< 31 August	2 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Goldseed[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage while searching under Leo Goldseed and Leo Perez. The record labels have no articles same with the albums. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The best I could manage was a blog review of one of his albums which is not a reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:22, 2 September 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. lifebaka++ 02:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villyan Bijev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated article after having been previously deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. This is still the case. He is yet to make a an appearance at the senior level and therefore fails WP:NSPORT. All coverage I have been able to locate is either routine coverage mostly pertaining to his transfers to and from Liverpool, or unreliable self-published sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4, still fails the same criteria he did when nominated less than a month ago. --Jimbo^[online] 23:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the criterion relating to appearing for a club in a major league, which he has yet to satisfy, but this player has generated a fair amount of buzz in the football world and, it seems to me, at least, is worthy of inclusion according to that criterion under WP:CSD G4. Some examples: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11669_7140270,00.html, http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/08/31/2644967/official-liverpool-sign-us-starlet-villyan-bijev-loan-him-to, http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/31/liverpool-joe-cole-craig-bellamy. Obviously, will go with the consensus on this, but I suspect he will qualify under the appearance criterion very very soon. In fact, I see he played yesterday and scored two goals, which may already satisfy the appearance criterion! http://www2.fortuna-duesseldorf.de/nc/pages/news/uebersicht-news/artikel/article/90-sieg-im-freundschaftsspiel-bei-der-schwalmtal-auswahl/index.htm. I will add this to his page whilst you consider this. grj1958 (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made the main point against your argument. The claim that he will make an appearance, while probable, is speculation nonetheless and therefore not grounds for notability. As I have already stated in the nomination rationale, the sources available, including those you just provided, are routine sports journalism. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails notability criteria. Giant Snowman 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that all seems quite clear cut. I will leave it to you to apply whatever criteria you see fit with regard to notability. Just seems incongruous to me that a debut appearance for Fortuna Dusseldorf (which will presumably qualify him for entry) trumps being signed as an American teenager by Liverpool in terms of importance. Guess that's the difference between the criteria applied by news journalism, with which I'm familiar, and those of Wikiepdianism, with which I'm not. I will try harder next time. One final thing: how would I (or anyone else who might be so inclined) retrieve the page if and when Bijev puts on his No 16 shirt and crosses the white chalk line of notability? Thanks a lot. grj1958 (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has changed. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate when/if he makes his senior league debut. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Zbase4 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not notable now but he will be assuming he makes a first team appearance for Fortuna Dusseldorf. Might WP:Incubation be appropriate here as it looks like a rationale "that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time"? I've never used that process before so I'm not sure if it applies. Keresaspa (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is clearly not notable now, but the chance of the subject becoming notable in the future are pretty good. Userification may also be a option if someone wants work on the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable "footballer", unencyclopedic aarticle. Keb25 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 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. Merger should be discussed on the talk page. Clearly no consensus to use the deletion tool, however, so that disucssion can, and should, continue outside AFD. Courcelles 23:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plinko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Price is Right pricing games

Articles for deletion/Plinko (3rd nomination)

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

This article has been nominated twice for deletion before this time; it survived twice in spite of lack of citations. Well, everybody mentions the game's title; unfortunately, the game's notability is insufficient enough to keep this article. The history's rules are still unreferenced, and the past major mistakes (e.g. "rigged" incident) are good enough to be in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. External link is too bare; it contains a Drew Carey video and only the current rules. I would say merge, just as "Cliff Hangers" did recently. --Gh87 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list, per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Unlike Cliff Hangers, there is at least one independent, reliable source on this one, meaning it at least has a shred of notability. If a second one can be found before this discussion closes, then it's a definite keep. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "rigged" incident is cited; the history of the rules isn't. Also, one link is dead. Would the "rigged" incident make Plinko notable? --Gh87 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, I am seeking at least one more independent reliable source for this one as per WP guidelines. I will not comment on the content of the single source unless/until a second source is made. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just added an article from what I think is the AP from 1999 that mentioned Plinko as one of Bob Barker's favorite games. I'd still like to see some more before we decide one way or the other; Google News is turning up a lot of trivial references with no context. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's... a good start. Even so, that would be a good content to merge. --Gh87 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been nominated twice for deletion before this time, and was kept, already a consensus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I placed another independent reliable source from ABC News, Technology in the article. Click here for the link. I agree with user J. Myrle Fuller, "If a second one can be found before this discussion closes, then it's a definite keep." Another such link was just added to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep procedural keep as nom is asking for a merge which generally belongs on the talk page, not AfD. Further, while sourcing is borderline it seems to rise to the letter of WP:N and I see no reason to think consensus on that issue has changed. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus the additional sources added since the start of the AfD make this a pretty clear keep. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Neutrality^talk 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no further comment. --I'm a Graduate! (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Chris[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE/KEEP, the nominator should not use a deletion nomination as a device when he desires a merge. Close this now and let him propose a merger the right way. Mathewignash (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding notability—The references that have been added since the article was nominated for deletion do not address criteria in WP:GNG. The links are barely a trivial mention of the game itself. The first ([1]) contains two lines about general game play that is part of an overall description for an "online experience." The second, (Mostly) True Stories by John Nemo [2], provides a description of the game play and uses the random aspects and possible outcomes within the game as an analogy to random events in one's life related to family and relationships. The subject of the book or point of the work is not about Plinko—it's about the unpredictability of life events. Using this source to establish notability would be similar to using a trivial mention of a television show if it appears briefly in a movie (e.g., Bill Murray memorizing Jeopardy! clues in Groundhog Day would not be an applicable source to meet WP:GNG for Jeopardy!). The point of WP:GNG is not to create a collection of random anecdotal mentions of a topic. The point is to show that the topic itself has been found in reliable sources with significant coverage. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have to disagree with this reasoning. The fact that Plinko is being used in the common culture for an comparison exactly proves it is notable, it's become part of the culture, something people reference in day to day use. Mathewignash (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some coverage on ProQuest and Google Scholar: for example,
- Beth L. Jokinen. "'Price is Right' comes to classroom" McClatchy - Tribune Business News. May 28, 2009. (about Lima West Middle School class that created versions of pricing games, including Plinko, for probability lesson)
- Susan Thurston. "'Price is Right' is calling; Sixty women vie for a shot at being a model on the venerable television game show on Wednesday in Tampa." St. Petersburg Times. August 14, 2008. p. B.3. (about auditions for "Carey's cuties," including story of woman who had a Plinko chip signed by Bob Barker for her grandfather in 2004)
- Marc Saltzman. "Be a virtual contestant on 'The Price is Right'" Gannett News Service. April 25, 2008. (review of PC game, with the sentence "In Plinko, for example, you must guess if the left or right number in a two-digit price for a product is correct, then you get to drop a coin down a Plinko board and hope it falls into the $10,000 slot instead of the $0 slot.")
- "Game shows: Silliness that sells" The Chilliwack Progress (Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada). January 11, 2008. p. A.10. (502-word article about The Price is Right, with the line "Plinko, in which contestants drop saucer-sized discs down a peg board into money slots -- the most being $10,000 -- is [the anonymous author's] dad's favourite. He's 81 years old.")
- There is also a teacher's guide about Plinko, from 1995, at [3].
- Also, there is a scholarly article by Alexander et al. titled "Plinko: polling with a physical implementation of a noisy channel" in an article about a method of making survey data anonymous. [4].
- Finally, there is a classroom activity for Plinko, as described in the Journal of Statistics Education at [5]. (Biesterfeld, "The Price (or Probability) Is Right", 2001).

These sources (especially the scholarly ones) clearly demonstrate enough notability for Plinko to merit its own article. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RJaguar3; that's some good research there, and satisfies me that there is some notability here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:26, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It Feels Like Thunder[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this book. There is also no article about the author. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator - Tεx τ urε 22:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article makes no assertion of notability and there is no coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was unable to find RS. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:42, 7 September 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. Courcelles 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Modica[edit]

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

A democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia. He is a perennial democratic challenger for Senate and Congressional seats and has never qualified as a challenger. A bank fraud convection and lying about one's name tends to turn people off. Creating editor refused to have article redirect or merged. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Modica is a perennial democratic challenger carries no weight based on the references provided. If the author was aware of the history. Modica himself has placed most, if not all, the legal arguments in his case on the web, under Docstoc. The fact is Modica brings insight and experience to the world of Virginia politics not seen or heard before. Do I have a bias? Your damn right I do. Modica's candidacy brings me hope that I may be able to, someday, live a normal life. The life taken from me while I was defending the rights Bgwhite has just abused. I and Mr. Modica, I am sure, are aware of the person who wrote the negative comments. At this point in my recovery, I am limited to what I can do for Mr Modica's campaign, but whatever I am able to do, I will do until I can do it no more. After all I have been through in my 23 years, how dare Bgwhite steal the one ray of hope I have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bgwhite's criticism is baseless. And if he continues I, not Mr. Modica, will expose him for the fruad he truely is. This starts my formal complaint to prevent Bgwhite from ever contributing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3mm0 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — J3mm0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have added the section Legal Controversy and explained on Modica's behalf what he did during the period in question AND ultimately described the fact that the 1993 Court decision does not affect Modica's campaign. To make it very, very clear, I am the mother of Modica's greatest supporter, but I will be perfectly honest the comments Bgwhite made about Mr. Modica have truly upset my son and they have upset me. Has Bgwhite ever served in a combat zone? Has he ever stood face to face with an enemy who does not value his own life? If Bgwhite does not remove his criticism of Mr. Modica, I will demand Bgwhite not be allowed to ever participate in Wkipedia ever again. The next time Bgwhite sees a combat injured veteran, I pray he says something nice.

Keep Seems to meet WP:NOTE 12 news articles mention the subject The controversy section however was sourced to one article and covered more than half the article, I have removed it pending more sources for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Change to delete per Bgwhite, I have looked at the sources and there are no indepth coverage of the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you are relatively new, please see WP:GNG, specifically, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the articles you listed do not give significant coverage of Mr. Modica, but have a sentence or two that he is running. One article is his website and three articles are the court's direct outcome to his bank fraud court case. This leave only two articles that deal with him directly in significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you talking about Bgwhite? You may not like Mr Modica, but that does not give you reason to just make things up!!!!! As was noted by Darkness Shines, there are twelve articles that are written about Mr. Modica or involve Mr. Modica in the article (Washington Post, Washington Star, Reston Times, Leesburg Today). None mention anything about bank fraud. What Pray-Tell are you talking about? The thirteenth is from the Modica For Senate website. You are correct. I have never done this before and you, my dearest, are making it very unpleasant. This is my second motion to get you removed from Wikipedia. Some very, very unkind things were said about you at my dinner table this evening. Bgwhite, "Shape-up or Ship-out." — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3mm0 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — J3mm0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While it is certainly possible for people to be blocked or even banned from editing Wikipedia, simply nominating an article for deletion that someone else doesn't think should be deleted is not grounds for either blocking or banning. Reasonable people do disagree about things, and that is expected on Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 01:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources in the article, and searching through Google News and Google, I can't find much information of substance about this person which isn't written by him or those that work for him. There's a smattering of trivial stuff, but nothing of the depth I would normally consider to be necessary to meet the baseline requirements spelled out at WP:GNG. --Jayron32 01:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, ~~and I'm pretty sure that J3mm0 is Julien Modica, hence major COI~~. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Catching up on J3mm0's talk page while I've been less active the last few days, maybe the user is indeed not Modica but someone close to him. That isn't so relevant, but what is relevant is that this individual doesn't seem to meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was initially inclined to !vote "Keep" on the basis of the subject's "perenniel candidacy" (which, if significant, could indeed make him notable under different criteria), but it's not really significant enough for that. I took a look at the article to see if some editing could help it along, but it's so poorly constructed yet so over-referenced, that any deletion of trivial information would be a deletion of sourced information -- allowed, certainly, but guaranteed to raise a stink. It seems, unfortunately, that deletion is the best course of action here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Favor Delete There seems to be some intensity of feeling about this one, at least from some quarters. Perhaps it would be advantageous to clearly and pleasantly state that the decision one way or the other to keep articles is based very much on criteria, rather than passion. The article appears to me to pass certain objective criteria: 1) significant coverage; 2) reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Some of the delete votes seem to be linguistically articulated in a fashion that suggests that the vote is based on adverse assessments of these criteria, but this may be due to an imprecision with the language, whereby the term, "significant" can be understood either in terms of "significant amount of words" (the sources meet that definition) or "significant relevancy" (this is a legitimate pivot question, and may be the reason for these delete votes, as the article may not.) To say it differently, quoting from the guidelines, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." This criterion ("suitability") is met by benchmarking to other similar potential/existing articles. There seem to be three content elements here that may (or may not) meet muster as to being suitably notable: any one (or combination) of 1) being a US Senate candidate 2) having sustained a major injury and recovered 3) some hypothetical legal aspect of note (as has been alluded to several places in this discussion.) (I will not enter the fray on that 3rd matter, other than it seems tangential/off task in terms of the "suitability" question.) Only items 1 and 2 seem to be at play here. To benchmark to other articles, it seems to me that these two content elements do not meet comparative benchmarks for encyclopedic inclusion. I do not personally take a position on whether these "suitability" benchmarks are objectively correct, only that they should be applied equitably. By/in comparison with other potential/existing articles that Senate candidacy or brain injury recovery, separately or together, do meet the suitability threshold, so the article should be deleted, or its contents merged to another article. A credible (believable, and most importantly, potentially refutable ! ) threshold has been articulated, "Candidates for office do not get a page unless nobility can be established outside of running for office or they are the major party candidate after primary elections." If however it can be shown that these elements have heretofore been the basis for "suitability" for other articles, that would trump my personal experience / the articulated threshold. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:11, 7 September 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. Courcelles 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod (rapper)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted twice before after discussions (see first discussion and second discussion; note the second discussion was under the name of "Young Hot Rod"). No deletion review was done as far as I can tell. I am hesitant to simply delete since the article appears to now assert some degree of notability. I have absolutely no knowledge in the field, however, and therefore as far as I am concerned this is a procedural renominate with no opinion on my part. It is my strong opinion that in light of the recreations, if the article is again deleted after a discussion that the article should be salted. --Nlu (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If claims in the text are true, wp:notability is a possibility. But also has the look of a possible smoke-and-mirrors job. Has few or none wp:notability suitable references. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two singles released and a third on the way. Only two of the refs given in the article are anywhere near reliable. This is a case of too-soon. Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Allmusic, Vibe and mtv.com sources in the article are all good. He has been found notable by third parties due to the g-unit connection and satisfies wp:music regardless of any subjective assessment of his career to date. 86.44.26.197 (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. References are very weak. Allmusic, imdb, iTunes are all-inclusive databases that in themselves don't prove notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bob Hilliard[edit]

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

Clearly does not meet the notability guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this violates the notability guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN. That allows for articles on unelected politicians insofar as they meet certain notability criteria. The subject of this article has been included in reliable news media, in more than a trivial mention.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only news article listed as a source talks about his nomination as an NDP candidate.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam DeVita as an example.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the article discusses his nomination as NDP candidate, but I don't see how that in itself fails the test of a reliable source external to the Wikipedia article addressing the subject in some degree of detail. I consider also Hilliard's public positions, namely as past-president of the Canadian Paediatric Society. But if this is all negated by the view that election candidates' coverage falls under WP:BLP1E then I understand your position and the content is perhaps best suited under a large list of candidates, as with Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If election coverage is not suggestive of WP:BLP1E, then I would think the article is best kept.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had speedied a previous version of this article, which didn't even have the one newspaper article as a source but was otherwise identical. As noted, candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates; with rare exceptions for candidates who generate an unusually large volume of news coverage, a candidate for office is only entitled to a standalone article if he would have qualified for a standalone article independently of standing as a candidate, by virtue of having garnered substantial media coverage for his work as a doctor before he ran for office. And if you have to rely mostly on references which do not meet our standards for reliable sources (i.e. his profile on the hospital's website or his profile on the party's website, both of which fail to be independent of him), then that's a sign that he isn't sufficiently notable to be one of those rare exceptions — one article in the Town Crier doesn't cut it for media coverage. He may be (and in fact already is) listed in Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, but this article as written does not demonstrate that he qualifies for a standalone article under Wikipedia's rules. Delete; albeit of course without prejudice against recreation if he wins in October. And don't mistake this for a partisan thing, either, because I'm as loyal a New Democrat as you're ever likely to find on here (or pretty much anywhere) — and it's also worth remembering that our notability rules are not a comment on his worth as an individual or as a candidate; they're strictly about the quality of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for electioneering. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Bearcat for a comprehensive explanation. I support the deletion of the article based on the explanation of the protocols. I take issue with Mr. No Funny Nickname's analysis as I find it incomplete. I also don't consider this to be a biased "electioneering" article. But given Bearcat's analysis, it seems the article is best deleted, with the substantial information to be found solely in Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected politician, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Seems like article is used as political promotion, WP is not a soapbox. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:39, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beelzebub characters[edit]

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

This is a list of characters who seem to have no independent notability whatsoever. It's all summary, original research, and primary sources, though I'm not calling it 'cruft' since that apparently is a bad word. I could live with a redirect, but this should not be a free-standing article. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate spin-out list for a manga series with a lot of characters. While the list could use some cleanup, that is not a reason to delete a character list. —Farix (t | c) 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable media franchises are granted a list of characters, but that doesn't mean they need to be this long. A combination of appropriate trimming and secondary sourcing will fix these problems, and if it somehow failed to do so, a merge would be preferable per WP:ATD. Since the various facts appear to be sourced to primary sources, WP:V is met so there is no real justification for an outright deletion vs. a merge in the unlikely event that it was demonstrated that this was not an appropriate standalone list. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every notable series has a character list. You don't need references to prove every single thing on the list is notable either. Dream Focus 06:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Stance, since I am the noob who has been writing this cruft all these months, and am therefore biased. I will only say that: other manga series have longer character lists and separate pages for protagonists, like One Piece and Code Geass (and incidentally, the only reason this list is long is precisely because I have deemed this series not notable enough to have separate pages for important characters); for manga, I may be missing something since I'm not much of a Wikipedian, but primary sources are all that is available (it is not a full-fledged franchise yet, so there are no secondary sources like author interviews and expert reviews); I tried hard to be neutral and not do any original research, but feel free to edit out all snippets that may have escaped; and all character lists I know summarise the characters' journeys through the series (Code Geass and Fullmetal Alchemist being examples), otherwise a list would be only a compilation of physical attributes and personality traits. Given that, meet a decision as you see fit; I'm not qualified to opine on Wikipedia matters. I have copied out the text and can incorporate it to specialised manga wikis like Wikia, although I obviously prefer Wikipedia because of its superior layout and lack of advertisements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.43.122 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no other editor advocating deletion. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 11:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Tella[edit]

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

I've only been able to find one reliable source that discusses the subject, and that was a new story that came out as a result of his death. Unless someone can find some more reliable sources, the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn Inks.LWC (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the 218 news articles found by clicking on the word "news" in the search results automatically linked by the nomination process? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google News search before I started the nomination. Not sure what happened. Nomination withdrawn. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:18, 2 September 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 Experience design#Commercial context. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Customer experience design[edit]

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

Neologism 2-3 months old, per admission on talk page. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Experience design#Commercial context, which already states: "Commercial experience design is also known as customer experience design." That article was created April 12, 2005, and the term has been in there from the start, so it is substantially older than the newly founded CXPA; in fact, it occurs in this publication from 2000. But Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for the CXPA, and we don't need this corporation speak. --Lambiam 05:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per frankie. The current text is unhelpful for, well, anything: the discipline of deliberately creating interactions based on the wants, needs, and limitations of customers.... As some parts of the economy move toward commoditization, customer experience design is a multi-discipline approach that strives to create meaningful differentiation between brands. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Experience design#Commercial context as per Lambiam. Besides, article is far too promotional in tone. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:43, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Earl[edit]

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

I think this fails GNG (see talk page also). I've removed one reference which was a self-published book, which leaves the article - but [6] suggests this is about a mountain, not the person who measured it. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete — seems to be quite well known in mountain-climbing circles, but only for one piece of software, winprom, used to calculate "prominence" of peaks. works for microsoft, so not strictly an academic. no publications i can find, so fails wp:prof, and no mentions in news apart from one ref in article, so fails gng too. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 8 September 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 Gucci Mane discography. Courcelles 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Mane videography[edit]

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

Not long enough for its own article. Should be merged to Gucci Mane discography. Also, the lack of sources is an issue. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Gucci Mane discography or Gucci Mane. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - ditto. A merge is essential, as the list is unreferenced and nowhere near completion. Exposure in the actual discography (where I think it should be merged) may actually result in improvements to it. Besides, although Gucci Mane has released many music videos, his career is nowhere near long enough to warrant a separate videography page, unless it is of extremely high standard - which this is not. Merge with Gucci Mane discography must happen. Sufur222 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gucci Mane discography as per above. The videography appears small enough at this time such that I don't believe a separate article is needed. Gongshow ^Talk 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with discography list. Dzlife (talk) 16:02, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billel Omrani[edit]

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

Player is not notable and, subsequently, fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE — JS^{Rant Away} 16:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't made his pro debut, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without appearances in a fully pro league, or significant coverage in reliable sources, he clearly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:48, 3 September 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. Merger discussions should continue elsewhere Courcelles 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Basingstoke[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of transport-related things is not a travel guide. Adam mugliston Talk 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Adam mugliston Talk 11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG. Adam mugliston Talk 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that guideline says that within a notable article, such as Basingstoke all the content itself does not have to meet WP:GNG. However, the article still has to be notable as per Wikipedia:LISTN - for this you need to provide references discussing bus services in Basingstoke. Nuttah (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - An article cannot be notable. Only its content can be, meaning that per WP:NNC, GNG does not have to be satisifed in lists. Adam mugliston Talk 20:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - This has now been resubmitted following you deleting it. However, the article still has to be notable as per Wikipedia:LISTN - for this you need to provide references discussing bus services in Basingstoke. Nuttah (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What did I delete?! I know about references. These are on my to-do list, but I can't do everything at once. Adam mugliston Talk 21:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        'What did I delete?!' - follow the page history. 'I know about references. These are on my to-do list, but I can't do everything at once.' - you created the page over two years ago. Nuttah (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, sorry about that. I know, but I was new then and never got round to putting the refs on. I'm now doing it though. See User:Adam mugliston/Southampton, as that is the standard I will be getting all of the articles I created to. Some will also contain prose. Adam mugliston Talk 21:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There are no secondary sources establishing notability there. There is a difference between verifiable and notable. What you provide shows that the info is verifiable but if bus services in Southampton are notable you need a reference discussing that. Nuttah (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expansion. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of expansion? Lists of non-notable bus stops as we have seen in similar articles? Whole sections devoted to non-notable routes? Pointless colour coding that disadvantages visually impaired users as we have seen here and elsewhere? Show me one secondary source that discusses this set of routes and I do not mean databases just reproducing schedules supplied by operators. Those are still primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source not an organ for original research.--Charles (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. ad nauseam AFD's of bus route lists will not change consensus. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no part of WP:NOTDIR that states a list of bus routes contravenes this policy. Please state which part you think does. Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this was never listed on an AfD log, which presumably is why it hasn't been closed yet (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 24 has the other eight of these debates but not this one). Standard practise in cases such as this seems to be to list it on the current day's log and give the discussion another seven days to run, but with so many comments already that might not be necessary here. Anyone know where we could find an uninvolved admin to close it? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since nobody responded, I listed it on the log for today anyway. Now we have to wait another seven days before deciding what to do with this.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Nor is it a place for minority interests" - the vast majority of (stub) articles on here are minority interests! Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No wp:notability related sources. Not encyclopedic material. This is for one of those little cards that the bus company gives out. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the detailed rationale given in the discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Andover, etc. The list needs improvement, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Capture PC[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable piece of software. There is no coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article is a primary source and some unreliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medo Abowarda. Whpq (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling suggests they don't exist. Article appears to have been created by the (currently blocked) author of the product WP:COI WP:SPA for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By Googling the search keyword "Auto Capture PC", I found hundreds of resources over the web about this software, article was not created for WP:PROMOTION as the software is well known in most software directories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.240.37 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — 24.15.240.37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

24.15.240.37 (talk) has been blocked as sockpuppet of Medo3337 (talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medo3337. Msnicki (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to have plenty of mention on the web, including numerous mainstream sources. Certainly not "a list" but definitely not "z list" either. And COI/NOTE is not transitive. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you share some of these sources with us? -- Whpq (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Please check the article references, also consider googling the keyword "Auto Capture PC".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.252.73 (talk)

Reply - None of the sources are reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There are reliable resources from well known websites such as download.com and softpedia.com as they appear in the article references.

