single newspaper. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not yet substantial enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 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, v/r - T P 02:11, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information in the article is supported by the reliable sources listed there, and is sufficient to show notability by the GNG, and probably WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. The article had an adequate obit from The Hindu (the most reliable Indian newspaper available to us, as one of the people who commented may not be aware) to show notability at the time it was nominated, and Phil immediately added others from the same newspaper. We very often have sourcing problems with people with such careers in India, even people with asserted careers as notable as this, as there are no newspaper, magazine, or citation indexes available for that country, and no online union library catalogs either, but this time we're fortunate. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 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. Thanks, postdlf, for your efforts, but I think it has been established that the article's not verifiable. — Joseph Fox 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under Saturn Retrograde[edit]

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

Not notable. Album has never charted. (according to http://www.billboard.com/#/album/forgotten-tomb/under-saturn-retrograde/1505271) No other indication of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Forgotten Tomb. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG because of a complete lack of references. Failing that, merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 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, v/r - T P 02:18, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AllMusic page for this album is just a track listing with credits, no review, (same with iTunes, for what that's worth) and from a quick search I was unable to find any major (English-language) media outlets commenting on it. Yes, the band is Italian, so maybe Italian-language sources can be found, but it:Under Saturn Retrograde doesn't have any sources either (again, for what that's worth). I did nevertheless find what may be reliable sources, in the form of web-only music review and news sites dedicated to metal: this site appears to have a professional staff, not a blog free-for-all, and maybe this one too, but I'm less confident. This isn't my area, I'm just playing the "let's see if I can help save a random article at AFD" game. postdlf (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 23:49, 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 delete. copyvio of http://www.jofr.org/who-we-are/#.TqgeQI-Ao8m] I originally declined a G12 speedy because I could not find the copyvio, but Cameron Scott has figured that out. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Foreign Relations[edit]

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

Appears to be a very newly founded academic journal. The author claims to be a manager for this journal, and the entire text is quite POV; it was also tagged as a copyvio, although at the present time the URL marked as the source doesn't have this content. Regardless of notability issues, this page will have to be rewritten 100% to stand as a proper article, so there's no reason to keep it even if we do find sources about it. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11. --Crusio (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11 - also I should note that yesterday, the text was a copyvio as it was directly cut and paste from their facebook page - however I notice they have now deleted that text from facebook - so I have no idea where that leaves us in regards to copyright. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this may not be a copyvio but examining the website, there seems little to demonstrate that this is more than a new news portal and no external evidence of notability has been put forward. I can quote the WSJ or The Times on my blog, and relabel it as a "journal", it would still fail WP:WEB. Fæ (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep, the journal is notable and comparable to E-International Relations which has a legitimate entry on wikipedia. It has respectable and notable contributors who are also entried on Wikipedia such as Deepak Tripathi and Iqbal Ahmed. It is clearly not a blog but a genuine web journal. Non experts should be careful with their votes GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "The journal is notable". Based on which criterion of which notability guideline? It was formed very recently, so if there are already reliable sources out there confirming its notability, that's quite an achievement. --Crusio (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: it is notable as per the credentials and notability of its high-profile contributors. I have already mentioned Deepak Tripathi and Iqbal Ahmed but there is also, at random, Ambassador David Shinn [46] or John K. Yi [47] who is referenced in prestigious The Diplomat. And I have just reviewed ten names out of the contributors at random so far... I could go across the whole list if you want though. Again, it is tragic non experts can cast out good contributions. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see any independent reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for it... One in the Huffington_Post [48] one in the SIPA Morningside Post [49] and one in the EastWest_Institute [50] plus other scattered third-party mentions [51] [52] [53]. Simply, it is easier to delete than to save an article. Deletion is a much lazier attitude, which require no extra effort, saving an article required the extra search for sources and wikiying. Much too often it seems, people want to process articles in the least effortful manner. Many deletions are explained by this. I see you are a neuroscientist, well keep in mind the List of cognitive biases that impede objective reviewing, and that Man, editors at large then, are cognitive misers. If you ever had a rejected manuscript in your life, this wikipedia experience will help you understand it. Members of the Article rescue team try not to be cognitive misers. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references is about this journal. This is really not the kind of coverage meant by our guidelines. As for your words about my working attitude, I've indeed had more than one manuscript rejected (and as an editor, I have rejected hundreds of them), so I do know how it feels to reject or get rejected. Of course, most of the times the rejections (of my articles) were justified and I just tried to learn from the experience and ameliorate my next manuscript. And, believe it or not, as an editor I have several times received thank you notes from rejected authors (I was often fortunate in finding good peer reviewers) thanking me for the constructive criticisms of their manuscripts (and in case you wonder, they were not meant sarcastically, as all those people later submitted other work to me). --Crusio (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the crack at "non-experts", Wikipedia has no preference for expert editors as articles have to be written for non-expert readers. However competence is required and that includes understanding why a website is not notable unless independent reliable sources can be referenced to demonstrate that fact. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G12 Clear copyvio and should be deleted immediately. There is no version in the history without the copyvio, so if anyone wanted to save this article, policy is clear, it should be deleted and they should start from scratch. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:50, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ExerciseTV[edit]

