< 27 April	29 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekananda in the West: New Discoveries[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable book. No signs of wider impact or independent critical coverage. No independent sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hm, this book is non-notable? search in Google books etc! BTW, actually it is series of books (6 books), not a single book!--Tito Dutta ^Message 09:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. "There is a vast literature on Vivekananda, most of it written from an uncritical devotional perspective. See, for example, Marie L. Burke, Swami Vivekananda..." [1] That's more or less the only independent, non-trivial reference discussing the book that I can find. It's a devastating reference, and even that is only in passing in a footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼, 09:40, 21 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well I can see sources out there - See this, and this. Hindu is considered as a reliable source. Pretty tis' to be kept. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, it was a long due. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's notable. Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A mere assertion of "it's notable" isn't a valid argument in a deletion debate and will be discounted. You need to demonstrate there is notability, in terms of multiple, substantial, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Non-trivial coverage of the book as such, not just reports mentioning its author, and also not simply passages in books routinely using it as a reference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 22 April 2012 (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) 23:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start with a search in Google books, --Tito Dutta ^Message 00:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where in that do you find independent, non-trivial coverage? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book may be not well notable in the world of Internet, but the Google Books search is a proof for its notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogventures![edit]

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

"currently in development" is a fail against WP:CRYSTAL.

That's apart from the usual crap of an utterly trivial article, a topic without even a vague attempt to show notability, a complete lack of content and I'll let you guess what state the referencing is in. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speedily please. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the rationale(s) brought forth in the AfD of the group behind this game, The Yogscast, which asserted the lack of notability; I would've otherwise recommended a merge to The Yogscast. However I oppose the nomination's rationale; articles about topics "in development" do not automatically fail WP:CRYSTAL as the nominator implies. Salvidrim! 19:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. No hurry. Not yet notable, I see some kickstarter-related coverage in reliable sources, but nothing really passing GNG. Besides, CRYSTAL as it is in development and the few update videos there are come from a primary source, so we'll have to wait for secondary coverage. Would say merge to Yogscast per above, but they don't seem to pass notability either at this point. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and frankly, nuke it from orbit. Not notable, fails WP:CRYSTAL, etc. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, WP:CRYSTAL and a host of others. DocTree (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bokko (manga)[edit]

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

Is this fiction or history? The article is simply too poor (and naturally, completely unreferenced) to tell even this much. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another example of why there MUST be some sort of peer review system before new articles get anywhere near article namespace. To the policy wonks out there yes I know I have not quoted policy or guidelines (not sure if there is for this case) but this sort of article shows why we have to develop some stringent policy, guidelines, or systems.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain exactly why it should be deleted? What policies does it fail? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:WRITETHEARTICLEFIRST? This was just such a flimsy, unintelligible draft that it wasn't ready to press Save. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about reading WP:UGLY? Just because the article was unintelligible doesn't mean it should be deleted, especially if it is notable. On the contrary, it should be cleaned up and expanded. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following expansion post-nom, WP:UGLY would now apply and there's a chance that it's saveable - although the general requirement for sourcing still isn't met. As it was though, WP:CSD#G1 would be closer to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to say delete if you are the nominator. And you prodded this article for deletion 30 minutes after it was created, despite it saying this manga won a notable award. Dream Focus 16:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Battle of Wits (2006 film) was an adaptation of the novel with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzl.zawlin (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned up the article a little. This manga won the Shogakukan Manga Award, one of the major manga awards in Japan (I have added a reference as proof), and thus satisfies WP:BK. Michitaro (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP:BK as unverifiable, as there's no English language sourcing for this. It's possible the the manga project specifically would accept the Japanese source that's there as adequate, but it's far from being a general pass for books, per our usual standards for books in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about what sort of sources are acceptable on Wikipedia. Even though this is the English-language Wikipedia, sources are not required to be in English. Sources can be in any language (see Sources under WP:GNG). A source in another language is just as good for showing notability as one in English. The information certainly is verifiable, as there are lots of people who work on the English language Wikipedia who can also read Japanese. Calathan (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, many of the sources in our articles on our articles about Japanese topics (even the GAs and FAs) are in, what else, Japanese. But without such sources, the information on such articles would be very incomplete, especially for anime or manga that have not received a North American release. Try to read a good or featured article on Wikipedia about something from Japan and look at the sources. See if many of such sources are Japanese. Of course, being the English Wikipedia, we have some bias towards English sources, but this should be discouraged. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep It's a little hard to find sources (search reveals many illegal scanlation sites), but the fact that it won a major Japanese award should be enough to establish some notability. However, more sources should be found, especially Japanese ones. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing WP:BK. In addition to having received a major manga award, it was adapted into a movie (based on [2], the movie was adapted from the manga rather than directly from the novel). The manga therefore passes both criteria 2 and 3 of WP:BK. While more sources would certainly be helpful in expanding the article, it is clearly a notable topic, and there is no reason not to keep a stub on the topic even if it can't be expanded further based on the current sources. Calathan (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 16:07 29 April 2012 (GMT)
Keep Notable award, and made into a film, as others have said. And please stop rushing things to AFD so much. Dream Focus 16:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the article as originally posted was fairly incomprehensible and bordered on speedy territory. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing notable about this is the Shogakukan award. From what I've found, the film was based on the actual novel. When/If an article for the novel is ever created, it should be merged there. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked. Yep. The film is not related to the manga at all, both written by different people, based on the same historical novel. Dream Focus 11:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What sources say that the movie was adapted from the novel directly, not from the manga? I know information on IMDB isn't always correct, but it says the movie was adapted from the manga [3]. Is there a more definitive source that says the movie was adapted directly from the novel? Calathan (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Battle of Wits (2006 film) was what I was going on. It says it was based on the historical novel, and that a manga was also based on that novel. But its in the category of "films based on manga" so maybe I'm misreading the lead. I just searched Google news archive, and it says it was based on the manga also. [4] So I'll clarify that. Dream Focus 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award is unverifiable my butt. SL93 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry mvst3r10n but there's a clear consensus to delete here. It's not enough for something to exist, it has to also be written about. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Widebase[edit]