Reply - Those are not reliable sources. They simply reprint the publisher's description and provide a download link. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This website write a full article about the software without printing anything from the company website: http://3d2f.com/smartreviews/1-497-auto-capture-pc-an-efficient-parental-control-and-pc-monitoring-application-read.shtml Additionally, this is not article about a person, it's about a software product that's available online, you can easily verify information about the software in either the company website or in the software itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.217.124 (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That website is not a reliable source WP:RS. The reviews aren't signed, there's no obvious editorial policy, it's impossible to tell who wrote the review, there's nothing there we can use. Msnicki (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ More references was added, the references show plenty of independent web pages reviewing the software product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.252.73 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please only !vote once. -- Whpq (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.15.252.73 has been blocked for being an obvious sockpuppet. Dream Focus 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you type "Auto Capture" on Google, Google will suggest you to search for "Auto Capture PC" as a first suggestion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.244.194 (talk) — 24.15.244.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. References prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author of the article, Medo3337 (talk · contribs), has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts and a one-week hard block placed on the IP range 24.15.240.0/20 used by his sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medo3337. Msnicki (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the sources only show that it is for sale. Nothing independent written about it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 9 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Map Of The Floating City[edit]

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

nn web browser, unreferenced nymets2000 (t/c/l) 14:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has a lot of gHits and is both his album and a game, but it hasn't really received enough media coverage yet. Here's what I found: [7] [8]. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How in the world is the article from Variety alone not reason enough to a. rewrite the article and b. keep it? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage is available [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] — frankie (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources appear either unreliable, or present only trivial coverage of the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific as how is it that they are unreliable or trivial? — frankie (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd article deals mostly with the artist himself. The 3rd provides decent coverage. The 4th I can't say, but it looks really short. 5th is an interview which does not support notability. 6th appears unreliable (is Clyde Smith a reliable reporter in the industry?). 7th is a decent reference. I believe overall the coverage is not significant enough to warrant an article, especially since the current article is on the game and not the album, which is mentioned even less than the album itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then rewrite the article to correct that. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, though I disagree with your general assessment. The second one (which is indeed mostly about Dolby) comes about because of the album's release, which is mentioned as part of the article's lead. I cannot comment on Clyde Smith being reliable, but I would disagree that that means that he is unreliable by default, and looking at the sources in general it seems clear to me that the album is considered noteworthy by a fair number of different venues, which are independent of the artist and not fan-driven (such as forums or certain blogs), and that is what notability is ultimately about — frankie (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Speedily, please. This was a bad article. The name of the game--not 'browser'!--is "The Floating City"; the name of the album is the current name of the article. I have rewritten it and added some of the sources that were pointed out here. It is plenty notable--just the fact that it was performed in 2011 in the way in which the article now points that it makes it notable. The current sources are mostly web-based, sure, but big deal. It's an album by a highly notable artist, it's existence is not in question, it currently contains more than a tracklist (it doesn't contain a tracklist), ergo it can stand alone. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sourcing, especially Variety article - clearly notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources currently in the article, including the Variety piece, demonstrate that this meets WP:GNG. 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what sucks? I sign up for the game, with a cool user name and all, and only when I try to play I am told that it ended yesterday. Damn you Thomas Dolby! Drmies (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops: Word War, haha. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did check to make sure there wasn't a Word War, it being fiction and all. Could have been part of the Great Scrabble Massacre of 2420. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: notable, though not when nominated (was 1 sentence crap)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no "delete" !votes (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olean High School shooting[edit]

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

Not-notable shooting, This is still just a local crime story -- there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator gave no policy based reason for deletion. The primary notability criteria is the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which this are present in this article. Marokwitz (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every shooting is notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said every shooting is notable. You should take the time to read the notability policies. Marokwitz (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CRIME requires a certain threshold of discussion by secondary sources. The sources already in the article seem sufficient to satisfy that guideline. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The question I always consider for events is does it have lasting impact? I believe the answer is yes. 2008 book School Shootings 2006 book Shooting Game 1981 book They Shoot to Kill 2004 book The psychology and law of workplace violence: a handbook for mental health and a 2010 book also comes up, but without any preview. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an off-broadway play called Sniper was performed in 2005 based on these events. [16]. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks wp:notable
Keep Definitely notable, as it is relatively often cited as the first American high school shooting committed by a student, see e.g. here or here. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Aha, I did not find the fact that is was identified as the first school shooting. That could be added to the article. For now, I am convinced about its notability and suggest closure as speedy keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first high school shooting in america by a student. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination has been withdrawn and there are no other recommendations for delete. The event has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Location (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is extensively sourced. A bunch of other good articles were nominated for deletion and all will result in the same SNOW KEEP. If this immature disruption continues I will go to ANI. That's a promise.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 2 September 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. Courcelles 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego State University shooting[edit]

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

Not-notable shooting, This is still just a local crime story -- there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Weak delete~~ - This crime is mentioned in passing in the book Violence goes to college: the authoritative guide to prevention and intervention, by John Nicoletti. And there is quite a bit of news coverage: but the coverage is mostly local (San Diego, CA). (added later): changing !vote to Keep based on additional sources recently added. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak deletes~~ ~~Almost~~ makes wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Changed my feedback based on source additions. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - in my opinion it has wp:notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is extensively sourced. A bunch of other good articles were nominated for deletion and all will result in the same SNOW KEEP. If this immature disruption continues I will go to ANI. That's a promise.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem attack and threat without real arguments. Come back when you have them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Extensively sourced" is a real argument. Marokwitz (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See for example the following sources:
- "Murder in America", (2001) Ronald M. Holmes, Stephen T. Holmes. Page 155.
- Pictorial history of world crime, Volume 2, p. 1015 (2004)

These sources are clear evidence this is not merely "news", rather a notable historical event - based on coverage in secondary, academic, reliable sources. These sources can be added to the article, no reason to delete. Marokwitz (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Feel free to edit. It is the public we serve... Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added the sources to the article. Marokwitz (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A minor/local crime, not quite notable to be enciclopedic.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:POINT. See diff (bottom addition). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources to the article from the New York Times, NPR, and the Los Angeles Times, showing that the shooting was not just of local interest. These together with the book sources added by Marokwitz are sufficient to meet notability requirements. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article appears well written, with emphasis on regional and national public interest. Streltzer (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources show that it is not just of local interest nd appears to meet our requirements for shooting related articles. Silver seren^C 02:12, 7 September 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. Courcelles 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Carter High School shooting[edit]

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

Not-notable shooting, This is still just a local crime story -- there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominator just nominated a bunch of school shootings for deletion while giving no policy based reason. The primary notability criteria is the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which this are present in this article. Marokwitz (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every shooting is notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume this is not a reply to me, since I didn't say anything about every shooting being notable. Marokwitz (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are complaining about Nominator just nominated a bunch of school shootings what gives me the idea that you regard every shooting as notable. Be aware of the scope searching and networks of the most newspapers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources for this article include NYT and USNWR. WP:CRIME requires a certain threshold of discussion by secondary sources. The sources already in the article seem sufficient to meet that guideline. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is cited to coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources over a period of at least three years. Meets WP:GNG. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds without thorough review I'd like to see some specifics related to this article from the nominator before it goes through this whole process. Large amount of nominations of shooting articles, with only boilerplate type wording (nothing indicating specific review of the article) given as the rationale. many of which clearly meet notability, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it looks like a run of the mill murder with two people dead. There are hundreds of killings with that number of victims a day. How sad it is, it is not something special or notable. The article does not give (hints to) evidence of wider impact or far reaching consequences. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From my side of the ocean I was horrified to hear what you are saying but maybe what you are saying is wrong. This, which rather too polemical for my liking, says of the USA "according to the National School Safety Center (2003), there were 93 incidents in which a student murdered someone at school during the ten years from the 1992-93 school year to the 2001-02 school year". School shooting does not address the specific prevalence. Now, this does not affect WP notability considerations directly but it would be nice to have a discussion on a reasonable basis. Do we know what the murder rate at US schools is? Thincat (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mass AfD nominations on a certain topic. without reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Look two dots higher and you see a longer explanation... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and criteria outlined at WP:EVENT. Significant coverage in prominent, national sources (e.g. People). Location (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is extensively sourced. A bunch of other good articles were nominated for deletion and all will result in the same SNOW KEEP. If this immature disruption continues I will go to ANI. That's a promise.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem attack and threat without real arguments. Come back when you have them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Article is extensively sourced" is a perfectly valid argument. Marokwitz (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:POINT. See diff (bottom addition). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This starts to look like an orchestrated campaign. I think I have hit a sore nerve here by nominating some treasures :-) Unfortunately, I am not making a point but I am just not convinced that the articles are notable enough. Notability does not come with news coverage alone... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that you have made several nominations in a matter of minutes, and the plentiful availability of sources in "Google books" I strongly doubt that you've made any effort whatsoever to search for sources. Marokwitz (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources. SL93 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 3 September 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. Courcelles 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindhurst High School shooting[edit]

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

not notable shooting Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Is notable, based on the independent reliable source "Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence. Page 233-234". Other sources easy to find. Marokwitz (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds without thorough review I'd like to see some specifics related to this article from the nominator before it goes through this whole process. Large amount of nominations of shooting articles, with only boilerplate type wording (nothing indicating specific review of the article) given as the rationale. many of which clearly meet notability, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe a school shooting is notable, just because it is a school shooting. Although it would be a very traumatic event for the victims, I don't think a crime involving 4 fatalities and 9 wounded is very special in the United States. The article does not give any hint of evidence for wider impact then the involved community or far reaching consequences. With the serious scope-hunting from media in the USA and the wide use of so called wireless services, I guess that you can discount at least half of the media report as coming from the same original source/newsagency. So using media-reports to decide on notability is a tricky business. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per North8000.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is extensively sourced. The vague handwave argument by nominator, "not notable", is an insult to the creator who undoubtedly worked hard on the article. A bunch of other good articles were nominated for deletion and all will result in the same SNOW KEEP. If this immature disruption continues I will go to ANI. That's a promise.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem attack and threat without real arguments. Come back when you have them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Article is extensively sourced" is a perfectly valid argument in deletion discussions. Marokwitz (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you must look at another article then I do... Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:POINT. See diff (bottom addition). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 September 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. Courcelles 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable shooting. This is still just a local crime story -- there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Article already survived AfD. Nominator just nominated a bunch of school shootings for deletion while giving no policy based reason. The primary notability criteria is the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which this are present in this article. Marokwitz (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds without thorough review I'd like to see some specifics related to this article from the nominator before it goes through this whole process. Large amount of nominations of shooting articles, with only boilerplate type wording (nothing indicating specific review of the article) given as the rationale. many of which clearly meet notability, North8000 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it looks like a run of the mill murder with two deaths and one wounded. There are hundreds of killings with that number of victims a day. How sad it is, it is not something special or notable. The article does not give (hints to) evidence of wider impact or far reaching consequences. The only difference with a gangland killing or drugs related killing is that the perpetrators are caught. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree we should keep this eve though it needs to be expanded and cleaned up. --Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs expansion. but keep it.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event does not appear to meet the criteria set forth in WP:EVENT. There is no significant, on-going coverage outside of the local news area. Location (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT as it lacks nontrivial coverage outside the initial news cycle. Less than six months after the shooting, no one was discussing it anymore. The "keep" editors fail spectacularly to produce policy-based arguments - "We should keep it" and "It was kept at the last AfD" are arguments to avoid, not to use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is extensively sourced. A bunch of other good articles were nominated for deletion and all will result in the same SNOW KEEP. If this immature disruption continues I will go to ANI. That's a promise.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem attack and threat without real arguments. Come back when you have them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. See "College crime: a statistical study of offenses on American campuses By Ronald Barri Flowers" (2009), Page 50. The author refers to this shooting as "Notable". This is on-going coverage outside of the local news area. Marokwitz (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:POINT. See diff (bottom addition). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources. SL93 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I especially like these sources - [17], [18], [19] (abstract from Google Scholar search engine - "... Shooting on the University of Central Arkansas Campus. On the Sunday evening of October 26, 2008, gunshots rang out through the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) campus. The shooting occurred outside of a residence hall where students often congregate. ...", [20] (Google Scholar news search abstract - "Accessed May 22, 2009. University of Central Arkansas now "safe" after campus shooting leaves 2 dead, 1 wounded. Fox News Web site. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444132,00.html. Published October 27, 2008. Accessed May 22, 2009. Myers AL. ...", and [21]. SL93 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 September 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. Courcelles 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell County High School shooting[edit]

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

Not notable shooting Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds without thorough review I'd like to see some specifics related to this article from the nominator before it goes through this whole process. Large amount of nominations of shooting articles, with only boilerplate type wording (nothing indicating specific review of the article) given as the rationale. many of which clearly meet notability, North8000 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it looks like a run of the mill senseless murder with two one fatality and two people wounded. There are hundreds of killings with that number of victims a day. How sad it is, it is not something special or notable. The article does not give (hints to) evidence of wider impact or far reaching consequences. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per North8000.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As far as school shootings go, this one isn't/wasn't terribly notable. It did, however, get some national coverage (i.e. The New York Times, MSNBC/AP). I would be OK with a redirect and merge to Campbell County Comprehensive High School. Location (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on high school. Fails WP:EVENT as it lacks nontrivial coverage (eg. not just being named in a more-or-less comprehensive list of school shootings) after the initial news cycle, but the article on the school is a stub and this is certainly more important than the outdated sports statistics that one usually finds in high school articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is extensively sourced. The vague handwave argument by nominator, "not notable", is an insult to the creator who undoubtedly worked hard on the article. A bunch of other good articles were nominated for deletion and all will result in the same SNOW KEEP. If this immature disruption continues I will go to ANI. That's a promise.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the ad hominem remarks and threats without real arguments. But I repeat my opinion for you: To me it looks like a run of the mill senseless murder with one fatality and two people wounded. There are hundreds of killings with that number of victims a day. How sad it is, it is not something special or notable. The article does not give (hints to) evidence of wider impact or far reaching consequences. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All shooting articles procureally per North8000. If you expect me to take time to judge these nominations, don't flip em out like sausages on a grinder.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or, merge to high school. no reason to delete content.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:16, 7 September 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. Courcelles 23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Lansdell[edit]

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

Biography is based on primary sources, and a Google search (News, Books) provided no indication that the subject is notable--i.e., that his books have been reviewed or his career discussed. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N, and WP:BIO. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:18, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Op (The Dreaming album)[edit]

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

self released album lacking significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Only reference in the article is a spammy one to sales site. RadioFan (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding no significant coverage for this compilation album; appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NALBUMS. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:20, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marwaan Mabrouk[edit]

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

Player does not pass WP:GN or WP:FOOTYN as he has not played in a professional league or represented Libya. Delusion23 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article easily passes WP:NFOOTBALL as the person has represented Libya in senior internationals. He has also appeared in the group stages of the CAF Confederation Cup ~~Champions League~~. There is a good chance this article would pass the GNG, but I'm limited in Arabic-language skills so we're stuck with English-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, nominator has clearly done no research, WP:BEFORE. Also FOOTYN is only an essay and not valid in AfD debates. Giant Snowman 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played at international level for Libya, thus passing WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jimbo^[online] 16:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has several senior international caps, meets WP:NFOOTY criteria. Deserter1 talk 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Libyan international player. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Obviously notable; it appears nominator hasn't actually searched for reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Marwan Mabrouk on keep as that appears to be the name used in majority of sources. --ClubOranje^T 08:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a Libyan international, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 5 September 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 coverage is insufficient.--Kubigula (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Zamboanga[edit]

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

Article about a shopping mall that has not yet been built. No sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and no indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 26 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As yet unbuilt, no coverage indicating notability. sonia♫ 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both comments above are FALSE. Here is one source that took very little time to find, which postulates about the desire to have the mall in their area: Should we welcome an SM in Zamboanga City? from Zambotimes.com. It appears that the nominators simply stated there are "no sources" without actually doing any research to qualify their statements, which nullifies those statements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-The article was the fifth link in a Google search for SM City Zamboanga, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The Zambotimes.com article above does not actually support any of the information in this article - other than the name SM City Zamboanga - so unfortunately it does not constitute "in-depth coverage". Notability of this planned shopping centre is still very much in dispute. --DAJF (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 08:21, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Films For The Blind[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not yet exist. Create an article once the album has been released. No sources for article. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not currently exist, and zero sources, no indication of wp:notability for a separate article (aside from the artist's article) looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Crystal ... future album that is not yet produced. No sources. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy inspired by WP:DONTBITE. --Trevj (talk) 20:10, 3 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parisha Vadyam[edit]

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

Non-notable "genre of percussion music"? Quick search on google reveals little (other than this document and its category). Unable to find any images related to percussion. Dengero (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Bing and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:33, 18 August 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, BusterD (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found references from Government of Kerala [22], Kerala Council of Historical Research [23], and two books [24] which mentions the music form. I am not at all familiar with the music form, but I am quite familiar with Panchavadyam, which according to the article evolved from Parisha Vadyam. At most the article should be merged with the history of Pancha Vadyam. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 19:52, 26 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:44, 1 September 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 Sony. Or other target, if a better one exists Courcelles 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony PictureStation DPP-EX50[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into what? --Kvng (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Sony/Products. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems that some editors are trying to turn WP into a product catalogue!!!! WP is an encyclopaedia... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alan Liefting. Just another product! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:22, 8 September 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 Sony. Or other article, should a better target exist Courcelles 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walkman Core[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into what? --Kvng (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Sony/Products. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No notability proven. Just another product. WP is not a catalog. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:24, 8 September 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 Ashburn, Virginia#Fire-rescue and emergency services. Consensus here favours redirecting the page to the article on the town, and to aid in navigation that is generally advised as opposed to outright deletion. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashburn Volunteer Fire-Rescue Department[edit]

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

A small volunteer fire department. While undoubtedly a noble organization, it does not meet the notability requirements (significant coverage with sources addressing subject directly in detail, etc.) Neutrality^talk 05:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ashburn, Virginia (where it's covered already) if anyone feels like it. General precedent is to cover police and fire departments in the articles of the communities they serve, and the article gives no indication that this should be an exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 26 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ashburn, Virginia. No secondary sources establishing sufficient notability for its own article, with all due respect to the volunteers. Passing mention in one source on Google News, and Google search revealed no sites establishing notability beyond the local scale in the first 200 hits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant data, such as data that doesn't require sourcing, to Ashburn, Virginia. I already merged the gallery from Ashburn Volunteer Fire-Rescue Department to Ashburn, Virginia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 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. Page has already been redirected to appropriate target (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond Cricket Club[edit]

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here, here, here, here and here. The article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mt king ^(edits) 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECTED I've redirected the page to the notable Drummond Cricket Club Ground per WP:BEBOLD, I've also included a sentence about the club playing there. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:27, 29 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:42, 1 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Kraft[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather depressing specimen of an attempt to claim inherited notability - being "assistant engineer" to, or vaguely "working with," a notable person is not a WP:ENTERTAINER criterion, the albums appear to be self-released (per Valley Advocate source which says that Kraft is from Microearth Records, Microearth Records being the company that release the albums), and coverage is inadequate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 19:10, 6 September 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 Transparency International. Courcelles 23:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency International Kenya[edit]

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

Delete or redirect to Transparency International. There is no need for an extra article out of the 70+ branches TI has. Dengero (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 18 August 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) 00:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transparency International No evidence that this chapter of TI is specifically notable per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Current sources in the article are primary sources or documents that do not mention the organization. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transparency International. Neutrality^talk 22:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A key chapter of Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that monitors and publicizes corporate and political corruption in international development. The headquarters of the organization is located in Germany; no section exists documenting it's chapters in the main article for Transparency International; the article is worthy of existing per being in Kenya, a country working to improve human rights; there are likely other reliable sources that are available in journals, books, newspapers, magazines, etc. (not just via web search). Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps allow more time for print sources to be used as reliable sources for the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 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. Courcelles 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jannat Mahid[edit]

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

No reliable source in the article, does not live up to WP:MUSICBIO Tachfin (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a rule, I don't vote to delete articles on people whose names are written in a non-Latin character system unless we have the proper spelling of their name to search on. How is Ms. Mahid's name spelled in Arabic? (The French coverage in GNews makes me think that Arabic sources must be out there.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic spelling would be "جنات مهيد", even coverage in Moroccan established newspapers seems pretty poor, I get 4 results where she is mentioned trivially (Not a whole article about her). No article about her in Arabic wiki BTW. Tachfin (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this, this, and this? (Three at random from the first page of GNews results.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arabic-language sources (the ones I linked and others). Thanks Tachfin for the spelling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, frankly I didn't search in Arabic before and nominated since I've seen many articles on contestants in Arabic reality TV. I found some results here though few are about her personally. Since I retracted my nomination, I'll close this if no one objects. Tachfin (talk) 09:16, 6 September 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. Courcelles 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

619 Wrestling Move[edit]

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

No notability established. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG; there's no need for the nominator to !vote, you know. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable with no references. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability. Safiel (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete/Redirect to Rey Mysterio Jr. not even the correct term for the move --ChristianandJericho (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by SpacemanSpiff. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NEET : UG (Common Entrance for MBBS Admissions 2012-2013)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: There is a proposal for such an entrance exam in India. But again, as the nom pointed out, Wikipedia not a newspaper. The article could be merged with AIPMT though. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 17:40, 1 September 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. Courcelles 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XSQL[edit]

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

Below-par article on a non-notable technology, produced by a moribund project.

This product's claim to fame is based on having a four-character name beginning with X (Don't underestimate these, it was the fashion around 2000). The idea is a simple one (although the article fails to clarify this) - to make an XML dialect for expressing SQL, rather than using the well-established SQL syntax. Note that it is not a query language for querying XML documents - that's a different problem (See XQL or even SPARQL).

The problems in a WP sense are an evident lack of notability. As the project appears to have become dormant around 2002, it seems unlikely that this will ever change in the future.

Technically (and I understand this to be an irrelevance) the project appears mis-directed anyway. It's likely the result of the "Let's express <foo> in XML!" enthusiasm of the early 2000s. Not everything that can be expressed in XML is useful to express in XML. There are also technical holes in the project: Why is Perl so crucial? Isn't the whole point of XML expression being that it makes you coding language independent? Does this express DDL, or just DML? If SQL must be expressed in XML, then there are similar projects, like Apache Torque, that would seem to be doing a better job of this.