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

The first and second paragraphs of the "History" section reads like something taken directly from marketing materials, and 10 seconds worth of research confirms this. The entire "History" section was taken directly from promotional materials for Exercise TV. All three paragraphs, in their entirety, can be found on ExerciseTV's Facebook page (see ^[1]). For that matter, the opening section is only a very slightly modified version of the first paragraph of the history section. The entire article is blatant plagiarism at worst, and at the very least is just very un-encyclopedic in tone. As this page is of debatable notability and at the moment is just plagiarized from promotional materials that are available elsewhere, I think the page should probably be deleted unless someone is willing to step up and take over this article. Bookbaby2004 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources such as this article from the Chicago Tribune establish notability. I have reverted the promotional, copyright-violating content to a clean version of the article. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cleaned up now, looks good.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 02:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reliable Sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cunard's changes. Issues with tone/possible plagiarism appear to have been resolved. Gongshow ^Talk 03:45, 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} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TECS[edit]

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

Notability uncertain. Article does not seem to demonstrate an encyclopaedic enough topic, nor a subject that warrants its own article. – Richard BB 01:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TECS (TOPPERS Embedded Component System) is one of the component technologies for computer embedded systems. Apart from a numbered list setting forth vague goals like "efficiency" and "productivity", this is all you are going to learn from this article. Google News on the expanded acronym yields 3 pages in Japanese; if there's substantial coverage there I cannot tell.[54] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 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 speedy keep. SK#1. Nominator failed to advance any argument for deletion, no !votes after a week. Don't know why I hit 'relist' instead of 'close' the first time. No prejudice against immediate renomination if deletion rationale is provided. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Barnett[edit]

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

Touch Of Light (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Richey[edit]

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

Not a notable musician--I cannot find a single reference that says more than she will play in this or that club. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed at http://kellyrichey.com/press.cfm are worth sifting through I think. For example, the Guitar Player article checks out; the full citation is Ellis, Andy (March 2002). "Buzz: Kelly Richey", Guitar Player 36 (3): 57–60. I'm also seeing a large amount of coverage in the The Cincinnati Post, a little in The Plain Dealer, and various other articles in media beyond Cincinnati such as Hughes, Andrew S (October 2, 2011). "Richey changes her life, renews her music", South Bend Tribune, p. D2 – which is a long article about her, not merely a concert listing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I am not as yet convinced, but I've looked up the GP article (she gets what amounts to one full page and shares the article with two other axe slingers) and added all the relevant information to the article. It's not much, but it's certainly not nothing, I'll grant you that. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added eight more newspaper and magazine articles about Richey. With coverage in a range of media, across more than a decade, and across various regions, this should be a clear keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per references added by user:Paul Erik. Topic meets criteria #1 in WP:MUSICBIO. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kelly Richey easily passes the GNG through the sources added by Paul Erik (talk · contribs). Here are more significant reliable sources: "Blues guitarist Kelly Richey to take hiatus after Bud Blues show" from the Kalamazoo Gazette, "Inseparables: Kelly Richey And Her '65 Stratocaster - After years of playing the club circuit and festivals, she's proving women can play a mean guitar, too." and "Pleasing the Perfectionist - Kelly Richey is her own worst critic, but even she likes her new album. 'I know I did my best,' she says. " from the Erie Times-News, and "She's got the blues: Kelly Richey Band plays Empire tonight" from the Grand Forks Herald. Goodvac (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage exists in multiple independent, reliable sources. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:Independent. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:01, 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} 05:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Woods (All My Children)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fictional men of All My Children, volume 2