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

Previous Prod with rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability criteria.". Prod was removed by an IP with a comment identifying themselves as the software author. The original Prod issues remain, so bringing this to AfD. AllyD (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have written: This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (April 2012). I understand that information should be independent for many articles. But for this open source software too? What's the difference, if Im involved, the author, or an anonymous account did it? There stand just technical information and no opinions or somethings. And regarding relevance that you're concerned, have only big software labels a place on wikipedia? I use often wikipedia to search software and APIs for my projects, no matter how small or big they're. It helps me daily to find the right choice. So, I thought: Why not writing about a new open source database especially for large time series that helps people where're searching too. Hope that I have noboy annyoed with this article. mvst3r10n (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of all software. The benchmark that subjects have to meet to have an article is notability, and the general notability guideline is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. With no coverage in independent sources, Widebase fails the GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Developmental pre-alpha software even though site says beta. DocTree (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim is "it exists". Fails GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Dustin[edit]

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

Neither her acting or modeling appear to be notable. One interview, such as it is, is all I could dig up in the way of real media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that I can see is a noteworthy part. The interview mentioned her just finishing a film Gold Diggers in which she claimed to be the lead. I can't see it in her IMDb entry or the article. The article is unreferenced - I'm willing to change my mind if someone can come up stuff that is of note and a reliable reference or three. Peridon (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chinese Filipino. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinay[edit]

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

This article is about a slang-word and there are barely any sources. I merge had already been proposed since 2009 but no action has been taken. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I found some sites that have coverage while using the term, I failed to find sites that have coverage about the term. This is not like Pinoy that is used in everyday language (personally, I never use it). In fact, I have a feeling that the term is actually derogatory since to my knowledge it's a slang term for household workers or maids (although I'm not sure if they are offended when called as such). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Filipino where the masculine and more used form Chinoy redirects to.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Lenticel. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to recreation. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Ambassador to Estonia[edit]

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

The article is about a non exsisting office. Albania doesn't have an embassy in Estonia and it's not located in Tallinn and the only reference in the article doesn't contain any information of the subject. The link given as the reason to decline the speedy deletion leads to the only article that says that Albania plans to open an Embassy in Estonia. But those were just plans and have not accomplished. Flying Saucer (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete position doesn't even exist. I'd like to see the inclusionists argue for this one. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Open to recreation should a person's credentials be accepted. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fatiha in different languages[edit]