If the project were live, promising and looked likely to grow I wouldn't nominate this. However it's both clearly non-notable today and, with these off-wiki technical caveats, is also unlikely to improve. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also note (although don't see this as reason to delete) that the page was the creation of banned user Fatal!ty (talk · contribs)
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- samj _in^out 07:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any Dingley's analysis is spot-on (everything he says is true, though some of the points are not pertinent to the deletion). Mhkay (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not worthy Can I inscribe that inside my dog-eared and coffee-stained copy of the big red XSLT book? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing really to add; simply not notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:46, 4 September 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. Courcelles 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson[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))

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm missing some tags or something. This is complicated and frustrating. Please fix it for me. This is regarding the page "Ernest Emerson". This page is a blatant advertisement for this person's custom knife making business. This page was nominated for deletion a few years ago and whomever decided to keep it based his opinion on the false claim that you can't buy the knives anymore hence it was not advertising. Please take a look at the original debate and see that for yourself. That was a lie because you can buy the knives and a massive inventory of other items from that person's website here http://www.emersonknives.com/ There isn't a single reason for that person to have a wikipedia page. The bio info about him inventing stuff are "substantiated" by links to magazines well known to post paid advertisement articles and pages that do no exist.--powermugu-powermugu

link to first afd (which i'm putting here like this because i don't want to try to figure out how to make it show up like it's supposed to. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whoever closed it based it on consensus, its a foreign concept to some. Maybe its a language barrier but USPTO is not a magazine [25]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Subject is notable as evidenced by the large body of secondary sources. Article is a featured article and has been thoroughly vetted before a single purpose account created this nomination. Nominator has not even raised a single concern on the article's talk page. Just because the subject owns a knife company does not make it advertising. There is no need to call anyone liars.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — i am already biased against articles on businesses and their founders, but if this guy and his company are not independently notable, i don't know who would be. this article is close to a model for how smaller business bios ought to be written. it has some peacock language in it, yes (there ought to be a rule against mentioning that people were born in log cabins, seriously), and the tone is irritating in places, but it's a good solid article, well supplied with third-party sources, on a notable person. this should be obvious. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Article is a non-biased and is a good solid article on an extremely notable person in the industry as well as community, backed by multiple quality third party sources. --nevermas 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -subject is a definitive contributor and notable pioneer in the tactical and military knife industry. Article is more than reliably sourced, and sources are accurate and relevant. Deleting articles like this with respect to tactical knife history is is equivalent to deleting articles on Steve Jobs or Bill Gates with respect to Computers. --Gusstrand (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Reason 1 — The assertion that it is a lie that these knives are available on the Subject's website is spurious. The knives classed as "Pre-tactical models", "Viper Knives" and "Specwar Knives" are not available for sale anywhere on the website that I can find. Under the section "Emerson Knives, Inc", the models Tomahawk, or CQC-T, Commander, SARK and CQC-7 are available, but I note that the article discusses them in terms of unique origins/blade geometries making them highly significant and appropriate for inclusion in the article. Reason 2 — The development of unique blade geometries and other design elements, i.e. the "Wave", is ground-breaking and of historical significance, certainly worthy of inclusion. Reason 3 — The Subject has demonstrably had a significant impact on the development and field deployment of "tactical" knives in the military and law enforcement fields. This would seem to be worthy of inclusion as a matter of historical posterity. Reason 4 — The Subject has developed a unique martial arts system. Tracing events which helped to develop this system, as well as unique elements of the system itself, is highly relevant. Reason 5 — The appearance of several of the Subject's knife designs in novels and films was quite fascinating and relevant to illustrating the Subject's impact and influence within the SpecWar community, such that it is now being emulated in multiple fiction media. Reason 6 — The list of citations and notes are exhaustive and impressive. This article appears to have been extraordinarily well-researched. In conclusion — The reasons for keeping this article about a Subject who has had a revolutionary impact in multiple areas would seem to be self-evident and precisely what Wikipedia was designed to promulgate. — Railpatch (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I am not particularly impressed by the article and some of the sourcing appears dubious at first glance, I do not believe his notability is in question. The fact that the article seems an advertisement is not a valid reason for deletion, as it can be fixed through normal editing. Yoenit (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sources are accurate and reliable, the author is reputable, and the subject matter is not spurious, but rather a nicely written biography of a notable person. The information was obviously well researched, and contains data that is not available anywhere else. I find this attempt at deletion to be farcical. --Jiminpotomac (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I've checked and rechecked the sources over the last few days, and in a nutshell, everything is accurate, and the sources are verifiable (to wit, deleting the article does not have any merit whatsoever) --Jon Svoboda Sept 1, 2011 15:29 EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Svoboda (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After being accused of being a sock puppet, I will respond that this article meets AND EXCEEDS all necessary requirements including the revered WP:V and the deletion request is merely a personal attack on what appears to be the original author and the subject. I use this page to refer collectors and inquiries to very frequently. The page is a definitive resource. --Still a human, Gusstrand (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there are specific issues with the tone of the article then that is something that needs editting and not the deletion of the article. The article is about a knife makes so of course there will be material written about his works. That doesn't make the article an advert. If there are facts about the person that are incorrect, then they can be corrected. Again, that does not call for deleting the entire article. I see nothing in the nomination reasoning that requires the article to be deleted. And if there are any unvoiced concerns about notability, the ample sourcing about him including stuff like this Malaysia Star article about collectors lusting after his product pretty much settles any issues of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I am not a sock puppet. Not in the least. To get back on track again, the sources are reliable, and the article is accurate. It would seem that someone doesn't particularly care for the subject matter the article pertains to -- Jon Svoboda (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC) *Comment – Some people have various beliefs about how Wikipedia should exist as. See Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and Exclusionism.Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear to everyone, per person you get one vote (bolded "keep" or "delete"). You can add more comments if you want, but dont vote again. Yoenit (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Some people have various beliefs about how Wikipedia should exist as. See Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and Exclusionism.

I fail to see how that is related to my previous comment or anything else in this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment placed in error below your message, moved above to correct area.Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article is worthy of remaining included, the individual is noteworthy as an expert in edged-weapons, and there are a multitude of credible references in it.Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer This SPI case is probably worth looking at, though I don't see how it will change the outcome. Hobit (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a featured article C'mon Agathoclea (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - featured article. S Larctia (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a good one and its accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.34.177.46 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn DiBenedetto[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_Kait - simply not notable. Slashme (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Bio by MTV is some indication of notability. But there's no other indicaiton of wp:notability, nor specific content in text that even asserts it. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only one of the WP:MUSIC guidelines that this resembles is "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.", which of course this hasn't. --Slashme (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Has two third party references indicating a measure of notability, the MTV bio and an interview. Sandstein 05:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been discussed well enough at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_Kait, and the result was delete. If there's no more discussion here, that result should be good enough here. --Slashme (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable. Neutrality^talk 22:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:28, 8 September 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) 18:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NextGen series[edit]

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

Youth tournament organized by third party, not UEFA-sactioned. Participants are non-notable players who fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Routine coverage of the tournament similar in quantity and depth as the deleted Talent Cup. Borderline WP:CSD#G11. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 07:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this when Premier Academy League also consist of non-notable players? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Multiple newspapers have given this tournament constant attention, particularly the Daily Mail, which stands to me as evidence of notability. I seem to recall that there is a Wikipedia policy that forbids using the argument "X article was deleted and this article Y is similar so we must delete article Y", for the record, though I haven't the time to look it up yet. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really any valid reason provided for deletion. Buy anyway it has received a large amount of coverage across many sources. Adam4267 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FCBarcelona's website seems to be taking it seriously. La Fuzion (What's up?) 22:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barca's "official" newspaper El Mundo Deportivo does not mention it at all. [26] Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the rationale for deletion of the Talent Cup directly applies to this article as well, namely the lack of sources (~30 hits on GNews) and the depth of coverage (majority of coverage are blogs and routine mentions). Further note the coverage by the Daily Mail, which appears to be the only RS with more than trivial mentions of the event, is written by the founder and promoter of the Series, Mark Warburton. Ultimately, this is a junior friendly event that fails WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to Celtic FC, it is in fact UEFA sanctioned. It's also being written up on by Celtic, Inter, Liverpool, and Man City, and those are just the first four that I checked. It's an official tournament, the clubs are covering it, and the outside media is covering it. If this isn't notable, neither is the UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic's claim that the event is UEFA-sanctioned appears to be wrong. The UEFA website, which normally does a fantastic job reporting its news events, does not mention NextGen at all. They only list U-19, U-17, and UEFA Regions' Cup as competitions under Youth and Amateur. The NextGen official website also makes no claim that is it UEFA-sanctioned. On your second point, club websites generally cover every event their team participates in, but that does not establish notability. Since about 75% of the Series takes place outside of the UK, you would expect substantial non-UK coverage, but major European media local to participating teams are not covering this at all. Examples include the aforementioned El Mundo Deportivo, La Gazella dello Sport, Aftenposten, Die Zeit, L'Équipe, and Zaman. In fact, coverage is strictly limited to a small number of very trivial routine mentions and in the Warburton-affiliated Daily Mail. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many newspapers have not covered the subject, but how many have covered it, as shown in other comments here. And what evidence do you have that the Daily Mail is "Warburton-affiliated"? The newspaper invited him to write one article, but has other coverage written by others. It may not be an independent reliable source for politically contentious topics, but I see no reason to discount its coverage here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable. Giant Snowman 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of any connection to UEFA, it passes WP:GNG on the basis of significant coverage in national UK media. In response to the comment that this is limited to the Daily Mail, here are some other examples: Telegraph Sky Sports Guardian Scottish Herald Scotsman Daily Mirror STV. Deserter1 talk 16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Switzerland and their press: example "Blick" and FC Basel webside with match report FCB-PSV take it seriously. --Huligan0 (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per other editors view that the series has notability, as evidenced by the newspaper articles. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 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 all. — Joseph Fox 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pol. Viribus Unitis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "Non-notable amateur club per WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN". PROD was contested with no reason given.

Viribus Unitis have never played for a national cup competition (failing WP:FOOTY) and for the lack of media coverage, it fails WP:GNG as well.

Also, for the exact same reason, i am also nominating these six articles for deletion:

--Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 06:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Although many clubs from Serie D do not meet WP:FOOTYN criteria, on a common sense basis I contend that teams playing at the fifth tier of Italian football are notable. There are almost 50 leagues in England in which all clubs are considered notable; exclude Serie D and that would leave just six in Italy. At this discussion and this discussion, it was recently agreed that WP:FOOTYN was not fit for purpose, because it favours teams from countries with large national cups (e.g. France has over 6000 teams in theirs; Italy has 78). This is not an argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because it concerns a single guideline. Deserter1 talk 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deserter1. Giant Snowman 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Deserter1. User :Kefalonitis94 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Like the article about S.S. Todi, following the guidelines, this clubs have no notability at all. CapPixel (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for the same reasons Deserter1 explained above. 23:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.53.170 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 22:50, 2 September 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. Courcelles 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Shepperd[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Order of the Sword is a well-known and significant award and honor. I will add more book references.Geek2003 (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 185 on the list of The Order of the Sword recipients (BTW, many other recipient do not have WP articles) and writing some books does not fulfil WP:ANYBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Order of the Sword Generals should have wiki pages because they have controlled billions of dollars a year from the country affiliated with and affected millions of peoples lives, every year they were in office.Geek2003 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a major building named for the General will live in history forever. Geek2003 (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional refs added.Geek2003 (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets WP:SOLDIER & has sufficient coverage in multiple books in order for the subject to arguably pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added Major awards and decorations section. Geek2003 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER is only a proposed guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a general officer, passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:COMMONSENSE. Yes, they're just essays, but they're very sensible essays. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per comments above. --Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Descendent genealogy[edit]

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

Neologism used as coatrack for webspam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~neologism~~, has no reliable sources that actually use the term; two of the references use a different term right in their title. There is a long history of genealogical projects tracing descendants, the idea is far from novel, yet it is portrayed as a unique, new, different way of doing things. The figures are meaningless - they could be representing anything and are not the least informative. The page seems as much about efficiency in a global project, which has the same benefits independent of technique, so has nothing really to do with so-called 'descendant genealogy'. It is far from neutral. 'This is a better way to do genealogy' is the take-home message of the page. It looks like marketing, making something standard look unique and insightful, but it's just marketing and not appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't see anything here worth saving ~~considering the term is a neologism to begin with~~. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is not a neologism, just so uncommon that with decades of experience in the field I had never heard the term (I guess I don't go to the right conferences). I also note that it is 'descendent', and not 'descendant' genealogy - different etymology, same take-home lesson. Response below suggests that the intent of the page isn't even to explain descendent genealogy, but rather to promote one particular implementation of it. Given its rare usage, I don't think this merits anything more than a Wiki dictionary entry. In Wikipedia, I would still favor deleting, but could be convinced it should instead be a redirect to genealogy. If it is retained, then it needs to be stubified to about two sentences explaining that it is a subset of genealogy that involves tracing the descendants of a person or persons. There is no inherent connection between descendent genealogy, per se, and most of the article content, the rest is just one person's vision of the perfect way to do genealogy via a global descendent genealogy project. The current content is still WP:SOAP/marketing. Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ""descendant genealogy" gets 493 ghits. spelled as this article indicates, we get 135 ghits. neither is very common, but doesnt appear to be a neologism. Content of the article seems excessive. not sure yet if i think it should be deleted or improved. too bad the supporter below (single purpose account) doesnt get the process here and overstates their point. if the articles spelling is related to a patented product, delete as not notable yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain[edit]

The most basic problem here appears to be that neither one of the two editors actually understood the article or its technical significance. I don't know whether to fault the article, or to fault the editors, or both. From their reactions, I have to assume that they know almost nothing about today's genealogy industry and its problems, and so see no value in the (patented 2004) solution.

I think it is interesting that one of them was so sure of his computer and database and genealogy industry experience that he could make this statement: "The page seems as much about efficiency in a global project, which has the same benefits independent of technique." "Independent of technique?" How about if I ask this editor for a reference for that rather sweeping statement? I would love to read it and respond. If one method costs hundreds or thousands of times more than another, that might seem like a difference worth noting. It might be correct as a theoretical statement that, to the end user, getting the result one way was as good as getting a result another, assuming there was no cost difference. However, today it is simply impossible to finish it the way it is being attempted because of the exorbitant costs involved.

Here is an item which I should add to the article to help clarify the situation: "The LDS Church has had an active genealogy research program going on for more than 100 years, so they can provide some interesting statistical experience. Within the last few years they have discovered that the genealogy research which has been assembled in their central systems has been duplicated an average of 30 times, with 200 times being common, and 10,000 times being perhaps the largest case. This illustrates the staggering duplication, and thus waste, of valuable researcher time. Of the 1.5 billion entries in the database, only about 50 million names are unique. Looking at this another way, if there were 1.5 billion unique entries in the database, that would easily cover the entire United States and all of Western Europe, instead of just the tiny portion of it represented by the 50 million entries."

Today's genealogy processes use mountains of computers, but use them in the most inefficient way imaginable. Perhaps the editors assume that with the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on genealogy research, especially in recent decades, we are using the best possible methods. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The "standard" or traditional ways of doing things are absurdly inefficient in today's technological world, but those traditional ways are tenaciously clung to nonetheless. If the editors want to key in on profit and greed, they will find that the current methods are retained because they are profitable to the research firms and database firms now embedded in the industry. But those methods are extremely expensive and thus "unprofitable" to the genealogy hobbyists and other kinds of enthusiasts who desire to use these professional services to research their families.

Of course people have been tracing descendents for thousands of years, as one editor mentions, but with the Internet, and proper procedures, it can be done literally hundreds or even thousands of times faster. And it doesn't matter which organization decides to actually implement these ideas. This article could serve equally as well as an "ad" for the LDS Church with its large genealogy activities, or as an "ad" for some generic secular genealogical society, or as an "ad" for me if I were somehow able to implement these ideas.

It would seem a bit silly if Wikipedia never put up an article which benefitted anyone in any way. What, then, would be the point of having Wikipedia? Who is the target audience, after all?

Musings on Wikipedia content[edit]

The whole general question as to what material should be in Wikipedia seems to be pretty slippery and subjective. You say you don't want anything new, or of any commercial value to anyone, but does that mean that you don't want the "Lady Gaga" article (it is there) to be written until after the end of her career or her life? As long as she is alive and performing, the article about her has at least a small potential economic and marketing effect.

As an example, the 2 Wikipedia editors who have taken a look at my article seem to be saying that there can be no US money or commercial interests in anything which is placed on Wikipedia. Perhaps they would like to only see articles about quinoa in South America, as spoken about by the illiterate indigenous natives who have nonetheless recorded annual quantities of production by knotting ropes as the Incas did.

I noticed that the Intel Corporation and IBM Corporation who sell computers, and Ancestry.com who sells online databases, and the National Genealogical Society who sells very large genealogy conferences (4000 people at a time) multiple times a year, all have their entries in Wikipedia. Yes, they are of general interest, but one has to assume that most of the data presented there came from internal sources with a low-key marketing impulse behind it. (If it didn't come from internal sources, I would have reason to doubt its accuracy). If you say nothing with any actual or potential economic effect could be placed on Wikipedia, you would have an almost perfectly blank database.

This genealogy article is related to a patent which was issued in 2004 and another improved version of that patent which was filed provisionally this year to be granted next year. Are industry-changing patents and related methods of no interest to Wikipedia? Do I need to wait 10 years and then publish the exact same article, and it would be fine? Let's say that I invented the lightbulb 10 years ago, and now I am explaining the lightbulb to the world. There have been and will be billions of dollars tied up in lightbulb economics, and whoever invented the lightbulb would have a good reason to make sure people had accurate information about it. So because there is a sliver of economic interest in getting an article into the public mind-share, does that mean it is not suitable for Wikipedia? Would you delete a lightbulb article? See Wikipedia article "Incandescent light bulb."

The editors are not too consistent here. First they say it is as common as dirt to find people researching genealogies in descendent sequence (perhaps I should write an article on dirt --oops, somebody already did write a Wikipedia article on "Dirt," complete with photos of dirt), and then they seem to say that I'm describing something that is unknown to the genealogy industry. I don't think it would be a big problem to find other references which use the term as I use it, if that is all that the objection is about. I will look into that. I just never anticipated that that sort of thing would be a basis for deleting the article.

Perhaps the real problem is that these editors actually are not very familiar with the genealogy industry, and therefore are not aware of the massive productivity problems that exist in the industry, and therefore are unaware of the value to that industry of getting these massive problems solved properly. It appears that they do not grasp the consequences of the little bit of mathematics included in the article. Perhaps AFTER the entire industry is restructured by this new insight, then it would be okay to write about the new industry as so reconstructed, looking back on history? Must all of the articles on Wikipedia be at least a lifetime's old, only recording things that happened at least 90 years ago?

I should mention that the article could conceivably be slightly rewritten with the title of "genealogy mathematics." There are some other interesting theoretical mathematics articles available on that topic, that could be joined with the practical methods shown in my article for how those mathematics can be put to work. Perhaps that would improve the appearance of novelty, if that is what the editors are looking for. The question then becomes whether the article should emphasize the cooperative power of using descendent-sequence genealogy research, or whether it should emphasize the related mathematics. Maybe we ought to wait a little while and get some real genealogists to vote on which is a better way to present the exact same material, and then perhaps adjust the title. Or perhaps we should put in two titles, with one pointing to the other.

Extract from the article talk page[edit]

Charge: "neologism used as coatrack for webspam"

I plan to remove the proposed deletion markings as soon as I finish this little explanation. Obviously I am a newbie (does that require hazing in the Wikipedia culture?) and have only gotten through the first layer of complexity on how to do the basic editing and fit an article into the apparently rather complex and somewhat arcane methods which have grown up around this very useful public knowledge resource.

There doesn't seem to be any good place to mention one's qualifications for doing any particular article, perhaps because of the (questionable) assumption is that anyone can do it. But I am 70 years old, have worked most of my life as a computer consultant on extremely large systems, such as a billion-dollar communications system requiring 900 programmers. I also have two law degrees and have worked as an attorney. (I can only hope you will not use that against me. :-) )

I am already aware of numerous formatting problems, including the use of adequate in-line references, etc. As soon as I finish reading the material on those topics I will make those changes. My first goal was to make the article intelligible and not too long, with a minimum of external references, and then I will gradually work in more references to outside material. There are mountains of material available, and the trick is to select that which would be most appropriate. By putting this on the web I might be able to get some of my associates to help me a little bit on this project.

The major claim is that this is a "neologism". I did spend quite some time trying to decide what the title of the article should be, and looked to see if there were other articles or titles where this material might better be placed. But, unfortunately, similar charges of unsatisfactory labeling might be made against many of the genealogy-related articles which are now in Wikipedia. Although it would be a rather large job, it looks to me like someone needs to look at all of the genealogy related articles and give them a little bit more consistency. I am going to look into that, but even if it seems feasible, it will take weeks to complete. If, in the end, it appears that I have chosen poorly on the title, I will certainly consider changing it.

Among those hundreds of thousands of serious genealogists who attend public conferences, I expect that almost every one of them would know what this topic means without further explanation. There is another term in common use called "reverse genealogy" which means somewhat the same thing, although it is a rather amorphous term since it mostly is a set of research workarounds rather than a concept of its own. I expect that the man in the street would better understand "descendent genealogy" rather than "reverse genealogy." He might say "What in the heck is 'reverse genealogy?'," especially since he would probably know almost nothing about non-reverse genealogy.

As to the "spam" charge, I think that is completely overcome by both the public service, nonprofit intention and the "notability" aspects of these new insights into genealogy research and data recording. As I note in the article, there are about 4 million people in the United States, and millions elsewhere, who spend hundreds of millions of hours each year doing highly duplicated and highly repetitive tasks. If we could save the equivalent of $60 billion a year in duplicate work, someone might think that was an effort worth doing. Whether I can supply those needed facilities or not, or only some religious or governmental body would have the resources to carry out the project, if some of these working genealogists come to realize the extreme inefficiency of the methods they are using, and the enormous increase in productivity which is now potentially available to them, they might adopt these cooperation methods and greatly improve the entire genealogy research industry.

If that informing process is "marketing," and thus condemned on Wikipedia, then we might wonder whether the entire nation's education and publishing systems should be shut down as being informative and therefore "marketing." Huffkw (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow. WOW! See WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (I am just not up to reading through a 12,000 character manifesto, so if you want individual points discussed, please raise them more succinctly.) Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You harp on the massive gain in efficiency of a duplication-free globally integrated descendent genealogy on-line database project. However, there is nothing about descendent genealogy that inherently reduces duplication. Duplication comes from not looking for duplicates or not recognizing that they are there, and that happens tracing in either direction. Likewise there is nothing about descendent genealogy that inherently requires or facilitates a globally integrated project, and there is nothing about it that facilitates on-line database construction or access - again, the advantages are similar whether one is doing descendent, ascendent or some sort of horizontal prosopography. Maybe combining these 4 things: descendent genealogy, global inegration, online databasing and replication avoidance, will produce what you view as the 'perfect' genealogical project, but such speculation and personal desires are out of place in an article about just one of the items. I may think that a fast car with zero carbon footprint, a monstrous amount of money, a library ten times the size of the FHL and a limitless supply of rootbeer floats would make my life perfect, but that doesn't mean I should create an article, Rootbeer Float, to convince people how much better their life would be when they add the car and the money and the library to the rootbeer and ice cream. No, an article on Rootbeer floats should limit itself to rootbeer floats and since there just isn't that much to be said about rootbeer floats on their own, Root beer floats redirects to Ice cream soda. That's descendent genealogy in a nutshell. You remove all of the irrelevancies and you don't have something that merits a stand-alone article. Agricolae (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin: The essay posted above has numerous WP:ATA issues. For one, the comparison between this topic and obviously notable topics is very close to a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Would we deleted the article on lightbulbs? If it were just after they had been created and there wasn't sources to establish the notability of lightbulbs, sure. Would we delete Lady Gaga? Yes, if nobody wrote about her and there weren't sources, sure. I must reiterate the simple and fundamental premise of AfD: it is pretty much exclusively concerned with one thing - are there reliable sources available to establish notability of this topic? If the answer is yes, most other problems can be resolved amicably; if not, there's barely any point discussing the topic. Long essays do not do that, links to sources do. The issue of coatracking also was not addressed in this lengthy response. There are plenty more issues with the article: large quantities of unreferenced, original research and original synthesis.