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

The previous bundled debate resulted a no consensus; this is a 2nd nomination for that article. However, this character is not notable enough to either have a stand alone article or be merged into another article, such as List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. This article has only plot and no real-world perspectives (portrayers aside); he appeared for less than one year after first appearance. Whether major or minor does not matter, right? People, fans and non-soap casual people alike, have not been familiar with this fictional character, and there have been no efforts to establish this character's notability, such as of Olivia Richards, and to improve this article to achieve the "good article" status or the looks of the great, such as Pauline Fowler,, Erica Kane, or Luke and Laura. Are there reasons to overlook this article? Have people searched for this character? --Gh87 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Neutrality^talk 19:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The topic of the article, a fictional character, does not meet the general notability guideline. Also, the article itself is an unreferenced plot-only description of a fictional work, so a merge is not justified. Jfgslo (talk) 03:16, 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} 05:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Roy (ice hockey)[edit]

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

This article does not meet the general notability guidelines; athlete has not competed at the WP:NHOCKEY level of the sport Vitterio (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides the sources already in the article, there is this from The Hockey News, this from Yahoo, this from the Toronto Star, this short piece in the Globe and Mail, another short piece, another Yahoo piece. And there apparently was this in the Vancouver Sun, though the link no longer seems to work. I think there is plenty to meet GNG, even if we totally disregard his honors. Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 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. Tone 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headpress[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009. Searching for sources has turned up only one passing mention in a non-affiliated source. Without reliable sources, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yunshui (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now contains references, does comply with WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Searching for sources will turn up quite a number of references to Headpress in non-affiliated sources, including recent book review, movie magazine database the horror-mood the generalist. Headpress is a long running independent book publisher, established in 1990 and still operating. User:WorldHeadpress 15:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of these are reliable sources:

This is a blog, and doesn't mention Headpress except as the publisher of the book - see WP:USERG and WP:NOTINHERITED.
This is just a list of publications, see WP:ENN.
This and this are blog entries, see WP:USERG again.

Yunshui (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:the sources in the article:

1 might pass WP:RS. Its independence is debatable, given that it is almost entirely the words of the company's founder.
2 is just a film listing, no information about the company beyond confirmation of existence.
3 doesn't appear to mention Headpress at all.

Yunshui (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WorldHeadpress (talk · contribs) is presently blocked for a username violation, but he has admitted he owns the article subject. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously promotional puffpiece. I can't find any usable sources either. EEng (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources found. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:59, 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. Sources have now been added to show notability Big Dom 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stic.man[edit]

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

This person is not a notable musician as evidenced by the lack of news coverage, mainstream or otherwise. [55] There is no material, non-trivial biographical coverage of this artist to be found. Cheekytrees (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find anything reliable on the web, so apparently Stic.man is non-notable. GNG fails. Verification fails. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep member of notable band with activity independent of the band, solo releases. a review is here. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why this article can't be redirected to Dead Prez? I really don't see why AfD is necessary here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That (merge/redirect) sounds a sensible outcome. It really was very difficult finding anything out there on the web, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 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} 01:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now contains multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability under WP:MUSICBIO. Gobonobo ^T ^C 19:09, 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. Sources have been found which have been persuasive enough on those commenting here, for me to judge that there is a consensus that the article passes the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Jenkins (baseball)[edit]