Further, there is the implicit assumption in the article that getting a patent means the subject of that patent is notable or original: given that the US patent system granted a patent on the doubly-linked list back in 2002, despite it having been around since the mid-50s. If we are trying to establish notability, trusting the US patent system to tell us something is notable is highly suspect, given they think that an idea created in the 1950s that is now considered an elementary data structure that is usually taught in first-year computer science textbooks is a novel and useful, non-obvious contribution to the science with no prior art! —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would further suggest that the patent in question should not be viewed as a source independent of the editor who created the page[27] and is about a computer system for recording and selling genealogy arranged by descendant groups, not about the genealogy itself. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Much of this article appears to be editorializing in favor of a certain method of genealogy. While the practice of starting with a past individual and tracing their descendants is worthy of coverage somewhere in Wikipedia, I don't know whether this merits a separate article assuming that all the opinion is removed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom, and I don't see this term has significant coverage in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be pure Original Research. A strong clue is the fact that there are no secondary sources on the topic. Although there are citations in the article, they are to primary (raw data) sources. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and poorly sourced essay based on OR and SYNTH. Insufficent coverage in secondary sources to establish notability or the widesread consistent use of the term. The Cooke and Taylor references look like spam, as do the Progenylink links. Worst of all, the article appears to have been created by the person who applied for the patents cited in the article. This would be blatant self-promotion and spam. Nothing worth much saving here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Dominus Vobisdu above.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noticed that Huffkw (talk · contribs) has moved onto another unreferenced article, Genealogy information systems, which he created two days after this AFD was commenced. It features the above-mentioned "Genealogy registry system" patent by "Kent W. Huff". Maybe someone can take a look at it. I'm certain WP:COAT applies.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the new article is a personal essay, not based on any independent sources, and gives superficial coverage of the concept in question, with the apparent sole goal of setting a context upon which the editor can introduce their own patented product to Wikipedia. The unfinished 'Comparison' section is clearly there to herald the advantages of this product. It's probably too late to roll this into the same AfD, but it appears at heart to be the same thing - coatrack spam created to promote the editor's obscure product (or perhaps to promote their personal vision, which amounts to the same thing). Agricolae (talk) 14:45, 3 September 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" opinions are unpersasive in terms of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 05:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heal Our Land[edit]

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

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

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

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

This CD/Album in not at all notable, obscure Korean singing, not sold in the US, not notable in Korea either Iairsometimes (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In fact, we should keep this page since I was the one who created this page in 2006 and after all these years this page had no problems. Park john u (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2011 (PTZ)

~~Keep~~ - Not only that, but I forgot to mention that this album Heal Our Land is also mentioned on Don Moen's I Will Sing DVD. Park john u (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2011 (PTZ)

Keep - Totally agree with user Park john u. Don Moen's greatest hits CD "God Will Make A Way: The Best Of Don Moen" is available everywhere including the US, and that compilation CD contains one song from "Heal Our Land" called All We Like Sheep, which is also mentioned on the booklet of that Best Of Don Moen album. In fact, many Don Moen fans not living in Korea actually know this album that they downloaded MP3 online, so it's very notable to them. This is a must-keep article in Wikipedia as facts outweigh opinions 99.44.57.202 (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2011 (PTZ) Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. —DoRD (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This album is very notable as it is on Don Moen discography list despite that it is not available in US and a song All We Like Sheep in the compilation album God Will Make a Way: The Best of Don Moen actually came from the album Heal Our Land. This album is actually notable in Korea as Don Moen is very well known there. Park john u (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2011 (PTZ)

~~Keep~~ - This album is actually notable with many Don Moen fans, according to Don Moen Wikipedia article, plus Amazon.com sells songs from this album 99.44.57.202 (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2011 (PTZ)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —DoRD (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please !vote only once. Subsequent comments can be prefaced with "comment" in bold as I have done here. I'm on the fence on this one. In English, I managed to dig up a passing mention here. However, given that the songs are sung in Korean, and the asserted popularity is in Korea, looking for sources in English doesn't seem to be a good way of searching for sources. Anybody with some fluency in Korean able to provide sources? -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Only four songs were sung in Korean, but all of the songs in this album were sung in English as well. -- 99.44.57.202 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (PTZ)

Keep - This album is one of Don Moen his products!! And Don is proud on his products that he has made for the world, for Gods Glory! Just let the album stay! As a fan of Don Moen in Holland, this is notable to me since I have the songs from this album! Harma4J — Harma4J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - 99.44.57.202 and Park john u are sockpuppets - the same person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Park_john_u Their votes should be deleted as sockpuppetry. --Iairsometimes (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Harma4J appears to be a sockpuppets as well. --Iairsometimes (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a fan of Don Moen in Minnesota, this album is notable to me and has many awesome songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansi D (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this album in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ - Heal Our Land is an album of Christian worship music recorded by Don Moen and Paul Wilbur. The Contemporary Christian album was recorded live in Yoido Park in South Korea and released by Integrity Asia in 2000. The album was recorded in support of a unified Korea. This album also features vocalists Lenny LeBlanc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_LeBlanc and Rachel Wilson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harma4J (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a fan of Don Moen, this is notable to me in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.216.37 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 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, Sandstein 05:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: None of the "keep" opinions so far are relevant in terms of our inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 05:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a music album. The applicable WP notability guideline is WP:NALBUMS. That guideline requires significant, independent secondary discussion by sources. Since the album is 11 years old, a notable album of that age should have several good sources. My research shows only one: Charisma and Christian life, Volume 15, Issues 6-11, plus several informal blogs/promotional sites. And even that one source is merely a review, and not a discussion of the impact of the album's influence. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like there are around 30 separate WP articles on albums from Don Moen (singer). See the full list at Category:Don Moen live albums. A cursory examination shows that many of them are probably not notable. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: discography - Note that article Don Moen (singer) already contains a full discography, so deleting articles on individual albums would not mean they disappear from WP entirely. --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Go to God Will Make a Way: The Best of Don Moen compilation album article and you will see that the compilation album contains a song from this live album Heal Our Land. On God Will Make a Way: The Best of Don Moen compilation album article, go see song number 9 and the song titled All We Like Sheep is actually from this album Heal Our Land. Also, if this album Heal Our Land is notable to Harma4J in Holland and another fan in Brazil and a third person in Minnesota, this is internationally notable enough, so it would be meaningless to delete this page. Also go to Don Moen (singer) page and if you see the NOTABLE RECORDINGS section, Heal Our Land is actually one of them. Again, it would be meaningless to remove this page. Facts outweigh opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.167.197 (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant, independent secondary discussions by reliable 3rd party sources.--Cox wasan (talk) 10:14, 5 September 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 main issue that brought this to AFD was a lack of coverage in mainstream reliable sources, and the consensus here is that those issues have been addressed to a level sufficient enough to meet the general notability requirements. Further improvements can be discussed per standard editorial processes. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated a couple of months back and closed as no consensus, but subsequent conversation determined that it was improper for the article's creator to be involved, since he is the organization's communications director, ie. is paid to promote the subject. He and the other users who advocated keeping the article were given a week to find sources; it's been more than a week.

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))

Non-notable bill: never got out of committee, no significant coverage in mainstream RS. Name gets a lot of hits, but most of those are about state-level amendments, and nearly all those that are actually about this bill are trivial (due either to the article being very short, or to a sentence or two of coverage in an article about something else, eg. [28], which is about the treaty). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the article's creator of the existence of this AfD. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen him around since the last AfD, and as I said above the fact that he's paid what is probably a hefty salary to promote this amendment is problematic, but fair enough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment it appears to me that there are no reliable secondary sources for this which establish notability. i would ordinarily !vote for deletion on this basis, but actually, the existence of such a thing as this amendment interests me, and it's conceivable that it belongs in wp. on the other hand, given the history of the article it seems clear to me that there is no way that the editors involved in writing it now are going to be able to write something worthy of an encyclopedia. it's possible that i will make up my mind about how to !vote soon, but for now, i just thought i'd try the experiment of taking out every statement which is cited to an unreliable source. this leaves something which i wouldn't mind seeing in the encyclopedia if anyone could find any evidence whatsoever for notability. if any of you'd like to look at it, it'll be in my sandbox at least until this closes. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed laws aren't automatically notable; people propose laws all the time that never get out of committee, like this one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ha, yeah... i was just writing the below when i got hit with an edit conflict from you writing the above. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete ok, nevermind. i had no idea that this happened so often. according to this: Measures Proposed to Amend the Constitution, there have been over 11K proposed amendments to the constitution. this makes it clear to me that, given the lack of discussion in any kind of reliable secondary sources (apart, of course, from the mentions which Roscelese accurately characterizes as "trivial"), and given the fact that this hasn't made it out of committee in 2.5 tries, there is no way that this particular ~~0.000879353%~~ 0.00879353% of the proposed constitutional amendments ought to have an article here. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is fairly well-known, in part because it's been proposed by Michael Farris and in part because of the recent large number of co-sponsors it has had, though it has yet to come close to the necessary number for ratification (110 is the highest House co-sponsors I found in my search). I'd be interested if anyone with a current database account could do a search to see what sort of coverage it's gotten in legal or educational journals. I do know there are at least two interesting "secondary sources" on this - the state legislatures of Florida and Louisiana, which each urged Congressional passage of the amendment. Ultimately, however, I don't know if the amendment deserves an article here or not. The parental rights movement is unquestionably notable and some of this article's contents should at least be copied/merged into parents' rights movement and the amendment certainly deserves mention in US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But I don't know how widely it's been discussed by experts, covered in the press, or otherwise fulfilled WP:BASIC. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick search on JSTOR it looks like the non-trivial hits are talking largely or entirely about state-level amendments. The state legislature resolutions are primary sources that don't attest notability. But yes, I'd agree that the minimal coverage this has had could merit a mention in US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, though not a complete merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found substantial coverage in these independent sources which estabishes notability: (1) Associated Press, (2) Politico, (3) AFP, (4) Kunzman, (5) Christian Post. – Lionel ^(talk) 16:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your AFP link doesn't appear to work. Deterence ^Talk 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFP link worked when I clicked on it.--JayJasper (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contigent upon incorporating the sources cited by Lionel.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Lionel ^(talk) 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is fairly widely discussed. Don't think the bill itself will become notable, won't pass, but I'm sure it will be a topic of discussion for US AM radio for some length. That said, only keep per JayJasper, Lionel's sources must be incorporated into article. 78.26 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done– Lionel ^(talk) 07:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though the article passes WP:N, it is curiously narrow. Colorado Amendment 2 (from 1996) is extremely notable with dozens of sources, and crucial to the history of the movement. If the article makes it out of AfD I recommend expanding the scope to include greater coverage of state amendments. If the article doesn't make it out of AfD I recommend expanding the scope to include greater coverage of state amendments, by incubating it at WikiProject Conservatism. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources provided above by Lionel appear to satisfy the WP notability guidelines. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are many reliable sources available, they just need to be incorporated into the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Lionel, they have been incorporated into the article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:24, 4 September 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. Sandstein 05:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Poovathingal[edit]

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

Reads like a vanity article. I am unable to find any independent, secondary sources that discuss this individual. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non notable should of been speedy DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage exists about this singing priest in multiple reliable sources. See [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-The subject of the article is a globally well-known singer and priest. The biographical article is still in the making. Whatever stated there so far is an objective representation of Fr Paul Poovathingal. The article is well supported by references cited, that includes website references.

-I am the author of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jponnoly (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Looking at my browser history, I misspelled the subject's name when searching for sources. I apologize for the error. Per AfD standards this should not be closed early as there is another delete !vote, but the closing admin should not consider include my nomination statement in the closure decision. VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Closure

I request closure of this deletion proposal, as it confuses the readers. Fr Paul Poovathingal is a pioneer and trail blazer, as a priest, a musician, music composer, classical vocalist, music researcher, educationist, pioneer of institutions dedicated to music and performing arts, a vocologist and above all a great humanist and philosopher. The world would want to know more about him. That's why I started this, in the hope that in due course, I could expand it. Whatever is written so far is supported by references and evidence. This deletion notice is a dampener. Unless you remove it, I am not going to proceed further in expanding the article. Jponnoly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - The article is still being expanded. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

(Fr) Paul Poovathingal was already referred to under 'List of Carnatic singers' and also 'List of Indian Christians' before I started this article, indicating that he was already a 'noted' personality found mention in these lists. In these two lists, his name was marked in 'red' and displayed the message 'Page does not exist' (in Wikipedia) for him. So it was necessary to create the page. The references cited in the current article (marked for deletion) clearly indicate why he is a noted personality. The article is being revised and expanded with addition of more references and facts supported by evidence. Does anyone still feel that this should be deleted? Will the earlier objectors revise their 'delete' vote? (The nominator has already withdrawn his 'delete' vote. ```` 11:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Jponnoly (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Because anybody can edit Wikipedia, the existence of anybody on any list article(s) is not evidence of notability. What is needed is independent coverage in reliable sources which you have added to the article. Thanks, and good work! -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. The other "Dominant group" articles should be closely scrutinized and nominated if necessary and assuming this has not already been done. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (art)[edit]

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

This is not a thing. Most of the text and references here are completely irrelevant, and those that actually do discuss "dominant group" and art are referring to the general definition of "dominant group," ie. the sociological definition, not to some definition specific to the field of art. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know what the actual topic of this article is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - well-nigh incomprehensible collection of text that doesn't seem to mean anything substantive. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - NOTE: This author has created a whole cluster of these, each worse than the next. See, for example, Dominant group (Moon). Could all of these be dealt with as a group? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I noticed that there were a lot of them, but I didn't want to mass-nominate on the off chance that there was a topic there in some of them. (I have no natural sciences knowledge, and "dominant group (anthropology)" might be referring to a thing.) I mean, feel free to nominate whichever other ones you feel like. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this article is in keeping with all Wikipedia policies for an encyclopedic article. It has notability (11 inline citations discussing 'dominant group' and its association with art), is not original research by definition, and does correlate the art or artists described to that which art is often connected: a dominant group, social in these cases. Additional clarification in the introduction may help. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's creator and substantial contributor. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes it is a topic. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply - no, it is not: it is "synthesis by Google": taking a meaningless congeries of search-engine results that happen to use the two words "dominant" and "group" in a row, and assuming a priori that the coincidence of words has some deep structural meaning, stitching it all together with meaningless nonce-words like "metadefinition"! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small but critical point is that applying a definition is not synthesis or original research; hence, the phrase 'by definition'. Anyone can apply definitions. Another editor has pointed out that paraphrasing, e.g., "dominant group as it occurs in articles about art" with 'dominant group (art)' may be causing a lot of the problems. Alternate title suggestions are welcome, but, probably moot at this point. The good news is that applying an AfD has jumped the readership of this article by a factor of ten. What really bothers me is that except for editors DGG and Mozzy66 who actually are on the list for the subject of this article, the rest of the deleters seem to be from sociology where the term 'dominant group' has steadily increased in use since 2005. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much!" Marshallsumter (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks thou dost talk utter bullshit. (Which isn't a term from sociology, though it probably should be.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think most people are "from sociology" - whatever that means - I'm certainly not. LadyofShalott 02:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By way of preface, my personal opinion is that identity politics has been the centre of the moral universe in the humanities department for the past forty-odd years or so, and the result has been an indigestible mass of turgid prose from armchair revolutionaries trying to out-transgress one another, serene in their conviction that their incomprehensible screeds are striking mighty blows against the hegemonic patriarchy that ignores them. The editor who's able to wade through that stuff and provide a readable synopsis in plain English would be doing a favor to not only the encyclopedia but to the human race.

But, the current article reads like a quote-farm from these texts. This raises not only unencyclopedic issues but also originality issues. I think a successful article will have to at minimum provide an original synopsis of all of these points of view, and not let the sources speak for themselves. They can't speak for themselves; they just aren't able any more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, especially the "quote farm" one. I've added some text from subject areas involved to help with context. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, this article is an application of a theory without specifically linking the theory with the subject the theory is to be applied on. In other words, I don't find the sources to truly support the article. I am also concerned about Original Research and Essayism. I don't feel that this article is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one, but ... These articles have to be seen in the context of the Wikiversity article dominant group; they essentially repeat the text of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group, with some specific additions. I think we'd do best to deal with this article first, and then seal with the similar ones accordingly, and, as User:Roscelese says, in accordance with any special features there. Personally, i think the best way to proceed would be with a rewritten article on Dominant Group. Since it's protected, this would have to be done in user space, and taken to deletion review as a sufficient revision to warrant another AfD on the general article. As wide a range of third-party sources specifically using the term in the meaning presented would be needed, not the ones such as Darwin from which the concept was ultimately derived. (Most of the items listed at the AfD were general uses in Wikipedia articles in the non-specific meaning of the phrase, as a group which in one or another way is dominant, not as a fixed term referring to a particular way of looking at things. I reserve judgment on whether this is possible until i see the proposed references. (the two cited, Travis in evolutionary biology and Millet in sociology, seem to be talking about rather different subjects--travis about a somewhat outmoded way of looking at evolution ("the era of seed-ferns" etc.) and Millet comparing contemporary social groupings. If there is a specific underlying general concept it would need articles discussing it in that light. Based on the degree of concept-stretching in the present and past articles, I have some doubt it will be possible, but I cannot rule out the possibility. Now, my reason for saying delete for this article is, quite simply, that none of the references talk about the concept specifically in art. Gramsci is talking about social roles in general, and I'd need to study his work in some detail to see how he uses the term--if it should be a major distinct concept of such an eminent thinker, it would be notable, but not about art specifically & still would not justify this article. The Jetten article is talking only about body ornament, not art--that tattoos are used for group identification is a specific subject, but probably not worth a separate article, but from the quotes i do not see the term being used in a specific meaning there, and, even if it were, it's not by itself enough to support the article. The material on art in India is talking about the role of art in group formation, and I do not think uses dominant group as a specific concept, and Kingsley's article does not appear to have been actually published. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, DGG. As noted above, I feel the article should be deleted (since the sources don't really support the specific, precise topic written). However, I agree with a re-writing of Dominant Group -- in fact, I had assumed there was an article already. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and voting! I did try another version of 'dominant group' with approximately 51% different text but the admin who deleted the first then deleted the second and protected it. Some of the concerns you've both raised I'm trying to work on at Dominant group, but apparently more needs to be done over here to increase understanding. Believe it or not each author is using the constituent phrase 'dominant group' as a specific concept. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the correct forum for requesting an undeletion of an article is Deletion Review. It *does* appear that there are some reliable, secondary sources on this "dominant group" theory. From the sources you've provided, I could nominally support an undeletion. However, I am just one editor amongst many and I do not represent but a wave in the ocean of consensus (I'm not sure why I just wrote that little comment, but the pithy remarks above inspired me.) Secondly, the article should be more concise and on-topic - no synthesis or original research. The article should reflect an encyclopaedic summary of what the theory is, who supports it, etc. The article should not, in my opinion, read like an essay. To emphasize, I write here only about the original "dominant group" article. I unfortunately still feel that all of the sub "dominant group" articles (i.e. "Dominant Group (art) and similar) should be deleted. Finally, I suggest finding a willing editor to help outline the topic in your userspace before trying to gain consensus to reintroduce "dominant group" to the article space. Regards - and I hope you find this helpful, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comment. Here's one you might like "But once this dominant group has been deposed, other producers take their place and can assert their hegemony, drawing away from consumers by a process of de-commodification." This is by Russell Keat, Nigel Whiteley, and Nicholas Abercrombie. Abercrombie is Professor of Sociology at Lancaster University, Keat is a Professor of Political Theory at Edinburgh University, and Whiteley is a Senior Lecturer in the department of Visual Arts at the University of Lancaster. I guess I am not alone in mixing art with sociology. Shall I insert another section in the article? What do you think. I also have no objections to collaboration, but my user space may be a little crowded. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, I still agree with DGG that Dominant group (art) should be deleted. I also agree that there may be some hope for Dominant group over at Deletion Review after the that article undergo a rigorous rewrite. Firstly, the article should read like an encylopedia entry. For ~~example~~ comparison, lets us take a peek at Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The first line reads: "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 <snip> was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government..." Ok. That's a nice start. So, applying that sort of lead to Dominant Group might give us something along these lines: "Dominant group is a theory which...etc...etc...The theory, as explained by x attempts to do y." I think that style of writing might be palatable. As it stands now -and forgive me for being bold- the Dominant group (art) article reads a bit like an essay. Now, if you succeed in getting the main "Dominant group" article into the namespace (no small task, of course), then I believe the appropriate course of action would be to add the particular applications (like art) as subsections to that main article. Again I post the disclaimer that I am just one editor and I can not guarantee that our fellow editors would agree; further, I am far from literate in the workings of deletion review. Their practices/rules/etc are beyond my ken. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While 'dominant group' could be a theory of its own, it may be only a term or jargon that has become popular. As Knowles stated it may at times be synonymous with 'majority', at present it is best described by its metadefinition, which is not OR. Marshallsumter (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I've put a new introduction on the article. While I realize you may have better things to do with your time, your opinion would be valuable. Thanks in advance! Marshallsumter (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for much the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group: OR by SYNTH (in fact, by a collection of unrelated quotes which are not really relevant to the article topic). Indeed, a quick search suggests that there is no specific "dominant group theory of art" for this article to be about. -- 202.124.72.152 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It starts out sounding like a dictionary definition; WP is not a dictionary. Then its a collection of random topics. Glrx (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The material appears to be entirely synthesised original research, including the very idea that dominant group is a defined concept in art: thus the need for deletion rather than any possible rewrite. The latest intro by the sole author of the article highlights the fact that this very general term is used diversely in art (I can't see that it is a distinct concept in any domain - but that's another story...) and hence that it is not a recognised, specific concept. Any abstract adjective + abstract noun will generate a concept of a similar level (try it!) but we do not and should not have articles about flexible alternative, major result or even original idea (yes, that goes to Originality; by that token it would be fine if these dominant group links each redirected to their own appropriate version of Dominance - but for art, there apparently isn't one) although such phrases would frequently appear in books, journals etc. within any given intellectual domain, including in art and art theory. Of course, sometimes such apparently general phrases have very specific meanings - consider Main sequence in astronomy - but then we see that it is a very well defined term, and hence justifying the existence of the article. This is not the case for dominant group in art. Mozzy66 (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Exactly! See my remark above about "synthesis by Google"! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear synthesis. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis - and incoherent synthesis at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for essentially the same reason I said to delete Dominant group (Moon); the author is attempting to interpret the phrase as used in a variety of contexts, and does not even give a clear exposition of the synthesis. LadyofShalott 00:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:SYNTH --Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:SYNTH if there ever was one. I also agree with DGG that the proliferation of cookie-cutter articles after the original was deleted as failing Wikipedia WP:OR policies is troublesome. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frogball[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for made up things -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject clearly does not meet the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable game with no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per the general notability guidelines; shows, yet again, why the criteria for speedy deletion needs some kind of "unambiguous WP:NOT violation" reason—this shouldn't be cluttering up AfD but should be in CSD's remit. —Tom Morris (talk)
Redirect to Frog Baseball (Beavis and Butt-head)? Powers ^T 12:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No relevance there that I can see. No frogs, for one thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No frogs where? Anyway, it seems "Frogball" might be an attempted search term for someone who only half-remembers the Beavis & Butt-head episode. Powers ^T 15:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear madeup case. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 5 September 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. Courcelles 23:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everplex Media[edit]

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

This company does not appear to meet the notability guideline for companies at WP:CORP. The article claims (without sources) to have notable clients, but notability is not inherited. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any notable and third-party sources under the name Everplex Media. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 72.75.54.231 (talk · contribs) _{14:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - this one gave me a headache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.39.244 (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is that the event has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to assert notability. I would note that AfD is not the place to try and change policy, the best course of action for that would be on the policy talk page or at the Village Pump. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herzliya Shawarma restaurant bombing[edit]

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

Not-notable. Just a few relevant hits and loads of copies. How rude it sounds: not deadly enough. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT per lack of coverage after the initial news cycle and lack of lasting effects. I see no reason why events in Israel should be exempt from this guideline. The fact that this is sourced largely to an anti-Palestinian political organization is also troubling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like all of these types of incidents they have long lasting notability. Perhaps a westerner sitting editing wikipedia all day, missing any sort of connection to real life, cannot place him or herself into a different cultures. Cultures that may mourn the deaths of their innocent for years on end or cultures that may celebrate the murderer of innocents that are spit forth from their culture by building monuments to their murderers. Regardless, its long lasting notability is attested by the article itself and by the sources discussing the incident. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Do I understand you correctly? The existence of the Wikipedia article is evidence of its notability? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a serious argument instead of this ad hominem attack? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "not deadly enough" is not a valid reason for deletion.
- Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable.
- Keeping this article serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference.
- I added some sources. The article currently cites reliable sources with non trivial coverage of the event including Jerusalem Post, New York Times, Haaretz, BBC, CNN.
- The event was notable enough to be the subject of a complaint to the the UN Security Council;
- Additional sources can be easily added to the article, instead of deleting it. Marokwitz (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I consider attacks (and disasters and accidents) with less then 5 fatalities and/or less then 50 wounded not notable. Not every attack in Israel is automatically notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, that's not a policy compliant argument. Notability has nothing to do with an arbitrary number of fatalities. Just as an exaggerated example, imagine president Obama died in terrorist attack. As 1 person would we have to delete the article? Nope. That's why our notability guidelines, and specifically, the primary notability criterion are based on an objective criteria - the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. If many reliable sources consider an historical event noteworthy and cover it in depth, then it is a "notable" event. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we have infinite space for articles. If there are sufficient reliable sources which cover the event in depth, it is possible for Wikipedians to compose a good article and I don't see any reason why we should delete it. Marokwitz (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mr. Obama is notable on his own. But if someone is attacking him and only kills his waitress, no way she will get an article or will be mentioned by name in any article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have to draw the line somewhere. In my opinion that is the 5/50-rule (in case of not-notable people). Otherwise you can start describing every shouting in Israel with one or more people wounded or killed. Ow, and don't forget the shootings with Palestian victims. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't get my point. The line is drawn by the existence of wide coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many people were killed, or their ethic identity. 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
        You did not get my point! Not every shooting or killing is notable, regardless of media coverage. You should value the sources and be aware of systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMIC) by US and Israelian press. They magnify one case (especially in the USA and israel) and ignore others. Every seens the movie Hotel Rwanda, that nicely tells that the Americans refuse to come to their aid because Rwanda is not important? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This article cites also Arab and UK press, not only "US and Israelian press". This event was discussed by major, reliable sources worldwide, which is more than enough to make it a notable event. Marokwitz (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We should beware of systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMIC). If the same event happened in an American school, killing one girl and injuring 15, would this still be not a notable event? After answering, check out Campbell County High School shooting, 2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings, Olean High School shooting, Lindhurst High School shooting, East Carter High School shooting, San Diego State University shooting and so on and so on. Yes, I am fully aware that other stuff exists, just bringing those as an eye opening example. Marokwitz (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, nominated them all. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good luck for getting articles deleted without any policy-compliant reason. This borders on violation of WP:POINT, be careful. Marokwitz (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Markowitz reasonings. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sourcing shows it is a notable event.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz: "not deadly enough" is not a valid reason for deletion. Could not have said it better myself. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: International significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability aside, I find one death deadly enough because I actually care about other people even when I never met them myself (not saying that you don't). If I for instance nominated an article for deletion like this, I would not say "not deadly enough" which is disrespect to the people who died and their loved ones even if I thought that it isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More sources were recently added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing else needs to be said really. Article has solid sources and event is notable. Pointless AFD imo. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, every time I think I've seen the least policy-compliant "keep" rationale that could possibly exist... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is a snow by now so not a lot I could add that hasn't already been said other than simple support. Sorry. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to yours specifically; most of the "keep"s here have been pretty light on policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:42, 5 September 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.

International Bolshevik Tendency[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted by Discospinster per G4. I have also salted the page. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable political group. They are only small and does not seem to have achieved anything. Author has a clear COI. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IBT is a major group within the Trotskyist current, and it is notable in the context of New Zealand politics and history. It is outrageous to suggest that the article should be deleted. IBTSupporter (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the small and marginalist Trotskyist movement, that is not so difficult... Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/close per WP:CSD#G4 - identical to previously deleted content. Take it to WP:DRV, don't just repost. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update:I see it has already been to DRV, where the prior AfD has already been endorsed: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 18. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:42, 1 September 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. Courcelles 23:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Kabbage[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No indications of meeting any of the criteria of notability. Basically an amateur film with no notable involvement by any notable people. Since the director's name on the film's website matches the article's author, likely conflict of interest and WP:SPAM as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NotJustYet. Film only now getting attention from genre sources, but it seems a DVD release is in the offing. Article author aside, if this one does get better coverage after the DVD, then we might consider an article. At the moment, it is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snowball delete clear COI/Advertising issues, article creator seems to be director of film, and article fails WP:GNG.--Cerejota (talk) 21:19, 1 September 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. Courcelles 23:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rathnam[edit]

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

No copyvio, but a complete copy of http://thomasrathnam.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Rathnam_Wiki, including errors. This article is four days old, while the article on enwp is launched today (1 September). Even the "source" looks like copy and paste work from another, not identified page. Google Cache shows that this article was made by the subject himself on simpel-WP, so author here can be a sockpuppet of the subject to hide his selfpromo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite three previous deletions, this self-promoter has still not got the idea of reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, no reliable sources to be found. With all the films currently in the pipeline, he may have the sources needed in the future, but not today. Bgwhite (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've also nominated the movie for deletion, and that discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banna banna da Loka. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:49, 5 September 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 2011 England riots. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroine of Hackney[edit]

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

If this is supposed to be a biography, it breaches WP:BLP1E - we should not have articles about non-public figures who play minor roles in events. If this is supposed to be about the incident, it plainly fails to be notable as laid out in WP:EVENT. This is a flash in the pan news story. Our own article says that "She has reported feeling embarrassment at becoming an internet sensation" - we should not add to this. We are not a tabloid gossip sheet, this kind of topic is not suitable for us as an encyclopedia. Fences&Windows 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary to 2011 England riots#Reaction, somewhere. The Youtube clip got enough attention in reliable sources to warrant a mention somewhere, but as it's only notable because of its connection to a (highly) notable event, that's where it belongs. (Should she continue to get lasting coverage after the event, I'll reconsider.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator) The article was created about the event and its aftermath, not as a biography: some relevant discussion regarding WP:BLP1E is on the talk page (Talk:Heroine of Hackney#Concise title, Talk:Heroine of Hackney#Biographical information). WP:BLPNAME was cautiously followed in the first instance. The motivation for the article's creation was that it is a notable interesting example of internet phenomena. The article includes information of encyclopedic value, e.g. She also contrasted people's relative poverty with expenditure for the Olympic Games – which I’ve not seen reported in the British press. It also includes background information and aftermath: WP:EFFECT should be noted. The statement “this kind of topic is not suitable for us as an encyclopedia” sounds like WP:BELONG, which is not a valid reason for deletion. I am unsure which parts of WP:EVENT it is believed are unmet. AFAICT the article satisfies WP:WEB and WP:GNG. I expect further content will be added, and will do so myself when I find the time. --Trevj (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem with WP:EVENT is the duration of the coverage in reliable sources. The sources here span a period of a few days, and that's usually not enough for a news story to be considered notable in its own right. In general, minor news stories connected to major events should be mentioned in the article about the major event rather than a separate article, especially when it's primarily about an individual. Otherwise, these sorts of stories can become targets for nasty vandalism. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the duration of coverage, it's still ongoing (22 Aug, 23 Aug, 31 Aug, 3 Sep). Is there really a compelling need to delete this article (or merge it, per WP:ATD) now, rather than wait and see what comes out of the story (per WP:EFFECT)? The lady has been invited to the House of Commons and is releasing a charity single, so who knows what will happen or when? Deletion because an article is a potential target "for nasty vandalism" is not a policy that I've heard of. --Trevj (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the case for keeping an article is based on how notable the subject might become in the future, it's standard practice to delete/redirect/merge the article first and bring it back if and when this happens. In the case of merging and redirecting, it's very easy to bring the article back as and when there is a need to do so. I know people have different views on how much coverage is needed for a sub-event to get its own article, but there is a strong precedent from the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Richard Mannington Bowes, where a far more significant event ended up as a merge. (Should the charity single do well, of course, that will change everything.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about delete/redirect/merge with respect to lasting effects of an event - the outcome of this article will be determined solely by consensus in this discussion, irrespective of examples cited elsewhere (particularly if there's no policy for this "standard practice"). Note that apparently "redirects [were] often temporary", although I don't know at what point or under what circumstances that guideline was amended. There are also a few examples of kept event pages at What is one event. Precedents elsewhere could be cited which demonstrate the opposite outcome to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Richard Mannington Bowes, so I don't see that as a valid argument. If (despite the arguments of notability put forward above) the consensus here is to merge, then I understand that the article could be easily resurrected in the future: this was recently achieved after a lot of content was lost from NTL (company). But one problem with merging content is that it would require paring down within the host article to ensure that UNDUE weight is not given there. This would necessitate omission of much of the encyclopedic content currently present in the article. --Trevj (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Yes, we need to have coverage of this somewhere but I don't think that there is enough encyclopaedic information here to sustain an article. Most (but not all) of the last section feels like a collection of comments, some noteworthy some not, said about her/her speech interspersed with things that might be relevant in a biography (e.g. criminal conviction) but which are not relevant to this video/event. If a charity single is released (at this point it's just an aspiration, not even a plan) and receives significant coverage then a bio article or an article about the video and the single (depending on whether the single's content is relevant) may be called for. Per WP:CRYSTAL we can only go by what the current facts are, not what they might be, and currently they point towards a merge with an article about the riots. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of a Wikipedia series about to the 2011 England riots, and well-referenced, deserves a standalone article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 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 Timeline of 2011 England riots. Courcelles 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of aftermath of 2011 England riots[edit]

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

While Timeline of 2011 England riots is sensible, this timeline of the aftermath is open-ended and unnecessary. A timeline of reactions and repercussions does not help understanding of the events, rather it fragments what is better described in prose in the main article. The article reads merely as a poor summary of news headlines in the few days after the riots, breaching the advice of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. I don't believe that there is anything here worth salvaging. Fences&Windows 02:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Timeline of 2011 England riots. Agree that a seperate article is silly, but don't agree that the timeline needs to abruptly stop on the Wednesday. I'd append some version of this article to the other article and then have a content discussion for how much detail Thursday onwards needs, and where to stop the timeline. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chris Neville-Smith. The immediate aftermath is as much a part of the timeline as the riots themselves. What events need to be included is a content discussion, and I don't think that an arbitrary cut-off date will be sensible. Splitting over two articles is not at all productive. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other timeline. Better to keep this grouped together than making arbitrary splits. Dzlife (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chris Neville-Smith. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:40, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Army Multimedia[edit]

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

A rather promotional article from a tiny part of the Canadian Army. Written by the section responsible for "to help the Army connect with Canadians." No external sources, few hits on internet (<7000, including individual pictures) and six external links to their own website. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable PR unit of the Canadian Army. What is it with PR organisations that want to spam Wikipedia about themselves? Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable under WP:GNG as seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 03:57, 4 September 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. Courcelles 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Albright[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable politician. Both references are routine local news coverage. On top of that, the articles only mention him. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being mayor of a town that's not much bigger than my old high school doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, and there's no significant coverage that satisfies the more general WP:BIO. Just a bunch of trivial mentions (quotes), mostly in - surprise, surprise - the Haleyville local paper. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per points raised by Roscelese, unless sources can be found that prove general notability (which is highly doubtful). Altairisfar (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Seems like article is used as political promotion, WP is not a soapbox. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:37, 8 September 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. Courcelles 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phildius Defence[edit]

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

No secondary sources for the opening having this name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It says that it is in ECO code A10. It would be classified under A10, but my edition of the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings does not list it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources for this? I don't even think there are any primary sources. None of the claims in the article are supported by a reference. Even the existence of a "Phildius Defence" or "Phildius Defense" is not demonstrated as the only external page linked in the article does not contain either of those names.Quale (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I noticed that on the English Opening page it actually mentions 1.c4 g5, but calls it Myer's Defence. After further investigation I found taht Bernhard Phildius did in fact play this line, but it isn't named after him, and so the article appears to be somewhat of a fraud. 107.10.35.210 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of doc the opening belongs to Myers. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything above. --MrsHudson (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Opening#Common responses covered as Myer's Defence. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is a bad idea, as it gives Wikipedia's endorsement to this name. What reliable source calls this the Phildius Defence? Quale (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many redirects are misspellings are you saying that is an endorement or that a reliable source is required? See 60,000 redirect at Category:Redirects_from_alternative_names and WP:REDIRECTS. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Invalid argument. Misspellings are at least semblances of/attempts at the article name. "Phildius" is a semblance of nothing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think a redirect is of no use - no one will be looking for it by that name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - the proof ithat someone actually looked for it is that someone actually created the page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is the reasonable basis to suppose someone would use "Phildius" as their search argument when looking for this opening? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no reliable sources to back the statements of the article. SyG (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For an opening variation, I would normally expect an opening monograph or dedicated article in a reliable chess journal, and here I find none of that sort. The reply ...g5 is very rare, and theonly GM game I can find is Mednis-Hodgson in 1990 (Black lost), so the opening does not seem to have gained any trust or attention from strong players, or even amateur players (probably because 1...g5 constitutes a pointless weakening of the kingside). Agree with Quale as to why an unverifiable redirect is a bad idea in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find almost nothing on this topic on-line... Hobit (talk) 02:58, 5 September 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. Courcelles 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft Quartet[edit]

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

I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, not even trivial, much less significant. Thus this fails the GNG. Also fails WP:BAND as it has not charted or released any material on major labels - indeed, its two albums appear to be self-released, as this source seems to indicate that the band's guitarist works for the record label. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 August 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) 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any significant coverage by sources, same as Roscelese. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 1 September 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. Courcelles 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mukwonago community library[edit]

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

No particular indication of notability and numerous problems with the article itself. Prioryman (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 August 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) 01:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP Notability guidelines. No apparent secondary sources discussing the library, or establishing its encyclopedic notability. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs complete rewrite and no indication of why this is more notable than any other library. Royal broil 12:12, 8 September 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. — Joseph Fox 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif[edit]

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

This seems to be a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Topher385 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you read BLP1E you'll see it mainly deals with non-notaable people who are peripherally connected to a single minor, but still covered, event. This article easily clears both WP:GNG and WP:CRIME as it is a developing legal case, with extensive and expanding coverage, against a terrorism subject in the United States. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge into a single article (for both suspects and the event) should someone wish to put the required work into it. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a criminal suspect, who is alleged to have tried to blow up a facility. I see some news coverage, but the WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME guidelines make it clear that a single crime - let alone a single alleged crime - does not establish notability. Also, the arrest was just a couple of months ago, so WP:RECENT is an issue. Finally, we should ensure that we are not applying a double-standard and including (articles about) criminals in WP because their names appear to be Muslim or Arabic. For example, if a person named John Smith were arrested 3 months ago on Federal charges of, say, trying to rob a bank, and got written up in a dozen newspaper articles, would that meet WP notability guidelines? --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME as coverage is just news, unlikely to have any lasting effect or to be covered down the line. I'm not sure why "It's ongoing" is supposed to be an argument for keeping it, Tom.2 - particularly as even the coverage that we do have is spectacularly routine and is only appearing at news-y moments in the course of the event (ie. we have a story from August 9 about the judge postponing the trial, but between the indictment a month ago and that, even the news was pretty much silent on it. No one is discussing this.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Single crime, but a notable one. And some deletionists here states that we shouldnt assume guilt, but on the other hand they assume that the article has been made because the man is muslim and thats why the man in the article has becomed more known..... talk about double standard.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no double standard. To establish criminal guilt requires the legal standard of being proven beyond reasonable doubt, but we can sensibly apply a lower standard of evidence to statements about motivation for creating a Wikipedia article, which has much less serious consequences. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:CRIME. Neither the man nor the crime satisfy the notability requirements required for a bio to pass this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it satisfies WP:CRIME? That guideline says "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." This encyclopedia does not even have an article on Casey Anthony, who is far more notable than the subject of this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another resolution to this AfD would be to re-cast the article so it focused on the case rather than the individual. In other words, do the same thing that was done for Casey Anthony, which was simply a redirect to an article on the crime: Death of Caylee Anthony. So here the article could be re-done as, say, Planned attack on Military Entrance Processing. --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very clear case of not meeting WP:CRIME. Agree with Noleander's comment above, subject to WP:N/CA. Because no conviction has yet been secured, a generally conservative approach in terms of BLP would be appropriate and care should be taken not to overstate or present as fact elements of the prosecution case which may be disputed. --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRIME, as strictly applied as it is suggested here, is not consistent with current practice regarding widely reported terrorist acts and allegations of terrorist behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hulla: What do you think of the BLP issues? E.g. the parallel with the non-existent article on Casey Anthony? What about renaming the article to identify the case/crime, rather than the person? --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While coverage in reliable sources does exist, thus meeting the general notability guidelines, it's only for one event. Some have stated that this would mean the article would fail WP:BLP1E as a result of this. We must remember that people notable for only one event may warrant a separate article depending on how persistently they are covered in reliable sources. At this time I don't see a persistence of coverage of the nature that we would normally require to warrant a separate article, indeed Caylee Anthony is a redirect and received far more coverage in reliable sources. This article may change in future but at this time I favour deletion, as I can't find an appropriate article to redirect this to. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This alleged crime does not appear to be of lasting historic significance and is just a news story so far. Can be mentioned in a list of crimes, or in an other article; or can be recreated if coverage persists into next year. Sandstein 05:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant one event. - DonCalo (talk) 17:45, 9 September 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. Courcelles 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster (manufacturer)[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. The company that bought over Wooster doesn't even have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 August 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) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:26, 3 September 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. Courcelles 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portadown Cricket Club[edit]

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mt king ^(edits) 03:47, 25 August 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) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the small size and low tier of such amateur clubs, they can sometimes meet WP:GNG due to their age and extensive history. However I find nothing in Google Books and only a few passing mentions in the Google news archives. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:12, 1 September 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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. If any administrator disagrees with this close they have my permission to restore the article and reopen this discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Danger[edit]

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

While the article makes out a borderline case for notability (still probably not notable, but it would be close) if all the claims present were adequately sourced, the article has no reliable sources, and I have been unable to locate any. The article therefor fails WP:BIO. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While minimally relevant to the deletion discussion, an IP editor claiming to be the subject requested deletion in an edit, and claimed that some of the material in the article was untrue. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds for deletion without even reaching that claim, but I wanted to make a note of it in the interests transparency. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 25 August 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) 00:59, 1 September 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. Courcelles 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grace[edit]

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

A letter writing competition for primary-school students run by an Irish nonprofit which does not have its own article. Undoubtedly a noble cause, but does not meet the notability threshold. Contested proposed deletion. Neutrality^talk 05:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:42, 25 August 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) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any coverage in reliable sources, much less significant coverage that would pass GNG. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:40, 8 September 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. Courcelles 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allodoxaphobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a poorly sourced non-notable phobia; the potential list of phobias is infinite. Not every phobia is sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep. There are scholarly and book sources to support that the word is real (although not widely used), and I don't see any harm in having an article about it as long as the article is verifiable. Looie496 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, but what specific sources do you mean and do they discuss the subject in sufficient detail to support an article?FiachraByrne (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that this has ever been documented in a subject, suggesting that it's just something that got made up and put into lists of phobias and a couple of insiprational books. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In most sources, the term appears only as an item in a list of miscellaneous phobias. No evidence that the term is notable or that it is widely used. Sporadic use on blogs and in low-quality sources does not establish sufficient notability. It looks like it's a word that was coined simply for the purpose of coining a word. WP:TRIVIA applies. Search of Google scholar indicates that it is highly unlikely that notability requirements will ever be meet. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this a recognised condition. A few writers thinking "Oh someone's afraid of speaking publicly so they must be afraid of what people think about them - they must be afraid of opinions....in my guide to all possible prefixes to the word -phobia that's called allodoxaphobia, so I'm going to use that word in my book for motivational speakers" does not constitute anything other than the misuse of a neologism.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:19, 1 September 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. Courcelles 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovell Chronicle[edit]

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

Non notable local newspaper FiachraByrne (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 105 year old newspaper serving 5 towns; wp:notability is probably establishable, but not yet in the article due to it being so new. Content is brief and encyclopedic/informative. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 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) 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a brief article, however appears to be notable according to a Google search. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's also referenced in Mondo Times here, although this is just a directory listing. However, the article has merit for its historical context. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animax Pakistan[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability of topic FiachraByrne (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A good couple of sentences/ small section for the Animax article. No indication of wp:notability for stand-alone article. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 August 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) 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the official website is for the Animax in India, the link provided is an year old not sure if any progress has been made since or not, but there is absolutely no coverage whatsoever. CapMan07008 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond the single report linked to in the article (which appears to be user generated content), I have been unable to find anything about Animax Pakistan. A Google search only shows a Facebook account that could very well be a fake, but there is no official website. Going to AXN's homepage, it appears that Pakistan is instead covered by Animax India. So the article fails a basic verifiability check. —Farix (t | c) 12:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not even see any references for Animax Pakistan in the Animax India article, does this even exisit or is it a fan made hoax? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 7 September 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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mayers[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, with no third-party refs. Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 25 August 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) 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem notable, is unreferenced and his works are non-notable. ItsZippy (talk) 10:24, 2 September 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 Wiltshire Publications. Sandstein 06:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frome Times[edit]

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

Unclear notability because of lack of reliable secondary sources — Rod ^talk 12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Wiltshire Publications, which has a number of other publications that should be deleted as non-notable. While the publications don't merit their own articles, perhaps publisher does - simply because it is the publisher of a number of very minor publications. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melksham Independent News and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse News, which are titles from the same publisher. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 August 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) 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Neutrality^talk 07:35, 5 September 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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Eden (album)[edit]

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

Non notable 2011 music album. No references. EL is for a commercial site (Sony Music Shop). FiachraByrne (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC),[reply]

Keep - Just because it's a Japanese album, it doesnt't mean it's not notable. Stop with the prejudice. Rafael39 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 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) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The group is easily notable, and the album is close enough to the confirmed release date that deletion would be moot. (Also, moved to After Eden because some people have this crazy notion that every album has to have (album) in its name.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album belongs to a notable Japanese group so it's a keep for me. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 BUSC Main Event Results[edit]

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

An article "about" something called the "2011 BUSC". Article has no discernible content. It has no references. The subject is non-notable and does not contain encyclopedic content. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 August 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) 00:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no onther context, I'm guessing this is related to British Universities Snowsports Council. No reliable independent sources here (or there). Norespectasip (talk) 03:27, 8 September 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 Wiltshire Publications. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melksham Independent News[edit]

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

Non-notable publication with small and unverified distribution figures. Suggest either deletion or redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frome Times and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse News, which are titles from the same publisher. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 August 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) 00:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - notable information to Wiltshire Publications, then create a redirect from Melksham Independent News to Wiltshire Publications. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Neutrality^talk 07:35, 5 September 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 Wiltshire Publications. Courcelles 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Horse News[edit]

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

Minor and non-notable publication with unverified distribution and no independent references. Suggest deletion and/or redirection to Wiltshire Publications Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frome Times and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melksham Independent News, which are titles from the same publisher. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 August 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) 00:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - notable information, such as referenced information about being the largest paper in its area, to Wiltshire Publications, then create a redirect from White Horse News to Wiltshire Publications.Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Neutrality^talk 07:35, 5 September 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. — Joseph Fox 18:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renard Queenston[edit]

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

Disputed prod. BLP with no reliable sources and a weak claim to notability. Dweller (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the sources listed are the most reliable sources out of the very few that are available. Many, many people that enjoy the specific genre know of Renard Queenston - but it doesn't mean that there will be an abundance of sources to prove that he is notable. Just google "Renard", and you'll find that he holds a fair portion of the top results. (MacklinB (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. The few sources are probably the most reliable, and as above with the google results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:NN, smells strongly of self-WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Srobak (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything NEEDS news sources to be notable, there are many notable articles on Wikipedia with no/a small amount of references, such as Metynnis argenteus. I'm going to say Keep Werehog7 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy WP:BLP mandates that biographies of living people must be properly sourced. On top of that you might find WP:V relevant. If articles elsewhere are bad, they should also be deleted or improved. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 August 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) 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What label or labels does he work through? How would this pass the notability establishments? A few more sources would also be welcome, and it is slightly unfortunate that I am voting for deletion of this article. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on the article, his label is LapFox Trax. SalfEnergy 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the "keep" supporters above are correct in saying that the sources in the article are the most reliable available, then that is a reason for deletion rather than keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 4 September 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. Courcelles 00:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Saunders[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town mayor with no other claims to notability or coverage in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 25 August 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) 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well now - I don't know that I would characterize Flagstaff as a "small town". Still, I could not find any significant coverage - in fact, I could not find any coverage at all, possibly due to the time frame when he served (1958-1960). --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Ventures Mexico[edit]

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

Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" WP:GNG, WP:CORP - same reason as PROD; contested Chzz ► 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the five sources that include the U.S. State department and WallStreet Journal are not considered reliable and independent. This discussion should be ended and the article re-added to Wikipedia

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks established as wp:notable. Not sure why it was nominated. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on lack of coverage - check the refs. The WSJ [34] is a blog entry, not an article.