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

Another non-notable article from Alexautographs. He PROD'd then unPROD'd strangely. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator offers no reasonable argument for deletion. Alex (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say "non-notable" is the #1 argument for deletion on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fairly accomplished minor league manager.. several league titles. Can we stop the afd war please? Spanneraol (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an AfD war. I'm trying to clear out articles that don't meet notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with Comment) This guy is far lower on baseball's food chain than Keith Lieppman, who was just deleted two days ago. Without more substantial sourcing, Mr. Jenkins appears to be a non-notable minor league baseball figure. (Also, this is more trolling by Alex. Voting Keep on this guy while voting Delete on Matt Harrington is the height of absurdity. Someone needs to stop this troll ASAP.) — NY-13021 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necesarily agree with the Lieppman result, but just because that was deleted doesn't mean this should be, i.e., WP:OTHERSTUFF. Rlendog (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One problem with nominations of old time high minor leaguers - i.e., which may be defined as before baseball expanded south or west of St. Louis (i.e., before the late 1950s) or before the minors essentially became development leagues (i.e., before somewhere in the 1940s) is that they were more important, and received more significant coverage than they typically get today, but much of that is less accessible today. But a quick Google Book search shows at least 3 with some relevant coverage of Jenkins: this book, this Baseball Digest article that has several paragraphs about his role in Hank Sauer's early career and a Billboard Magazine article, of all things. If this were a modern player or manager or scout, that may not be enough, but given that this is likely the tip of the iceberg of the coverage he received when he was active a half century plus ago, I have to go with keep. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a danger when it comes to articles from the pre-internet era. I've argued similarly in the Perry Lipe AfD, among others. However, I'm not sure I agree that minor leaguers were "more important" back then. I bet the average minor leaguer in 2011 gets 10 times more coverage than the average minor leaguer of old, yet there seems to be a growing bias here toward deleting modern-day players and keeping the older guys. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of important differences between minor leaguers back then and today. Today the minor leagues are strictly a development league - players are there primarily to try to make the major leagues, or because they haven't figured out that they never will, or haven't figured out what to do with themselves after figuring out that they never will. Before 1940 or so, playing in the minor leagues - particularly the high minor leagues - could be an end in itself. If you were a California boy not inclined to move more that 1500 miles away from home, the PCL was the highest league you could hope to play in. If you were a DiMaggio, of course you'd have major league scouts knocking at your door persuading you to try out east. Even if you were a notch or a few below that, you'd likely get enough scouting interest to persuade you to make the trek to try out. But if you were a player who was good enough to be a major league reserve, you may never bother leaving your starting PCL job. In addition, there was no major league baseball west or south of St. Louis (or in Canada) prior to the late 1950s. So if you were a California baseball fan, the bast players/teams you were likely to ever see in a game that counted were PCL. Same with Texas, Georgia, Florida, etc. And with much less TV coverage than there is today (none if you go back far enough), these areas would never even get to see major leaguers on TV. aWhich also helped the minor league gate, allowing them to pay higher salaries to retain their good players, who nowadays would just be called up to the majors by their affiliated major league team. And even major US cities east and north of St. Louis had no major league teams - e.g., Baltimore. For these reasons, Hall of Famers like Lefty Grove and Sam Rice did not make their major league debuts until they were 25. And minor league teams like the 1924 Baltimore Orioles (with Grove, Tommy Thomas, George Earnshaw and Jack Ogden all in their mid-20s) could have better pitching rotations than most major league teams.