Another is the website of the company [35].

Another looks like a self-created publicity piece [36] (LAVCA, a not-for-profit membership organization dedicated to supporting the growth of the private equity and venture capital industry.

I listened to the 8-minute radio broadcast cited [37], and found it had about a 20-second mention of this org (around 04:45 in the clip).

The others are very much passing-mentions in articles that are not actually about this organization. Chzz ► 12:04, 15 August 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) 00:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that the WSJ item wouldn't be valid because of it being a blog (please correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing on the website to suggest that such content is not backed up by the WSJ as their own), but other than that I could only find this one about the ACE final [38] (this exact article is also available from other sources, but I think it originates from Milenio), and this press release from the Inter-American Development Bank [39], later reported here [40]. The rest are just passing mentions from conferences and events that the founders have participated in - frankie (talk) 16:32, 18 August 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, BusterD (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found [41], but that's the only reliable source I could find. Doubt if this article gets past start status. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the link to Dow Jones Financial Informations Services article. [42]. - marstorm (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.32.208 (talk) [reply]

Delete – insufficient evidence of notability; briefest of news mention and stuff not about them. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 9 September 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. Nobody here is quite certain that this article meets our inclusion requirements. As it concerns a living person, I'm erring on the side of caution and find a consensus to delete. Can be userfied for improvement and recreated if better coverage appears. Sandstein 06:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Katz (producer)[edit]

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

Bio of non-notable Hollywood suit. Only one ever remotely solid source; long history of COI edits. Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't spot the problems with article until I actually looked through the history, including the problems with WP:COI and WP:AUTO, and actually examined the one source supplied, which basically is a PR story about a business he was working on, not him. I found it completely unremarkable and insufficient to establish notability within his profession. Notability is not inherited; the fact that the subject's father is quite notable is not helpful. From the opening paragraph at WP:N, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I don't think we have them. Msnicki (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent reliable third-party sources have been found and used to cleanup and better source the article.[43] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Whom It May Concern: my name is Lucas Belkind and I am the author of this article on David Katz. While I am new to Wikipedia editing, I am not new to writing and I feel that this article has always remained neutral and served only as a biography. As for my long history of "COI edits," the only edits involved regarding the material written was to ensure that all of the information presented was correct and in chronological order (as the guidelines state they should be). In regards to reliable third-party sources, I will begin looking for electronic links to the various articles that have been written on Katz himself establishing his credibility in his field. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to hearing your further comments. Lucas Belkind —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The article author's having any relationship with Katz beyond having authored the image used in the article, is unclear. As searches for the two names in conjunction find nothing except this conversation,[44][45] We might extend good faith and accept his explanation at face value. So to Lucas Belkind, I have suggested on his talk page that he read WP:PRIMER to better understand our needs inre format, style, verifiability, sourcing, and notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep? A quick review appears to indicate wp:notability. The question mark is to defer to those who have reviewed this in more depth. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:21, 1 September 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. Courcelles 00:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Smith (hair stylist)[edit]

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

Can't find significant coverage about the subject in RSs sufficient to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG and no indication subject meets any other variant of WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion but here are some sources for someone who cares: the sun, marie claire, vanity fair, the sunday times, vogue (not dead link like one in article). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources above don't seem to be substantial enough in depth of coverage to establish notability. The sources in and of themselves are fine, just not sufficient in my opinion. Novaseminary (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG … the only awards that the subject has won are not notable enough to rate Wikipedia articles of their own, and the only coverage of those awards are on the websites for the awards … . Happy Editing! — 71.166.154.41 (talk · contribs) _{00:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was all primed to make jokes about having an article on a hair stylist (e.g., Tara Smith (hot dog vendor), certain parentheticals cry out "not notable!"), but then I saw some of alf.laylah.wa.laylah sources and did some more searching of my own[46][47] and was flummoxed to find she is indeed notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The BBC article, along with the others, makes it a close call, I now think. But even with the BBC article, is this enough to actually write an article? Novaseminary (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is wrong with a short article, we have too many puffed up biographies as it is!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are 110% correct with the second part of your sentence! And I generally agree with the first, but I'm still not entirely convinced that a list of clients and a marathon participation is enough breadth/depth of coverage to really support even a (worthwhile) short article. Novaseminary (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hair stylist? Ye gods. But she's a "Hairstylist to the stars" according to the notable magazine Marie Claire. And Vogue, the BBC... and these are not just passing mentions of her but whole (short) articles mainly about her. She meets the general guideline for notability, I think. Herostratus (talk) 07:12, 4 September 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. Courcelles 00:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waita Uziga[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable manga creator, fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Finding sources is difficult in this case, as his material seems to be extreme verging on the obscene, so it's little surprise no one wants to admit to reading it. But I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources beyond the trivial. Robofish (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you tried looking for Japanese sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That thought just occurred to me - no, I haven't. I don't read Japanese, so I can't do that very well, but I ran his entry on Japanese Wikipedia[48] through Google Translate and that didn't seem to provide anything more in the way of reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waita Uziga comes up several times in AnimeNation's "Ask John" column.[49] (WP:A&M/ORS#General) It may not be enough to pass WP:NOTE, but it is a step in that direction. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 August 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) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete barring the discovery of any more coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 14:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing no reliable sources. --Sloane (talk) 15:23, 6 September 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 Gautham Menon#Future ventures. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nithya (film)[edit]

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

The film is yet to be finalised. Also meets WP:CRYSTAL Commander _{(Ping Me)} 08:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Films that are in pre-production should not have their own articles per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IT. Film is set to go on floors on 29th August. Chech the news here(a reliable source). Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hit the floors"? Does that mean that filming will start on that day? I'd draw your attention to WP:NFF which states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Also there are general notability concerns here - if filming is proven to have commenced, this doesn't automatically mean that notability has been met. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshoot was held, film set to go on floors from 5th sept, so no need to merge or delete it now - Behindwoods. Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets WP:NFF. There hasn't been any official announcement yet, not even the film's title is confirmed as such! Johannes003 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The guideline WP:NFF does not require nor demand deletion, and acts only to instruct when certain projects may not be ready for a separate article. If a planned film is getting press but is not quite ready for its own article, policy suggests we can speak about the topic, but in a spot where it might be spoken of in context... like at the director's article at Gautham Menon#Future ventures, 2011-present As for "Gautham Menon-Jeeva's Nithya to be launched on Aug 29" what "launch" usually means for Indian films is an official blessing and announcement of a film's production... a coming out party, if you might. So no... per guideline no article yet. But yes... per policy, and as pre-production is being written of, we can speak about the project where it best deserves to to be mentioned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the suggested redirect here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me either, redirecting is also okay. Johannes003 (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is better option. Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from my side. Redirecting would be a better option. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - WP notability guidelines discourage articles on upcoming films, until they are in production. --Noleander (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. The film has not received enough coverage in the media to warrant an article, but the title would make a good redirect to the director's article. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:06, 1 September 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Ishq[edit]

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

Unreleased film is not notable. Eel Tours (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to the director's article at Vikram Bhatt#Dangerous Ishq where the film's planning is spoken of in sourced context. It IS getting press,[50] but the project is not ready yet to be considered as a possible exception to WP:NFF. As principle filming draws closer we can reconsider an article. But not just yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is fair to assume that this film would actually be made even though it is in the pre-production stage. It has stirred an interest in the Indian media. It can be AfD'd later if the project drops or so. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk)

01:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Indian film industry is prone to even more vaugeries than are other film industries, and getting out early rumors/word of planned projects is intended to stir up interest and financing. As it curently fails WP:NFF, the best option per WP:FUTURE is the redirect, which will preserve the history and can easily be reverted if/when filming actually does commence. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least unless something happens to this film. CapMan07008 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not "keep" because it might be made, we keep when it IS made or has a great deal more coverage. The redirect will preserve the history and can be reverted if "something happens to this film." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Shcmidt said, you have the whole keep/delete thing backwards. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Film has received significant coverage in many reliable sources in English, and probably loads more in Hindu which I don't know how to search for. Examples: BollywoodHungama, The Times of India, OneIndia.in, HindustanTimes. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this discusion being relisted. If the star's request to push up the production is acted upon, we might have evidence of principle filming by September 6. THAT would change my mind about the redirect. But even if not forthcoming, and AS we already have some information in the director's article, we might redirect the title as I suggested above, and then Incubate this for a short time for continued work? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest this, as the sources offered as being about the film's production, are actually articles about Karisma Kapoor herself and her planned role in the film... it and not so much about the film itself... and we have nothing yet about any other possible cast. Interestingly, in Kappor's article, we have this film mentioned as one sentence at the very end of Karisma Kapoor#Career. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Formula SimRacing World Championship[edit]

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

WP:Notability, WP:Event. Only one source has been provided for the article and it is internal to the subject. No notability for this subject has been established, or even attempted. Falcadore (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 August 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) 00:14, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2011 article as non-notable; zero GNews hits and no significant web hits. Procedural keep 2010 article, as it was never tagged with an AfD notice. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2010 article has now been PRODded by the nominator. While I suspect he/she has confused the two processes, I'm not going to correct it on the basis that there is only a day or two left on the AfD (and thus it would not have been tagged for a full week) and also because PROD will likely be enough to result in deletion anyway. Accordingly, I've simply endorsed the PROD rather than changing it to an AfD tag. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 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. It is clearly established below that the community, at large, does not find that Duchesne meets any of our notability guidelines, due largely to a lack of sources written about him and a lack of citations of his academic work. The procedural keep opinions below, while given in good faith, are clearly not enough to overbalance the rest of the comments in favor of deletion, regardless of whether or not this nomination was made in good faith. lifebaka++ 02:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Duchesne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne

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

I don't see how any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. 1) There is no evidence that the subject has made any significant impact upon his discipline. 2) There is no evidence that the subject has received a prestigious award at either the national or the international levels. 3) There is no evidence that he has been elected to any prestigious scholarly societies. 4) This person clearly has not made any impact upon higher education. 5) The subject does not hold any distinguished titles or academic positions. 6) This subject has not held a "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post" at any universty. 7) The subject clearly has not had any impact, let alone a substantial impact, outside of academia. 8) There is no evidence that the subject has been the editor of any journal. Google Scholar, while not a flawless citation index, shows that Duchesne's most cited work has only been cited 12 times. There are graduate students who have been cited more times than that. In addition, his "main work" was only published this year and has not been cited by anyone. Also, there is good reason to think the subject created this page himself. How could anyone possibly know that he received an award for his dissertation? There is no evidence that the subject meets the criteria of scholarly notability. Unless that evidence is produced, I therefore propose that it be deleted. BlueonGray (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not cited enough in Google Scholar to be authoritative (some of the 12 citations are also duplicates); no reviews; no major posts, societies, or named chairs. The only substantial piece I can see is actually a response by the author of a book that Duchesne reviewed...so yeah, not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I count over 35 citations in Google Scholar, including by leading scholars in the field such as David Landes, Peer Vries (University of Vienna), John Hobson (The Eastern Origins of Western civilization), Roy Bin Wong (Director of the UCLA Asia Institute), Jack Goldstone, Tonio Andrade, Joseph M. Bryant and many others. One would have rather difficulties finding someone important from Duchesne's field who did not debate him. He is one of the important thinkers and he is integral part of the debate in the English-speaking world, like it BlueonGray or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 35 citations spread out over multiple articles is not evidence of noteworthiness. Even if a single piece were cited 35 times, that would still be of questionable importance. Influential scholars are those who have published articles or books that have been cited hundreds, if not thousands, of times. Duchesne's most successful piece has 12 citations -- less, if you discount the duplicates.--BlueonGray (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Below you are saying you are "new to Wikipedia", so how can you claim you know the threshold for notability? Giving an absolute number as necessary threshold seems absurd, since the field of historical sociology is in any case far smaller than other fields of history. I request you again to provide the allegedly 12 citations, I'll add the rest. You will see than that most authorities in the field debated him. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - According to Google Scholar, Duchesne's most cited essay, "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism," has been cited no more than 12 times -- less if you discount the duplicates. That is very weak, indeed. In fact, for a full professor, that is a quite meager accomplishment.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ricardo Duchesene absolutely meets WP:Notability. People should be wary: This is a bad faith nomination and clear misuse of AfD. BlueonGray is a single-purpose account who just edits this article and hold a particular grudge against Duchesne. He is currently for the 2nd time at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Ricardo Duchesne. I strongly suspect BlueonGray is identical with this Blue on Gray (navigate to Comments on this Article: Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM and Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM), so he has a strong political agenda. He got a response by Duchesne which pissed him and now he stalks the article. Poor class.

This is btw the second time BlueonGray tries to delete the article. After the first time, the article was sufficiently expanded and restored. I suspect BlueonGray is some disgruntled colleague, and it is clear he is not here in the interests of Wikipedia but because of some personal crusade. For this disruptive behaviour I've proposed a block at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Duchesne "absolutely" meets the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, then surely that can be demonstrated for everyone. What exactly is the evidence of his scholarly significance and influence?--BlueonGray (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a full professor, and has published several dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals and recently a book with Brill. Now back to you and your dubious motives. Are you a colleague of Duchesne? You are aware that since March you have only edited this one article, invariably in a negative manner. I think you should disclose your IP to an admin, so that your real identity can be determined. You should be aware that WP is no WP:battleground: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles. So, are you identical with this Blue on Gray who is so acid on Duchesne in the Racism in Academia article, yes or no? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there are lots of full professors and there are lots of academics, many of whom are not full professors, who have published several dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals and books with Brill. That does not meet the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. The criteria for notability are for scholars who stand out from the rest.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BlueonGray's editing of the article has been disruptive in the past, but trying to delete an article on a person one believes is non-notable is not an inherently disruptive act. I don't see that you've provided a keep rationale here that rebuts any of the delete arguments put forward - please take complaints about user conduct to the appropriate forum and work here on putting together a policy-based keep rationale. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to WP only in order to try to erase an article about a person with which you have had at another place an acrimonius debate is in itself an absolutely disruptive act (WP:battleground). Again RD has published in many noteworthy peer-reviewed journal such as Science & Society, Journal of Peasant Studies, Review of Radical Political Economics, The European Legacy, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik and wrote chapter in books. He has also recently published a book with Brill, so this whole Afd is sadly a kind of lame battling attempt by some dubious outsider who misuses WP, nothing more. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, publishing in many noteworthy peer-reviewed journals does not meet the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. Who has cited these articles? What evidence is there of the noteworthiness of the subject?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Western civilization and the 'Rise of the West' are absolutely noteworthy subjects in history. RD has been for years part of the debate. Scirus, for one, gives 158 hits for him Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said these are not noteworthy subjects. By "subject," I am referring to Duchesne. The question is whether Ricardo Duchesne is a noteworthy scholar. Again, according to Google Scholar, his most cited work has been cited only 12 times. Do you have any evidence of a more substantial number of citations for anything he has published?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duchesne is actually cited more than 35 times and that by many of the most important authorities. Everybody who knows the field will immediately recognize these scholars. The only important figure who did not cite and debate Duchesne is Andre Gunder Frank, quite apparently because he died the same year Duchesne's review of his work was published (2005). So what evidence do you have against Duchesne's notability? Name me five important scholars of his field in the last decade who did not cite him? You won't find them, but be welcomed to go ahead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What field is this, exactly? World History? Historical sociology? In one of my comments below, I give a couple of examples of influential world historians. Here, I will give examples of influential historical sociologists. These include 1) Charles Tilly, who holds a distinguished professorship at Columbia and whose work has been cited thousands of times; 2) Randall Collins, who holds a distinguished professorship at UPenn and whose work has also been thousands of times; 3) Orlando Patterson, who holds a distinguished professorship at Harvard University and whose work has been cited thousands of times; 4) Theda Skocpol, who has a distinguished professorship at Harvard and whose work has been cited thousands of times; the late 5) the late Giovanni Arrighi (d. 2009), who held a distinguished professorship at Johns Hopkins and whose work has been cited thousands of times. Duchesne simply does not compare to these scholars. Also, according to Google Scholar, none of them cite Duchesne. Please, the very suggestion that Duchesne has influenced all of the most eminent scholars in either World History or Historical sociology is so extreme as to be inevitably and demonstrably wrong.--BlueonGray (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree Wikipedia should not be a battleground. That is why there are neutral and impartial criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. I would like to stick to those criteria.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are still evading the question whether this resentful BlueonGray is you? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. I would be grateful if you could kindly stick to the criteria.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant. Disruptive single-purpose accounts with a WP:battleground mentality are usually blocked from Wikipedia and you fit the bill 100%. So we can conclude you are this enraged BlueonGray? Why do misuse WP for your personal antipathies? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior is focusing on everything other than the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. I would like to focus on those criteria. So far, Duchesne does not meet any one of them.--BlueonGray (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Battleground[edit]

Third-party users have a right to be informed that User:BlueonGray is a single-purpose account who has been ever editing only this one article, invariably negatively. He is identical in name with one BlueonGray who actually 'debated' Duchesne this February on a Canadian site in a resentful manner: For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM). Nine days later Wikipedia's BlueonGray registered. Wikipedia's BlueonGray refuses to acknowledge whether he is the same person (see above). The whole Afd is, given its unsubstantiateness, a thinly-veiled case of WP:Battleground, namely Wikipedia is not a place to...import personal conflicts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I am new to Wikipedia. I am here to evaluate the merits of the entry on Duchesne, which appear to be negligible. Anyone can go to your user talk page and see the edit wars you have been involved in and the number of times other users have threatened to block you for disruptive behavior. My suggestion is that you stick to the issue at hand.--BlueonGray (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have been "evaluating" it since March with unreferenced edits violating WP:BLP, two AfDs and anonymous vandalism by a IP from Toronto. Nice acting on your part. You registering only here to mislead other users in his so-called negligibilty. I challenge you to list all citations you know and I'll provide the rest. So please cite the allegedly "12" citations, I'll add up the rest. Thanks Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is irrelevant and false. Regarding the second part: according to Google scholar, Duchesne's most successful piece, "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism," has been cited a mere 12 times -- less if you discount the duplicates. That is quite paltry.--BlueonGray (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of importing personal conflicts from internet forums like chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com. In fact, his spat with User:Intranetusa originated from a dispute at Chinahistoryforum, where under his account Tibet Libre he dragged over disputes on Roman metal production figures into Wikipedia. I find it in extremely bad faith that Gun Powder Ma knew about the WP:battleground policy, and is using it as a weapon to silence BlueonGray while Gun Powder Ma displayed his battleground mentality in dragging over his personal disputes here.

Not only that, Gun Powder Ma himself displays tendencies of a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, given that Throughout his editing career, his edits have consisted mostly of trying to downgrade the achievements of nonwestern civilizations, like Chinese, Arab, Indian, persian, and africans, while glorifying a eurocentric point of view. If his ire was only directed against a single civilization, such as China, he could reasonably claim to be against sinocentrism. but no, his edits consists of belittling all non western civilizations, which he has also done under the account name of Gun Powder Ma at allempires.com. His edits also consists of glorifying individuals against multicultaralism and Islam like Thilo Sarrazin , and he displayed the same sentiment and thought as Ricardo Duchesne through his edits on wikipedia and on multiple forums which leads me to believe that his only purpose in creating this article is promoting Mr. Duchesne's views.

see this report for evidence of the allegations I made above.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and WP:ACADEMIC[edit]

Contrary to what BlueonGray claims, I am currently counting over 30-35 separate citations (without duplications) by many of the most notable scholars in the field, including entire peer-reviewed articles by some of these leading figures exclusively devoted to Duchesne's theories. The question is is it necessary to cite them one by one here for people who are not that familiar with this field? I could do that, if need arises. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per Roscelese. Citability in GScholar is extremely low, with h-index somewhere in low single digits. Having 35 separate citations total is far below of what we usually require for satisfying WP:PROF#C1 on citability grounds. I am not seeing anything else in the record to hang one's hat on in terms of passing WP:PROF - such as signifiant awards after grad school, journal editorships, prestigious lectures/lecture series given, extensive published of the subject's work or anything else indicating passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your page says you are interested in world history, so you'll know that his citability includes nearly all authorities in the field: David Landes, Peer Vries, John Hobson, Roy Bin Wong, Jack Goldstone, Tonio Andrade, Ian Morris (historian) and many more. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is your field, exactly? World History? World History is a very, very big and ancient field, going back to Herodotus. A notable contemporary world historian would be someone like Christopher Bayly, who holds a distinguished professorship at Cambridge and whose work has been cited hundreds of times. A notable world historian would be someone like Immanuel Wallerstein, who has had a very distinguished career and whose work has been cited literally thousands of times. The claim that Duchesne has been cited by "nearly all authorities" in the field of World History, if that is indeed the field to which you are referring, is demonstrably false. In any case, when compared to the work of notable scholars, 35 citations in total and 12 maximum for a single piece is really quite paltry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueonGray (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC) --BlueonGray (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World History, as the Eurocentric and the California School discusses it, is largely refrained to the post-1500 period, when the world become through the voyages of discovery one world. Therefore, the field is not very large, largely restricted to the 1500-1800, and citations are generally relatively low. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you want to claim that Duchesne is some sort of important and influential scholar. On the other hand, when it's pointed out that almost no one has cited him, you then emphasize how miniscule his field is. Then, how have historical sociologists like Orlando Patterson, Theda Skocpol, Randall Collins, Charles Tilly, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Giovanni Arrighi managed to produce scholarship cited by thousands of people? Again, you can't have it both ways.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, Mr. Duchesne is just one of hundreds of unimportant professors who have so far, not been noted by any major scholars. Secondly, the way the article was written was in a manner designed to promote Mr. Duchesne's views, I have removed violations of WP:PEACOCK from the article, and the creator of the article, User:Gun Powder Ma has been inserting Duchesne's work onto multiple other articles and calling it "influential", which may be seen as an attempt at puffery. See This report for the questionable behavior by the creator of the articleDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

WP:Academic requests for notability a "substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Both is the case for Duchesne as can be seen from below. I did a search for works only in English which shows that

A. Duchesne has been cited by most authorities in the field, including David Landes (the leading Eurocentrist and probably single-most living scholar in the entire field), Bin Wong, Jack Goldstone, John M. Hobson (three of the four leading scholars of the opposing California School), Robert Brenner, Robert Finley and Patrick O'Brien.
B. he has published in many well-known peer-reviewed journals on history and sociology, including Science & Society, Journal of Peasant Studies, Review of Radical Political Economics, The European Legacy, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, The Journal of the Historical Society', apart from articles in several monographs. His recent monograph is published by Brill, one of the most renowned publishing houses in the humanities worldwide.