So while many minor leaguers were no more important than today's minor leaguers, many were. Do you think that the Baltimore Orioles' or San Francisco Seals' or Los Angeles Angels' players got significantly less regional coverage than their respective major league teams' players do today? And to the extent that today's minor league players get significant coverage today, they of course meet GNG. Many, many high level minor leaguers pre-1950 or so got plenty of coverage - it's just not so easy to find. Rlendog (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of that may be true, and I have no doubt it is, but GNG still needs to be met. Dozens and dozens of modern-era minor leaguers have been and continue to be deleted. If we're supposed to presume that these older guys passed GNG in a time when there was probably 95% less baseball coverage than there is now, then the same should apply to modern-era players. I doubt there's a single modern minor leaguer who hasn't had at least two or three feature stories written about him, but they get deleted because no one goes and finds them. — NY-13021 (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the ratio of coverage of today's minor leaguers to those 50+ years ago is anything like you state - for one thing, there were MANY more newspapers around then, and a greater proportion of fans specifically following these minor league teams. But even if it is true, most coverage of modern minor leaguers should be relatively easy to find on the internet - if significant coverage exists and any editor is interested enough, they'll find some. That is not necessarily the case of older minor leaguers, who do pass GNG but the direct evidence is not necessarily available on line. Hence, I look to indirect coverage, such as coverage in modern books, even if that coverage is not in itself necessarily adequate in itself to pass GNG, because when there's smoke (i.e., some coverage in recently published off line sources available on Google Books) there's fire (more significant coverage when the person was actually active). Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I dislike the pervasive prejudice of the baseball Wikiproject against minor leaguers, and WP:OTHERSTUFFWASDELETED isn't a valid argument. That being said, where are the sources? The ones Rlendog cites only mention the subject in passing, and certainly in no "significant detail," so does not meet the GNG. It's already the case that too many articles are kept at AfD because of the airy presumption that sources must exist out there, somewhere, maybe ... and never do appear. To quote WP:IRS, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Ravenswing 16:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree except that there are reliable sources that provide plenty of information, namely the stats sites. They are considered routine for the purpose of establishing notability, but they are still reliable sources with plenty of information on which to base the article Rlendog (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, saying that similar pages were deleted is a valid argument. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is invalid because anyone can create a page in violation of consensus about things such as notability, but the fact that similar AFDs ended in delete means that consensus is generally against articles of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Appears to be this entry at findagrave; military service does not meet WP:Soldier; no helpful criteria covered, but may assist further searches. Dru of Id (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sympathetic to User:Rlendog, but User:Ravenswing has an effective response. Minor leaguers are not presumed notable. They need significant coverage from sources, which has not been demonstrated in this case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:47, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't evaluated it all yet, but I'v found some additional sources. Jenkins was the star pitcher on the 1929 Duke baseball team that won a conference championship in 1929. A couple of the articles having better coverage of him include (1) Ernie Jenkins Was Hurling Ace For Duke Devils‎, Hartford Courant, Aug 21, 1931; (2) Garbark Out as Augusta's Pilot; Jenkins Takes Over, The Sporting News, July 7, 1948. Cbl62 (talk) 06:22, 21 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} 01:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per sources researched by user:Cbl62. The timeframe of press coverage for the individual isn't congruent with access to many hyperlinked news links. However, coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated to be adequately available to meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gets coverage. [56] Those articles are hidden behind paywalls, but check the summaries. Ernie Jenkins Was Hurling Ace For Duke Devils Pay-Per-View - Hartford Courant - Aug 21, 1931. Dream Focus 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Its a stub, it requires improvments, but it appears salvageble. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:17, 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 delete. G3'd as a blatant hoax. The claim to be 119th in the world in the ATP rankings clinched it, when I checked the ATP site itself. Out of 1,949 players ranked in the singles rankings, NONE are from Saudi Arabia, and only one, at #1,359, for doubles. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sufyan Al-Ashgar[edit]

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

page an utter hoax - no such person exists (should be speedily deleted, really Mayumashu (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either non-existent or non-notable. JORGENEVSKI 01:14, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Dhaid Cricket Village[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of cricket grounds. Held matches for a minor international tournament of little significance in 2009. Not enough outside coverage to assert notability, so fails WP:GNG to a large extent. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is kept it should be moved to Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:N. A Google search reveals absolutely nothing to construct a substantial article from, beyond trivial mentions -- generally match reports from those games it hosted. The fact its profile page on ESPNcricinfo is so bare is pretty telling: literally just its name, location and the local time! [57] Can't even find local coverage to include. Just no chance of a good article here, I don't think. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 19:33, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (2002)[edit]

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

This book doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It consists mostly of reprints of various articles, and our article essentially just rehashes the table of contents. I don't see anything encyclopedic here, nor any way that this meets notability criteria, and it's been around for 5 years or so without improvement. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NBOOK. The Opposing Viewpoints series list and everything on it are fine AFD subjects IMHO although I'm inclined to see if a consensus develops here first. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:00, 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} 00:15, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:11, 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. — Joseph Fox 01:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral home (Philippines)[edit]

This article was moved from Ancestral home (Philippines) to Ancestral houses of the Philippines by the user who started this article (User:Briarfallen) following instructions from WP:GD.

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

WP:NEO article that doesn't appear to have any reason to be specific to the Philippines. JaGa^talk 00:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary I think these two words would have just about the same meaning in any country. Maybe mention in Home.~~ The author has done a great job of establishing the notability of this topic. Please consider this in closing this AfD. The article is 100% (or more) better now. Borock (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, move Ancestral home (China) back to Ancestral home, and expand it with any notable information about the Philippines or elsewhere to make a worldwide view. It's a broad concept, not a DAB. It needs a hatnote to Ancestral Home (Polish political party) and vice versa. Certes (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added hatnotes to both. - Briarfallen (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in the Philippines the phrase 'ancestral home' refers to the houses, the structure, because of Filipino tradition kept by the same family for generations, not sold. This could mean any type of house - from a shack to a mansion. Some of these special houses that are recognized for architectural or historical value and given the title and marker as Heritage house by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines.[58]. In the Philippines, 'ancestral home' is more than just a phrase, it invokes history, family and memories.[59] Nicer 'ancestral homes' are highlighted in some communities and have been included as points of interest of their town.[60][61][62][63] Some 'ancestral homes' are in danger because of opportunistic people.[64] I am planning to change the name to 'Ancestral homes in the Philippines' because it is more than just a structure in that country. I just started the article just a few days ago, I haven't had a chance to expand it yet. Please give it time to grow.(WP:DEV)

The reason why I deemed appropriate to start a disambiguation page is because of the other usage of 'ancestral home', like in Poland where it is a political party title which is not any way related to ancestry or tradition. Furthermore, in China, 'ancestral home' is the hometown or the village, not the structure, where they belong to or the origin of one's family. It is a completely different meaning, so I did not combine it into one article.

I do not know how the phrase 'ancestral home' is used in different countries of the world. Surely, you could find the two words in the dictionary, but when you combine the two words together, what exactly does it mean where you live? Do you even use the two words together where you live? You could relegate 'ancestral home' into mere two words, but in some cultures it is more than that. Wikipedia is not viewed from just one's perspective. - Briarfallen (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following instructions from WP:GD, I have moved Ancestral home (Philippines) to Ancestral houses of the Philippines because I am referring to the structure, the Filipino tradition of valuing the houses of their elders, and the houses declared by the government as important to the Filipino heritage. I just want to point again that I just started the article just nine days ago today, being submitted for deletion is against WP:DEV. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Vastly improved since nomination. Deletion arguments no longer valid. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:02, 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 redirect to When the Sun Goes Down. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whiplash (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. This article is about a song that did not chart on record charts, and most importantly, did not attract standalone reviews/analyses on its significance on its own independent from its parent album. The only third-party coverage is from MTV, who only skimmed the surface and offered information regarding the song's conception that can be reasonably incorporated into the album's article. HĐ (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to When the Sun Goes Down. I think the song does have a limited amount of coverage, but in my opinion, it does not reach the significant threshold required for an independent article. The information about Spears's involvement with the track and the brief comments on the song are already covered in the album article so this could be safely redirected there instead. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The song didn't gather much attraction and wasn't able to chart on any record charts. It never made any significant impact in the media, it wasn't analyzed by major media brands. It fails to meet the notability guidelines. Even the sources used in the article are rather doubtful (AlexKazemi.com, All Headline News). AngelOfDestiny (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2021 (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} 05:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Windsor[edit]

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

Article fails all three core content policies of WP:BLP. As it currently stands, the article resembles an autobiography or a fansite. I do not believe there is any material worth saving as subject is not demonstrated to meet general notability guidelines.

Single inline citation (Steve Austin's book) doesn't even refer to the subject. Other references are solely primary source or do not refer to the subject. Wikipedia is used as another source to "demonstrate" the subject is a "notable Coventrian". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The person is non-notable, and the article resembles a biography from a fansite or an official site. Wikipedia is not a substitute for biographies and print encyclopedias of subjective topics and persons. --Gh87 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable biography as the nomination states.Stormbay (talk) 22:16, 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.