Articles published directly in response to Duchesne work include

Bin Wong, "Beyond Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism", Science & Society, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Summer 2003), pp. 173-184.
Jack Goldstone, "Europe vs. Asia: Missing Data and Misconceptions" Science & Society, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Summer 2003), pp. 184-195.
Bin Wong, "Early Modern Economic History in the Long Run," Science & Society, Vol. 68, No1 (Spring 2004), pp. 80-90.
Peer Vries (Professor at The University of Vienna, former Visiting Scholar at London School of Economics, editor of the Journal of Global History: "Is California the measure of all things global? A rejoinder to Ricardo Duchesne." World History Connected 2.2 (2005): 30 pars. 22 Jun. 2006.
John M. Hobson (London School of Economics): "Explaining the Rise of the West: A Reply to Ricardo Duchesne." The Journal of the Historical Society, Vol. 6, No.4 (December 2006), pp 579-599

Cited by other scholars (selection)

Govind P. Sreenivasan, /The Peasants of Ottobeuren, A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe/ (Cambridge UP, 2004).
G.M. Tamas, "Telling The Truth About Class." In Leo Panitch and Colin Leys, eds., /Telling the Truth/ (LeftWord, 2005).
B.H. Moss, "Republican Socialism and the Making of the Working Class in Britain, France, and the United States: A Critique of Thompsonian Culturalism," /Comparative Studies in Society and History/, Vol. 35, No.2 (1993).
B.H. Moss, "Marx and the Permanent Revolution in France: Background to the Communist Manifesto," /Socialist Register/ (1998).
Joseph M. Bryant, "The West and the Rest Revisited: Debating Capitalist Origins, European Colonialism, and the Advent of Modernity," /Canadian Journal of Sociology/, Vol. 31, No. 4 (2006).
Robert Markley, /The Far East and the English Imagination, 1600-1739/. (Cambridge UP, 2006).
Berhanu Abehaz, "Persistent Stasis in a Tributary Mode of Production: The Peasant Economy of Ethiopia," /Journal of Agrarian Change/, Vol. 5, No.3 (2003).
Neil Davidson, "How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions?" /Historical Materialism/, Vol. 13, No. 3 (2005).
Robert Brenner and Christopher Isett, "England's Divergence from China's Yangzi Delta: Property Relations, Microeconomics, and Patterns of Development," /The Journal of Asian Studies/, Vol. 61, No. 2 (2002), 609-662.
David Landes, "Why England and the West? Why Not China?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Summer 2006).
David Laibman, "The End of History? The Problem of Agency and Change". /Science and Society/, Vol. 70, No. 2 (2006), pp180-204.
Eric Mielants, /The Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West /(Temple University Press, 2007).
Peter Coclanis, "Atlantic World or Atlantic/World." /The William and Mary Quarterly/. Vol 63, No. 4 (October 2006)
Peter Gran, "Modern World History as the Rise of the Rich" /History Compass/ 2007.
R. Langlois, "The Closing of the Sociological Mind" /The Canadian Journal of Sociology/, Vol 33, No. 1 (2008).
Robert Finley, "The Voyages of Zhen He: State Power and Maritime Trade in Ming China". /The Journal of the Historical Society/. Vol 8, No. 3 (2008).
Jonathan Reynolds, "Africa and World History: from Antipathy to Synergy/," History Compass/, Vol 15, No. 6 (2007).
Christ Isett, State, /Peasant, and Merchant on the Manchurian Frontier, 1644-1862/. Stanford University Press, 2007.
Peer Vries, "The California School and Beyond: How to Study the Great Divergence," /Austrian Journal of Development Studies/, Vol 24, No 4 (2008).
Marcel van der Linden, /Workers of the World. Essays Toward a Global Labor History/. Brill 2008.
Eric Mielants, "The Epistemological Challenges of Studying the Global Economic Crisis and its Social and Political Consequences in the Long Run," /Revista Versus Academica/ (Agosto 2009).
R. Prazniak, "Menzies and the New Chinoiserie: Is Sinocentrism the Answer to Eurocentrism in Studies of Modernity?" /The Medieval History Journal/, vol. 13, No1. (2010).
Philippe Minard, "Revolution Industrielle: Divergence Orient-Occident/" Revue de synthese/. Vol 131. No. 3 (2010).
Patrick O'Brien, "Ten Years of Debate on the Origins of the Great Divergence between the Economies of Europe and China during the Era of Mercantilism and Industrialization," /Reviews in History/ (February 2011). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World History scholarship isn't something I know much about but I suspect I'm not the only one who's having a bit of trouble with the fact it's claimed he has been cited by nearly all the leading authorities in the field yet only 5 of them seem to be blue links. I recognise it's possible it's simply a field we don't cover well (i.e. those people may be notable) and academia in general is an area we still have limited coverage. And there's also risk of a self fulfilling prophecy if we keep deleting all the articles. (Although I hope it's recognised this also works in the reverse. If the claim is made he's been cited or debated most of the leading scholars and when we look at these leading scholars, the only evidence we have that they're leading scholars is that they've debated the other leading scholars, we end up with the same problem.) But combined with the low number of times he's been cited and lack of evidence of meeting other areas of the academics notability guidelines it doesn't seem to be compelling. If World History is really such an obscure field then perhaps there would simply be no sources. It's worth remembering that notability is not so much to do with significance but sourcing. The subject specific guidelines like Notability (academics) usually primarily refer to significance based on the assumption people with that much significance will have sources but it seems questionable if that will apply if we have to relax the criteria so much for what it seems to be claimed is an obscure field. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you know referring to the number of "blue links" is Wikipedia:Self-reference and does not help us establishing the notability of the authors independently. That is why I am a bit frustrated at how the discussion goes. I know the field quite good, and I know that nearly all scholars have debated him but how can I demonstrate this if people don't know much about the subject and the players? Again, with a single exception I recognize all of the most important names in the field have debated Duchesne.

The AfD starter, for one, unfortunately does not seem to know much at all because he actually thinks the field of "world history" strechts back to antiquity! This is factually wrong. In reality, "world history" is a field of history which deals with events beginning with early modernity, when the world became one true world system during the Age of Discovery.

As you see, most of the other WP articles on world historians are very undeveloped, even of the top authority himself, David Landes. That is why I don't understand why the comparatively well-researched article on Duchesne should be deleted. We would rob WP of one of the few entries on scholars in the field we have. This does not make sense. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your reasons based on Wikipedia policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, editors must give reasons other than their personal opinion. If we went be personal opinions, wikipedia wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia anymore. Ricardo Duchense is not more notable than the myriad of other professors who have written papers. There are thousands of them.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no use listing the articles that cite Duchesne's work. Anyone can go to Google Scholar and see that he has been cited only 30 times. You couldn't possibly list all the publications that cite a real scholar like Randall Collins or Charles Tilly, because there would be thousands and thousands of such publications, and it would take up far too much space. The very fact that you can list them here in so short a space demonstrates precisely how low the number of citations is for his work.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One basic piece of logic: biographical entries for scholars should be evaluated according to independent standards of scholarly excellence and noteworthiness, not vice versa. If scholarly noteworthiness were set according to the accomplishments of Ricardo Duchesne, then every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a few publications and a handful of citations would automatically be entitled to a biographical entry. That would be preposterous. The point of these entries is to highlight exceptional scholars, not mediocrities who fail to stand out from the rest.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites are 12, 8, 4, 4, 3 to give an h index of 4. Totally inadequate for WP:Prof#C1. Is there anything else? Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: This is a rather schematic argument: h-index is designed primarily for scientists of the natural science, where the citations are much higher than in the humanities (I'd say by a factor of ten or more). In the humanities, however, much less articles are published. WP:Academic is adamant about this, too. Second, remember that RD publishing history mostly goes back only ten years. This comparatively short period of time is another reasoning why counting socks with absolute numbers in the h-index is misleading. You ask for anything else? Start addressing the fact the Duchesne has been debating with most of the notable scholars in the field. This means he has been recognized widely as an important figure in the discourse. This is a strong reason for a keep. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you addressed the fact the RD has been debated by most of the most influential thinkers in the field where he is active (world history, 1500-1800)? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that actually true? By "debated" do you mean "Duchesne reviewed a book by X, so X responded to Duchesne's criticisms in a separate article"? Not that "has debated a notable person" is a measure of notability anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an extended book advertisement with a dash of resumecruft. Does not appear to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in my opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Extended content
this is copied from my post at ANI, but I agreed to stop the dispute at ANI and bring the problem here, so this is not forumshopping. Gun Powder Ma has engaged in WP:PEACOCK/puffery on Duchesne's part, appearing to have a conflict of interest with him Gun Powder Ma calls Duchesne's work an "influential critique" on another article, violating WP:PEACOCK below this is a list of times GPM inserted Duchesne's work into multiple articles on history and "multiculturalism" [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] GPM calling H. S. Harris the "foremost Hegelian scholar" he changed it to "most influential", which still violates WP:PEACOCK, however, I've just removed it, he might change it back.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I don't see any violation of WP:COI. Calling someones work "influential" isn't a COI William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

this is copied from my post at ANI, but I agreed to stop the dispute at ANI and bring the problem here, so this is not forumshopping.

Gun Powder Ma has engaged in WP:PEACOCK/puffery on Duchesne's part, appearing to have a conflict of interest with him

Gun Powder Ma calls Duchesne's work an "influential critique" on another article, violating WP:PEACOCK

below this is a list of times GPM inserted Duchesne's work into multiple articles on history and "multiculturalism"

[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

GPM calling H. S. Harris the "foremost Hegelian scholar" he changed it to "most influential", which still violates WP:PEACOCK, however, I've just removed it, he might change it back.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any violation of WP:COI. Calling someones work "influential" isn't a COI William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to your scheduled discussion[edit]

Keep Seems notable enough. Athenean (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your reasons based on Wikipedia policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am rather interest in yours, since you seem to misunderstand and overinterpret h-index, as if RD were not publishing in the humanities where counts are quantitatively much less, by an entire order of magnitude(!), than in the natural sciences. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Then how do you explain the fact that other sociologists, such as David Bloor, Amitai Etzioni, Arjun Appadurai, Bruno Latour, and Ulrich Beck, have produced scholarly works cited by thousands of people?--BlueonGray (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are all familiar with the vagaries of the h-index by now and make allowance for them. I am still interested in your own, so far unstated, reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have contributed them above, so why don't you read them? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question was addressed to Athenean, or are you answering on his behalf? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

procedural keep - this looks to be a bad faith nom - BlueonGray has engaged in deliberate vandalism of the article, e.g. [60]; see-also [61]. It is also clear that BoG has an undisclosed COI on this subject - see the COIN. All the debate here has been far too polarised by this; I'd like to see this closed as a procedural keep, without prejudice to revisiting the issue in a month or two if anyone still wishes too, if the undisclosed COI can be resolved William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC) [Updated, 08:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]
- Comment: Your comment fails to address any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. Duchesne's most successful article to date has been cited by a mere 12 people. What is the evidence of his scholarly importance or significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueonGray (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC) --BlueonGray (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear that BlueonGray added puffery like "one of the greatest thinkers of the twenty-first century" to emphasize the lack of notability of a scholar that just wrote his first book in 2011. I would not call that outright vandalism, and it was five months ago. It was reverted by another user with a different summary "highly unencyclopedic". I would AGF that BlueonGray did not know any better at the time, like how to nominate the article for deletion; he was advised only a few days ago at BLP/N. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of the motive, BlueGrey is in violation of BLP for trying to ridicule on the subject of an article. The notability is in fact dubious, but defacing an article to make it absurdly ddubious as a protest is a violation of WP:POINT in any case, and when done with respect to a BLP, it passes the boundaries of disruption. If it were not several months ago, I would block for something like this. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contributors to this debate may be interested to know that there is a long thread on related matters at AN/I.[62] Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

They may also be interested in this possible WP:COI of the AfD starter: User talk:BlueonGray#WP:Battleground and the discussion on the WP:BLP Noticeboard. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a bad faith nomination. Also he has written for the National post and the Vancouver Sun [63] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles for people just because they write in newspapers. User:BlueonGray appears to be mainly concerned with the fact that the article on Duchesne is uncritical and paints a glowering picture of him. While initial edits by BoG on the article may have violated WP:BLP, his point is still valid since the article has no criticism in it and just looks like a WP:SOAPBOX of Duchesne's work and viewpoints.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

procedural keep. I fully agree with William M. Connolley. I have been keeping an eye on this discussion since the beginning, and it is a very disturbing mess. It is quite clear that BlueonGray made a bad faith nomination and it is quite clear that Gun Powder Ma is boostering up the reputation of Duchesne. Both clearly have a conflict of interest and their massive contribution to this discussion has been, in both cases, entirely negative. We should let this rest of a while and then it should be renominated, but only if both BlueonGray and Gun Powder Ma agree to not contribute to the discussion or are blocked from so doing. My view of the article - I think it was probably written too early before notability becomes clear. Letting it rest for a while may allow some indications of notability to appear or not, with both alternatives clarifying the issue. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Impact on Scholarly Discipline?[edit]

The entry on Ricardo Duchesne states that he is a historical sociologist. His Academic discipline is therefore Sociology. The particular branch in which he works is Historical sociology. The first criteria in WP:PROF is "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed." There is no evidence that Duchense has made a significant impact on either the discipline of sociology or the sub-field of historical sociology. An example of a sociologist who has made a significant impact upon her discipline is Saskia Sassen, whose book The Global City has been cited over 4,000 times. An example of a historical sociologist who has made a significant impact in the sub-field of historical sociology is Charles Tilly, whose book Coercion, Capital, and European States has been cited 2,600 times. Duchense's most successful work to date is his essay, "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism," which has been cited 12 times. I repeat: 12 times. Where is the evidence of Duchesne's significant impact upon his discipline? Debating people is not evidence of significant impact, since academia is all about debate.--BlueonGray (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, the comparison could not be more apples and oranges: Charles Tilly is a. forty years older and thus his work could accumulate forty years more of citations b. not a world historian anyway. The field of world history in our sense is barely ten years old, beginning in the late 1990s. These scholars are mostly fresh behind their ears and just don't have yet the time to accumulate the citation statistics the often cited, but dated works of Tilly and his generation has.

Therefore, you have to take into account the qualitative side: I have given enough names of notable scholars he has debated and enough titles of peer-reviewed journals where he has been published. You have still not named a single important scholar in the field who has not debated with Duchesne. As an aside, for a single-purpose account who has come to WP with a WP:COI as big as barn door, you are pretty assertive in telling us how we should evaluate the notability of articles here. The citation of the unrelated Tilly unfortunately removes all doubts that you don't even know who Duchesne is, what his work is and why he is an important scholar. All you have is the grudge against Duchesne because he published an article about the "racism industry" in Canada in some newspaper which you commented there aggressively upon, made you then register here and stalk the article since February (February, March). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria in WP:PROF asks for significant impact in a scholarly discipline, not a young sub-sub-field limited to a few scholars. There are countless young sub-sub-fields in which a very small group of scholars debate with one another. That does not meet any of the criteria in WP:PROF. Again, according to the entry for Ricardo Duchesne, which you created, Duchesne belongs to Historical sociology. Every academic belongs to a formal discipline. Within historical sociology, Duchesne's scholarly impact is barely detectable.

Also, Duchesne earned his PhD in 1994. According to you, he belongs to a field that was created "in the late 1990s". In which discipline was he working before his field was even created?--BlueonGray (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Field Too Small or Too Young?[edit]

Two different reasons have been given for Duchense's extremely low number of citations (12 max for a single piece; 35 total):

1) Duchesne's field is very small.

2) Duchesne's field is very young.

In regards to 1), it was pointed out that other historical sociologists have published scholarly works that have been cited many thousands of times, so 1) isn't a good reason. In regards to 2), Gun Powder made an important point:

The field of world history in our sense is barely ten years old, beginning in the late 1990s. These scholars are mostly fresh behind their ears and just don't have yet the time to accumulate the citation statistics the often cited...

This is a point on which we can all agree: Duchesne is a relatively new scholar and therefore has not yet had the time to accumulate the citation statistics to qualify as having had any significant impact upon his discipline (whichever that may be). Perhaps he will in the future. But for now, 35 in total just doesn't cut it. My suggestion, then, is to delete the entry for Duchesne until he accumulates a substantial number of citations. I think we can all agree that biographical entries should be created for demonstrated scholarly impact, not speculative projections.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Roscelese, Nsk92, and Xxanthippe. This not a small field, so the number of citations is inadequate for WP:PROF, and I don't see any exceptional contribution--the awfulness of multiculturalism is a horse beaten by many scholars recently, just see Eurabia. His 2011 book on multiculturalism (and his only one on any topic) is nothing special and as yet un-reviewed it seems. No GNG-type coverage was presented for this scholar either, and given that the article is fairly elaborate including which classes he took and with whom, I suspect all available sources have been exhausted. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And please move the extensive threaded discussion with headings to the talk page. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. Beyond that, fails WP:GNG: If a work receives wide coverage, then an article about the work might be notable, but being notable for a work is not enough for an independent article. There is not enough independent coverage in the RS for an article on the author, but there might be for the book. I think the keep !voters are missing this very important point. Furthermore, his book is not a peer-reviewed book, so citations in academia are irrelevant. A look at the citations shows he is not being cited as an authority, but mostly to question him: notoriety of a promoter of a WP:FRINGE idea is not enough to establish notability. Also resumecruft per COI.--Cerejota (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, fringe? It is getting more weird by the day. The book has not been peer-reviewed because it takes usually one to two years, before such a thing happens. This is the printed world, not real time Wiki, dude. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited By Nearly All Scholars?[edit]

I realize the case for keeping this article has all but collapsed, but I want to settle one claim that has been repeated above ad nauseum: the claim that "Duchesne has been cited by most authorities" in the field of World History. The sheer audacity of this claim would be bad enough if it weren't for the number of times it's been repeated. Thus far, we have seen no compelling evidence for this claim. However, Oxford University Press has just published the The Oxford Handbook of World History. According to the book's description, it "presents thirty-three essays by leading historians in their respective fields." It provides "the best guide to current thinking in one of the most dynamic fields of historical scholarship." Fortunately, the Table of Contents, which consists of no less than 31 chapters, is provided for everyone to see. (Notice that it includes Patrick Manning, whom Duchesne "debated" in some online forum.) Okay, now two things are immediately obvious. First, Duchesne is conspicuously missing this volume. If he's such an important scholar, one wonders why he wasn't included. Second, going by Gun Powder's own bibliography above, not one of the contributors to this volume have cited Duchesne's work. I repeat: not one. It is now certain that Ricardo Duchesne has not debated "most" of the authorities in his field, let alone been cited by nearly all of them. I don't see any argument left for keeping this article. Not sure what else to say, other than Delete. Cheers, BlueonGray (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

has he been cited by most authorities in the specific field he is working on? That's the real question. what I think notability depends on here is the reviews of his book. But it's a 2011 book, and , in his subject, reviews often take several years to appear. Incidentally, if we want to go by the GNG, we need to look at the citations: if two or more of them are published in Reliable sources, and have substantial discussion of his work, it meets the GNG. For those who think meeting the GNG over-rides anything, there need be no further necessary discussion. (I am, as you may guess,not one of them. WP:PROF is an area where GMNG often understates notability ; WP:AUTHOR is one where it grossly overstates it.). DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sensible post I have read here and which displays some actual understanding of the topic. Yes, he has been cited by most authorities in the field. But the whole discussion here is heavily tilted towards counting socks, because no-one has an idea about what the field is. Unfortunately, those who do, I cannot contact because of canvassing. What do you exactly mean with "if two or more of them are published in Reliable sources, and have substantial discussion of his work, it meets the GNG"? This criteria has been met many times over by Duchesne, he has several works which were cited in at least two RS sources. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any significant coverage in the notations, and I tried. I mostly agree with what you are saying (except WP:AUTHOR, but Ill ask you directly), but this guy is not notable, but his book might be (haven't looked into it).--Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not try. You did not even read this Afd. See above: Articles published directly in response to Duchesne work include. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His book was launched by BRILL in Feb, yet I was unable to locate any real reviews for it. It may be too early, but I've not even seen it on "books received" lists that journals sometimes publish antedating reviews. There is a sort of adulatory post on it here, but some extremists endorsing it doesn't seem very promising. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia running out of pages?[edit]

A lot of energy is being wasted over whether to delete an adequate article about a modestly notable subject. The article is question is not slanderous or fawning. The text is clear, with adequate references to support it. The subject has a public presence.

If this and even less "important" articles are permitted to remain, Wikipedia will not run out of pages. Keeping all articles, even stubs, that meet Wikipedia's minimum standards causes no major harm to Wikipedia. On the contrary, I believe it benefits Wikipedia and the ever-expanding community of Wikipedia users.

Wikipedia becomes more important the more accurate information it contains. Hair-splitting about a subject's notability undermines the entire enterprise. Let's have more adequate articles on minor notables, not fewer. Posterity will thank you. --Calogera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You surely chose an odd article to make your first deletion discussion participation in you account's history. "Minor notables" are indeed a great problem for Wikipedia, just pass by WP:BLP/N. The lack of adequate independent coverage usually results in distorted biographies one way or the other. Wait until this guy says or does something controversial that hits WP:109PAPERS, and then the full force of "becomes a source of dismay to their original authors" hits home. In the mean time, puffing up someone bio with every embellished resume detail is fawning that discredits Wikipedia in the eyes of the public as a mere carrier of advertisement. See WP:EVERYTHING for more. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EVERYTHING and WP:EFFORT. This argument here is invalid.--Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, WP can not run out of articles unlike paper enclopyedias. Wikipedia is not paper. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is input from users who have actually edited in the field which RD covers. Since the argument that the scholars who debated RD are leaders in their field has still not been addressed after five days, I have notified per WP:Canvass (users who are known for expertise in the field) the top ten registered users of the main article on the subject, that is Great Divergence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symposium of top authorities specifically held for Duchesne's article[edit]

At the bottom of the Google Scholar link you find an entry on Eurocentrism, Sinocentrism and World History: A Symposium (also here) which was specifically held for the purpose to discuss Duchesne's article "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism: Debating Andre Gunder Frank's re-orient: Global economy in the Asian age", the one with the 12 citations. Participants are, inter alia, RB Wong and JA Goldstone, two of the other top world historians. This proves that RD complies to WP:ACADEMIC, namely that his research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the "symposium" was held specifically for the subject's article. It's just another publication in a Marxist journal by the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what makes them top world historians? Through what achievements did they earn their academic notability? Obviously, my next question would be: how do their achievements compare to those of Duchesne?--BlueonGray (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought you knew the field when the filed the Afd, so why do you ask? I hope you don't expect me to explain the scholarly merits of the individual scholars. Wong and Goldstone are leading figures of the California school which is in the opposite camp than Duchesne and they publish internationally in the Cambridge and Princeton University Press. They are all part of the debate in the field. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're holding Wong and Goldstone to one standard and Duchesne to another. The former have been cited hundreds of times each. Wong currently runs 5 research centers at UCLA. His book, China Transformed, was published by Cornell and received excellent reviews by top journals. Goldstone holds a prestigious professorship at George Mason. His book, Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World, was published by University of California Press and similarly received excellent reviews and endorsements. Clearly, they didn't become top scholars by publishing a book review that was then heavily criticized.--BlueonGray (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you came up with "5 research centers", but anyway. The point is that both of them organized and attended a symposium to debate a single article of Duchesne is proof enough that they consider him a peer in the field. This strongly indicates that he is notable according to #1: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+ Citation by another important figure Tonia Andrade, from 2011

+ recent disputation with Ian Morris: RD's review and reply by Morris. Morris has published recently a widely received book, see e.g. Review of NY Times or Review by Guardian. This means Duchesne is integral part of the debate in his field and thus notable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A public intellectual with a fairly high profile. All the kerfluffle above to me indicates just what we're trying to demonstrate here: that this is an individual that Wikipedia users will WANT to know about, whether one agrees with him or disagrees with him or just bumps into the name out in cyberspace. There's a big enough mass of commentary out there, pro, con, and neutral to indicate to me that this is indeed a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we still have thousands of intellectuals at hundreds of universities with no wikipedia pages. the article on Ricardo, as currently written, looks like a glowering report designed to promote the individual, there is no criticism section, and it looks designed to promote Duchesne's views. There are many controversial figures who have articles on wiki, but they aren't platforms for their views to be promoted. See WP:SOAPBOX. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know people are tired of all this but it still needs mentioning that DÜNGÁNÈ, who has had created an attack page, holds a grudge against me. I can handle this, but that the AfD process is misused for personal motives, is another matter and sheds not a good light on WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous entanglements with users involved in creating an article for AfD does not mean that I get banned from voting or commenting on AfD that the user is involved in for life. I only encountered Ricardo Duchesne's article since GPM inserted his works and links to the article on multiple wikipedia pages that I read, like History of printing in East Asia, Printing Press, and Multiculturalism. I was monitoring the Duchesne article on this basis, not becaues I was looking for GPM's disuptes with other users. Again, if I held a grudge against GPM, I would have inserted myself into multiple disputes GPM was in, anyone can pull up a list of Afd's GPM has been involved in while I was editing wiki, and I was not involved in any until now. I am aware of his involvement in an Afd on ethnic macedonians in Greece, and there are probably more which I am not aware of. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already given my vote, and made my points on this AfD. so I will retire from this and await the result.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clear that User:Gun Powder Ma is not being very forthcoming about something. S/he included three pieces of information about Duchesne that simply isn't publicly available:

Duchesne's place of birth
the year in which Duchesne was promoted to full professor
Duchesne's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

The second two were included to build Duchesne's notability. User:Gun Powder Ma conspicuously refuses to say how s/he managed to obtain this information.--BlueonGray (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BlueonGray has been blocked for being disruptive on "Ricardo Duchesne". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage[edit]

Back on topic. There is evidence that RD has made some impact even outside academia (point 7. of WP:Academics): he has published an article in January 2011 in the Canadian National Post, the leading center-conservative newspaper of Canada, with a daily circulation of 200,000. If he were not notable, why did the editorial staff of the National Post entrust him with a leading comment on a sensitive issue? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a single article even in a leading newspaper is so far from any of our notability criteria that it is laughable. We don't need published works by Duchesne, what we need is published works about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that a single newspaper article establishes notability alone, but that is is one piece of mosaic which adds to his notability which I believe it does. As for published works exclusively on him, I already posted above "Articles published directly in response to Duchesne work include", but it is unfortunately symptomatic of the whole discussion that after six days still no-one has addressed my point that he has been debated by most of his peers (other than BlueOnGray, who, as people have finally realized, would negate everything which sheds a positive light on RD).

I tend to agree with William O'Connolley that a procedural keep may be the best solution with the option to review the matter later. You can't tell me this has been a fair and normal AfD. I have written quite a few bios in WP, some of which were on scholars who may be viewed according to the 'only the pure number of citations count' argumentation line less notable than RD. Yet no-one has ever come around questioning these entries. This whole AfD started from the wrong foot because of the bad faith of the nominator, that's my view anyway. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main work[edit]

While it is true that Duchesne's main book The Uniqueness of Western Civilization has not yet been cited, this is small wonder considering that it was only launched in February this year. Most academic journals only appear biannual, so the first reviews will not appear until fall or winter.

However, even now the notability of his book can be still positively assessed from considering two aspects:

the book is published by Brill, one the most renowned international publishing houses for science and particularly humanities, see here. Notably, it is not just a 'stand-alone publication', but part of Brill's long-running Studies in Critical Social Sciences series (vol. 28).
WorldCat already lists around 60 university libraries which have the book on the shelf, over 40 alone from the USA. WorldCat, though, is far from complete with regard to Europe. The global impact of Duchesne's book is corrobated by a search in the catalogue Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog (KVK). This shows that an additional 14 Central European university libraries have also the book in store, even though it is in English.
In other words, it is evident that Duchesne's book will have a major impact in the field even though it takes some more weeks before the first reviews arrive. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What most of these libraries have is a standing order for each one in the series. Brill is a first-rate publisher in the traditional humanities, particularly religion--I would classify it as a good second-level publisher otherwise. What these holdings indicate, unfortunately, is that relatively few libraries that do not subscribe to the series purchased it separately. (check the holdings for prev. vols in worldcat). The normal expected worldcat holdings for a book of this sort 2 years after publication would be about 100. Over 250, might indicate some degree of particular notability. (It would take a long essay to document this, but these are my estimates.) However, it will receive reviews--all serious academic books do. And, oddly, Wikipedia accepts that as meeting WP:N for books. The only reason we don't have the consequent 25,000 articles on them a year is that people here are mostly not particularly interested, and when there is strong defense of an article for a writer like this one , it usually indicates either some special controversial topic of unusual concern here, or a fanclub of some sort. Such are the inevitable vagaries of user-generated content, and I suppose we have to accept that. This is not a place for objective evaluations of academic book or their authors. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting insight, I know you have professional knowledge. However, some 60 holdings after 7 months is not bad after your own estimations and I observed that every 2-3 days another university library has purchased it (today: 62), so there is some momentum. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look into the catalogue today again: +1. Purchaser: University of Cambridge. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Duchesne's book will have a major impact in the field even though it takes some more weeks before the first reviews arrive." Contrary to policy. Wikipedia does not have a crystal ball. Renominate the BLP when (if) notability is achieved. Presently sources are not sufficient for notability. Too early. If the subject really were notable his supporters would not have to argue so loud and so long. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Xantippe, as I explained just above, the odds are about 10:1 that there will indeed be two or three reviews in a year or so. It's not a wild extrapolation, but only Wikipedia would consider that as indicating notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My brief research does not turn up sufficient secondary sources that are independent enough to meet notability, such as WP:PROF. --Noleander (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- ignoring all the crap above, any normal evaluation of this person reasonably comes to the conclusion that he does not meet WP:PROF or any other standard: no large number of citations, no significant awards or prestigious positions, no news coverage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Academics write articles, that's their job. If they have something to say that does not fit into 10 or 15 pages, they publish a book. I see nothing extraordinary yet to warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia. I do smell an attempt to boost book sales, as the article is not primarily about the author but about the book. --Pgallert (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the article exists since August 2010 and did not include the book until March 2011. With two computer technologists voting delete based on a similarly vacuous statement within less than hour, I'd rather think this smells of canvass and that the vote has finally become a total sham. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reject this accusation. --Pgallert (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- I couldn't find evidence, and the article doesn't present any, that this person is notable under the accepted criteria for Academics Francis Bond (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See above. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward[edit]

It is obvious that this discussion has generated much more heat than light. The best way forward would seem to me to be to close this discussion and start a new one with BlueonGray and Gun Powder Ma agreeing not to take part, leaving the discussion to neutral editors. If they won't agree to this then the discussion should take place with a formal topic ban on those editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this creative suggestion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This would be a reasonable way forward -- but I would like (first) to see an admin consider whether there is actually consensus for deletion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if one statement is allowed (with an appendix as extended contents). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your idea of "extended contents" is a big part of the problem. Content is for the article, or maybe its talk page. What should go here is only a brief discussion of its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the spirit behind this proposal, as if this were a content dispute in an article's talk page, I would be inclined to agree. However, this is a deletion discussion: a closing admin needs to evaluate the arguments for deletion and for keep, including editor behavior, and make a decision. This decision can be appealed to WP:DRV. We cannot allow AfDs to be hijacked by editors who do not know how to behave or have decorum and self-restraint to realize what AfD is about: if we accept this proposal, what is to keep editors in the future from using this to create wall of text disruption of deletion discussions, with the aim of disrupting the discussion to give the impression of no consensus? Specially when they are not going their way? This solution, while in good faith and certainly seeking to move forward, has a negative unintended consequence. We cannot go around the real problem here, which is the inability of editors to behave with decorum. As such, I strongly oppose it: let the discussion flow, and let the chips fall where they might fall. I trust the admins to make the hard choices and evaluate the discussion on its merits and ignore and pay attention to the irrelevant and relevant parts of the discussion .--Cerejota (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief discussion which after two weeks still did not manage to address the main point to establish his notability, that is whether RD has been debated by all of the main authorities in the field, as I argue, or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. Counting the votes, I find 13 votes for delete and 6 for keep including nominator and all partisans. On this basis (but remembering that an AfD is NOT A VOTE) the consensus already seems to be fairly clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest that a new neutral drama-free discussing should start, and this one to be closed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm--Cerejota (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I count 12 deletes, 5 keeps and two procedural keeps. Unfortunately, this sloppiness has been characteristic of the whole debate. I can even understand this because the discussion has been such a mess. Therefore, a new discussion with one statement each may be a viable option. Still, I think a procedural keep would be better as even a new Afd would not remove the birth mark of being a bad faith nomination which all people here fully well know it has been. There should be some time in between, not in the least to allow sufficient reception of his book, which, I presume, will anyway show that he is actively enough debated in his field to make all of this discussion obsolete. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reword)We should allow a five day break in between AFD's IMO.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete (if new users are supposed to vote.) I think I understand the keep and delete reasoning, and I agree with Noleander that secondary sources (discussing Duchesne himself in depth) are needed, but lacking. Auguria (talk) 02:16, 9 September 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. There's no prejudice for an early renomination, in case the article is not improved. Wifione ^Message 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Kaur Khalsa[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. None of the references is a reliable independent source, and most give very little coverage. (PROD contested without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep Her first acting credits are as Kirsten Betts, and she also goes by Elandra Kirsten Meredith (for example, the page on her yoga establishment). She also has theatre and TV credits. So the material on her is more extensive than appears from the article as it was; two of us have been adding to it and rewriting. She does not appear to have had any major roles in film or theatre, but I believe she is mentioned enough to meet the notability criteria as a performer, in which case the article should be moved to Kirsten Lindholm with redirects from the other 3 names. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most biographical details are from IMDB and similar user-contributed web sites. There's only passing mention of her in reliable sources. Fails WP:BLP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:51, 20 August 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) 00:13, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Borderline on wp:notability. Benefit of the doubt. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Cape Cod Baseball League season[edit]

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

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

How notable is a season of the Cape Cod Baseball League? Not notable enough for a page, in my opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There must be an amateur summer baseball project or something MadCow257 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but likely a higher level amateur league than we may think. The 2007 standout was Chicago White Sox second baseman Gordon Beckham. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article (2011 Cape Cod Baseball League season) contains valid information, all of which is referenced appropriately. This article also contains information regarding certain members of Cape Cod Baseball League players in the 2011 season that may be possible Major League Baseball prospects. Finally, it is difficult to find other articles to include the content of this one, should merging be the decision. This user agrees with MadCow257 in that a summer amateur baseball project should be created. Railfan2103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC). — Railfan2103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to closing admin Railfan2103 is the creator of 2011 Cape Cod Baseball League season. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin I acknowledge that I did in fact create the article 2011 Cape Cod Baseball League season. If the administrator feels that it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia to delete said article, then please delete it. However, to reiterate the points made in my last comment, all information in the article is valid, referenced appropriately, and likely would not "fit well" if merged with another. Railfan2103 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:15, 1 September 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. Wifione ^Message 16:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whale Protection Status[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason for proposed deletion: Unable to verify the existence of this term. PROD removed by author without providing any additional information. Singularity42 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't see anything about it on the canadian site. Not NPOV, etc. MadCow257 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No proof of existence. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 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. Wifione ^Message 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Programme Italy-Malta 2007-2013[edit]

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

Yet another EU project where the author thinks that independent references are unnecessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete more WP:GNG non-notable europrojectcruft. At least pokemon character and other fancruft articles have independent sourcing! These europrojectcruft could probably belong in Wikisource, tho. --Cerejota (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I could not find any coverage of this. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here's a link from a quick Google search with the words (verbatim) "news, Operational Programme Italy-Malta" typed in Google - here, from the European Commission, which provides unbiased and comprehensive information. Here's another link from the same search from the government of Malta The Italia-Malta Programme 2007-2013. While they could possibly be considered as primary sources, they are nevertheless sources that verify the article, and the notability of the article. From the same search here is a downloadable PDF from the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union: here. These are valid sources that cover the topic, the topic is noteworthy, and the article should remain to be expanded by other users. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a comprehensive report from the Maltese government: link.Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are primary sources that are not independent of the subject. Please see WP:GNG.--Cerejota (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 07:34, 5 September 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. Wifione ^Message 16:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

fails WP:N, all but two sources are primary from the developer, the other ones are a estate agent listing and public transport info. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as an internet search turned up mostly classified listings. The page was DEPRODed in 2009 with reason being that it "is one of the largest and famous buildings in Tseung Kwan O New Town in Hong Kong", with no further notable info since. Michaela den (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely fails notability. Zero mention on Google news, and the only thing I can find on Google search is marketing, promotion or real estate listings. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tiu Keng Leng or a new Private housing estates in Sai Kung District article. "the second largest private housing estate in Tseung Kwan O" and "over 5,000 residential units" hint that this property is not exactly a minor one. olivier (talk) 17:47, 9 August 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, Cerejota (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this gets deleted, then it will set a precedent for most/all of Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles to be deleted. Dengero (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Caribbean Coast has been quietly deleted without discussion. olivier (talk) 13:43, 17 August 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, BusterD (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if those Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles are notable per WP:N as a standalone article then they will not be deleted but if they are not then they ought to be deleted.--Michaela den (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So merging is not an option? just erase all the content? olivier (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are at least 120 similar articles in Category:Private housing estates in Hong Kong; no reason to target this one for deletion. Just let it be improved over time; no hurry. Hmains (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to PROD some of these has just been reverted, using exact inverse logic. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My research does not show sufficient independent sources that demonstrate notability. User Hmains raises a good point about the existence of 120 WP articles on similar buildings in Hong Kong, but that doesn't make this article notable (in fact, it just tells me that there are a lot of active WP editors in Hong Kong :-) WP:Other stuff exists and all that. --Noleander (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tiu Keng Leng, where it is already mentioned in the housing subsection. I searched the Hong Kong Standard and found only passing references to this development. Due to its size, its quite possible more sources exist but I cannot find any. Much of the AfD discussion above has very little to do with notability of this complex. Do the redirect, perhaps someday in the future it can be re-expanded.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. Content is just self-description....not spammy / blatantly promotional, but still sales type content. No wp:realted references. All but one are links that go to advertising pages on their own web site, and the only other one is a bus schedule supporting the statement that they are on a bus route. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia would be better served if the debate about the fate of Hong Kong private housing estates articles was centralized, rather than spread across dozens of articles. I suggest to discuss the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, where I have given some background. Thank you. olivier (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the debate needs to be centralised, but I also believe that whatever consensus is reached in the centralised location can't override the WP:AfD/WP:GNG processes. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable as per WP:GNG. A central discussion might help editors in future when considering either starting an article like this or deleting one, but it can't pre-empt this discussion, or any similar discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing to indicate this is a notable housing development. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; falls short of the notability guideline. Feel free to nominate others. The "other articles exist" argument should carry little weight - but, similarly, whether this one is kept or deleted does not affect the notability of others so won't be much of a precedent. bobrayner (talk) 08:24, 8 September 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. Wifione ^Message 16:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sierak[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable artist. He doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE, and I can't find much coverage of him in independent reliable sources. (There are several Google Books hits, but they seem to be pretty trivial mentions.) There are a few claims of notability here, but I don't think they add up to very much. Robofish (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and lack of secondary coverage. Much of the page is a WP:COPYVIO from [64], and the page creator is the subject himself. Yoninah (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:CREATIVE. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Established artist/illustrator, but not notable Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 7 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Priestley[edit]

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

The subject's book was reviewed in the Financial Times [65], but that's the only reliable source I can find with any coverage. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG's requirement of multiple independent reliable sources. January (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a book review is not coverage of the topic which is the person. And that is the one and only reference in the article. So, no indication of wp:notability. Also no specific even claims of notability in the article except authoring of the book. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than having written a book that has received a single review, this article gives no evidence of the notability of the author. Also links to the subject's blog - swell, but having a blog does not make one notable. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:34, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:AUTHOR, he has basically no coverage anywhere. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:47, 1 September 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. Wifione ^Message 16:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of video services using H.264/MPEG-4 AVC[edit]

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

Delete. A difficult list to main that will never reach any sort of completeness. Given that it is being increasing used the list will become very bloated. Also, is it of any use?? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a fork of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, which is pretty long even without this list. Note that there is also a list of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC products and implementations.MadCow257 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 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, BusterD (talk) 10:52, 24 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the adoption of an obviously notable standard is suitable for inclusion and the main article is getting a bit to big to host it. That said, I think once the standard gains ubiquity the article will be of less utility (as would an article on, say, support for PNG). -- samj _in^out 07:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I usually deal with list bloat and WP:N problems by using categories. I do think some of these things need a bit more explanation though so a list is more appropriate for now. -- samj _in^out 07:15, 2 September 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. Wifione ^Message 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wall[edit]

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

Known for one lawsuit that went nowhere. Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --BweeB (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy to find many reliable sources. A notable person in his field. I agree the lawsuit is a minor event. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all of them? Perhaps you could add some more information and sources to the article. Assuming you're correct, that would save everyone a lot of trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wp:BLP1E unless someone produces significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that give biographical coverage to this person outside the context of the one event lawsuit. Jehochman, please provide links to such sources that are "easy to find". Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find junk about his SEO products. He has a lot of google hits, but his entire job is focused on creating google hits so that is meaningless. No significant coverage in secondary sources, just a bunch of tips on how to rank high with search engines. Delete per WP:N --Odie5533 (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find through public channels are variations of his own website, numerous quotes of himself on other websites, but there is no secondary source from credible sources verifying him as notable as Jehochman is stating. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:COI User:Jehochman is extensively involved in this article if you care to peek through edit history, such as adding external links meant to create traffic to web page of Aaron Wall. He also happens to be the one to his photo as well. I think there is reasonable suspicion to say that he at least holds significant stake in this page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

Possible sources:

There are also multiple hits for Aaron Wall and SEObook in Google Books.

To start with one must be slightly familiar with the industry to recognize which sources are reliable. Search Marketing Standard, Fox Business, Search Engine Watch and Search Engine Land are all good sources. The others are possibly good. The existing article is well sourced and isn't causing any harm. If somebody had time (I don't at the moment), it would be possible to expand the article further. WP:TIND. Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources provide significant coverage of the author, they are just trivial mentions of him or his blog (which are two different things). Also, see WP:AUTHOR. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This is absolutely true for this individual. They are widely cited. The things I posted are not just trivial mentions. You need to actually look through them a bit, rather than just posting a dismissive remark. Jehochman ^Talk 06:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through each source that you have posted. I changed your list to numbered so I could easily reply:

has brief mention of the person's blog. Does not support notability for the person himself.
No mention of the author.
This is the only remotely supporting source. The author and 99 other people won a championship. I'll leave it to others to decide if this award is prestigious enough to make all of its receivers notable people.
This is one news article about the author and appears to be in a reliable source.
An interview with an unreliable does not support notability.
I couldn't find any articles here that are really what we are looking for, but the body of articles tends towards that they cite him a lot.
Per [66], the authors of each site appear be posting about each other.

I am not sure that having these few different sources is sufficient to establish notability. I am leaving my vote as it is, pending further argument. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jehochman's sources are of higher quality than you do. First, I don't think it matters that much whether the cite is about Wall or about his blog. Second, I agree with Jehochman that the industry context is important in whether Wall is notable, and although I'm not familiar with the industry, it seems he's a notable player within that industry. Thus, my only remaining question is whether the industry is notable enough in the first instance. For example, a local event may be notable in the locale but not sufficiently notable elsewhere to justify an article about the event.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at a few and I still haven't found sources meeting wiki standards. As long as the writing is for Wiki, the sources need to be up to wiki quality WP:Sources. Many of them are opinion based free writes and are not written on research based data. While notability within the industry may matter for industry news letters, but if its someone little known outside of their niche, it isn't. Sure, Jehochman thinks he is, but is he when viewed under the guideline of WP:N? I think not. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 and Cantaloupe2, I sincerely thank you for looking at this with an open mind. As an insider, my perspective is biased. To me, Aaron Wall is notable, but to those outside the search marketing community it might not look that way, and perhaps the references are too thin to write a proper article. This stub was created in 2007 and since then Wikipedia has evolved. If the result here is to delete (or merge a few bits into Traffic Power), I can accept that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. At best, we have an individual known for one (minor) event WP:BLP1E. As others have observed, Google produces lots of hits, but none are helpful. Msnicki (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best worth mentioning in the Traffic Power article, but that article would just barely pass notability requirements itself, assuming it even does. This guy's a footnote to a footnote. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A footnote to Traffic Power.Racconish^Tk 02:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article you're proposing merger to is on shaky ground as well. It does not have credible references and notability is questionable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria (WP:BIO). Deli nk (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. The lawsuit is adequately covered in the article on the company. 188.27.81.41 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is enough reliable, secondary information about the person (not just the business) to write a reasonable bio. But it doesn't look like there is. I don't mean any offense by this, but SEO is the craft of self-promotion, and the given examples of his "publicity" look a lot like coordinated self-promotion. Maghnus (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 22:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure now if sources are reliable His actions got a lot of coverage. Blog#Defamation_or_liability says it was a notable case concerning whether a blogger was responsible for comments left by people on his blog. Not sure about that. But he got a scam company taken down, and got one of the Google heads to make a comment about it, that something that rarely happens. Dream Focus 22:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment While Google search brings many results on him, SEO personnel tend to cite each other often. The only coverage he received was for the lawsuit and got two coverages in stream media about in 2005 about the lawsuit Traffic Power filed against him, but got dismissed. Does that make him any more notable. There is no further mention of him in reliable sources. Looks like WP:BLP1E to me. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:BLP1E. - DonCalo (talk) 00:22, 7 September 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. Courcelles 09:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Forum[edit]

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

No indications of notability for this forum. No indications can be found of any significant press coverage of their meetings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any coverage. major Australian news site has nothing for this specific forum [67]. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any media coverage of the forum. Fails WP:N --Odie5533 (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Odie5533; minor event and non-notable. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 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. Wifione ^Message 16:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Karaoghlanian[edit]

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

A film writer and director. Has done a 2-minute, 5-minute and 11-minute short films. Unable to find any reliable sources. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any other links that those are mentioned, nothing on Google, Google News and Yahoo. There's a chance it may be too soon for an article for him, let's wait if he does something with notable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 25 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything on the subject either. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Odie5533. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the person doesn't meets the Wikipedia notability and reliable sources policy. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:43, 1 September 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.