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

This is pretty clearly unencyclopedic; merely the same passage repeated over and over in different languages. Nothing indicates that this sura is notable for existing in multiple languages, and even if it were, Wikipedia isn't a database of translations. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. If people want to know the translation of this passage into other languages, they can follow the interwiki links at Al-Fatiha. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Material for wikisource / wikiquote? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no reason to host a page devoted to foreign language content on the English Wikipedia. Ducknish (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate of the inter-wiki links on the Al-Fatiha article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think MelanieN has it right that a redirect/merge is appropriate, however there is no consensus to keep, delete or merge. v/r - T P 14:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Daigle[edit]

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

Non notable local councillor, who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Of the refs in the article, one is a blog and can be discounted, three are standard local press coverage of a debate between local council candidates, all of them mentioning her in passing, while the remaining ref is about a minor controversy she was involved in and seems a classic case of WP:BLP1E Valenciano (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling she may meet the GNG, this is a major city and she is now running for assembly, if she has the GOP nom she will likely win as Orange County is overwhelmingly Republican, let's cool off for a second as the article needs a lot of work to make it neutral.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I have begun to look over the links provided above to find sources its very obvious that there is numerous non-trivial coverage of her in-depth in reliable sources far beyond her current election, mostly covering her positions and campaigns on the city council, showing that this subject meets the GNG. Here are some that stood out, however there are more, and also I am sure more can be found.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13](needs wayback)[14][15][16]. The second half would be the best sources if anyone has a too long didn't read approach to verifying it for themselves.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator states that this woman is a non-notable councilor that does not meet POLITICIAN and this is half true, but there is a wide array of reliable sources showing this person does however easily meet the GNG as there are numerous news articles about her that cover her in depth beyond those that give cursory election coverage. The sources don't just mention her in passing, just most of the sources currently in the article but ones that mention her and her policies and projects in depth are clearly available. Also whether or not a controversy she was involved in was minor or not there was enough attention given to the matter to merit press of the subject, minorness is therefore speculative and irrelevant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:I did go through WP:BEFORE and saw those sources but the problem I have is exactly the same as the one that Purpleback below mentions. Every local councillor in the world will get quoted here and there in the local paper, but generally "news in passing" like that to me falls short of WP:GNG. Some of the sources you list above contain only the briefest of mentions e.g. here. The sources you give also include a blog, one called votelesliedaigle and the google scholar one which simply lists the members of the council (no one doubts that she's a councillor.) Likewise, in assembly races, major party candidates will get mentioned in general articles in the local paper like this one but to me that is an article on the election campaign, which is notable, rather than Leslie Daigle. Valenciano (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a topic meets WP:GNG, it doesn't matter whether or not the topic meets WP:POLITICIAN. This is stated in the lede of WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely accurate. If it was, WP:POLITICIAN and other guidelines shouldn't even exist. Passing WP:GNG (which this might not even do) doesn't mean automatic keep p b p 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely accurate, if something meets GNG it doesn't have to meet other criteria. POLITICIAN is for examples of automatically notable politicians. GNG is for all other politicians and all other subjects that don't immediately meet some other criteria. That is the consensus. And it should be mentioned that this user has been topic banned from RfDs that I am involved in especially California and local government.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate, in both the interpretation of GNG and the interpretation of the topic ban. p b p 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, you guys. Let me remind you that you are supposed to avoid speaking to each other. In this case Lucifer and Unscintillating are completely correct. Anyone, politician or not, who meets the criteria of GNG can have an article here, because meeting GNG means they are notable. (That's what GNG is: the General Notability Guideline.) WP:POLITICIAN exists to provide an exception to GNG; it says that people who hold certain political roles, such as congressman or state representative, can have an article here regardless of whether or not we can demonstrate significant coverage. (For example, politicians from the pre-internet era.) This person does not qualify for that exception - that is, she does not meet POLITICIAN - but if she meets GNG she gets an article anyhow. End of story. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: For starters, we have an open "jungle" primary in California now. To say, "she's running for Assembly and she'll win" is WP:CRYSTAL if anything is. Newport Beach has a population of just over 100,000; that's not a "large" city IMO. Likewise, being mentioned in the local paper a few times isn't enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Furthermore, the rescue tag is being misused yet again... p b p 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sure it is crystal that is right dude to the now open primary. Nevertheless she has significant press coverage in reliable sources. A lot of coverage actually and whether it is a local source or not is arbitrary and irrelevant. Ignoring such sources would make local content impossible. Cities over 100,000 people are designated as major cities in the United States according to the census bureau. Being mentioned a few times in any paper is not enough, but she has been covered in depth numerous times over several years as the main subject of many articles in addition to more than trivial mentions beyond that. I also take offense to the absurd and disreputable claims that the rescue tag is being misused. It's purpose is for anyone that wishes to get help improving an article that is slated for deletion to improve its sources and content in an effort to transform it into an article that can more easily be kept and that is what I have used it for. Simply believing that the rescue system should not exist is not abuse it is irrelevant opinion that detracts from a notability discussion. In fact anyone should be glad to have an article tagged for rescue, because if rescuers are unable to find sources it really does clarify notability, whereas when sources are found and the article is improve everyone benefits from deciding on an articles merits in a fully developed and sourced state.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How the USA classifies major cities is really neither here nor there in an international encyclopedia. In a lot of countries 100k would equal town status. Which are the sources where she has been covered in depth as the subject of articles? Regarding the lots of sources arrguments, the vast bulk are mentions in passing in her local paper. WP:GNG says: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Valenciano (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous poster talks about the issue of multiple sources, but as per footnote 3 in WP:N, with bolding added,

Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fact is, though, this individual has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are not about the same story, including: [17], [18], [19], and to a lesser extent [20]. Per WP:GNG:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This person may meet section WP:BASIC of Wikipedia:Notability (people), in which it's stated (in part) ..."If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."... Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the Daily Pilot only really counts as one source, and even in that the coverage boarders on triviality p b p 14:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly disagree. Under this rationale, topics sourced from the same news companies in separate news articles with different themes would only qualify as "one source". Different articles from the same news company count as multiple sources, not singular. The way WP:GNG is written as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." doesn't pertain to separate articles from the same news company as being one source, nor should it. These three news articles used in the Leslie Daigle article are from the same news company, but are about entirely different topics: [21], [22], [23]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Keep - This individual meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.", because city council members are in effect politicians, involved in local politics, involved in the governance of cities, create ordinances and statutes, etc. The topic also appears to meet WP:GNG with significant coverage that is beyond routine coverage, including: [24], [25], [26] and to a lesser extent (regarding significant coverage) [27]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama gets routine coverage in the sense that he is routinely covered. Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote above to "keep". There's just enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Redirect, see below) Non-notable, local city council member. She has no notability outside of her own town. All coverage is purely local. ~~Not even the Los Angeles Times, the regional paper of record for the area, has ever mentioned her that I could find.~~ I stand corrected, she has received a few passing mentions in LA Times stories, as shown by ~~Unscintillating~~ NorthAmerica below. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I note that one of her claims to fame is that the local paper listed her as "one of the 103 most influential people in Newport Beach." Her "fame" is based on being one of the 103 most influential people in a town of 85,000? I rest my case. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's two articles from the Los Angeles Times. They're essentially passing mentions of Daigle's comments regarding retirement benefits for lifeguards in Newport Beach, and hence likely not pertinent to qualify topic notability within the context of this AfD discussion. However, these sources can be used to expand the article with verifiable facts. Also, Newport Beach is a city of 85,186 residents as of the 2010 census, not a "town".

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By California standards, 85,000 is a "town". Or if you prefer, it's the 85th largest "city" in California; that's not a very impressive position. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the City of Newport Beach's standards, as listed on the city's website, the city is considered as a city.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. In any case, being one of the 103 most influential people in a settlement of that size is hardly a Wikipedia-level accomplishment. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of Delete, I recommend a Redirect to California State Assembly elections, 2012#District 74, where she is already mentioned. This is the usual way of handling political candidates for state office who are otherwise non-notable. In the (unlikely) event that she should win, this article could then be expanded, and meantime the history would be preserved. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:GNG, and I would also note that a WP:SPA created the article. Regarding her candidacy and the Republican nomination, she is challenging a sitting Republican Assemblyman, so she would have to knock him off. To emphasize MelanieN's point about Newport Beach's size even more, Newport Beach is the 11th largest city in Orange County. Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, and Westminster are all larger Orange County cities. 11th largest in a single county shows just how small Newport Beach is in the grand scheme of things. OCNative (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The size of a city doesn't confer with topic notability for a person, because topic notability is based upon sources, not geography and population. Also, Wikipedia has many articles about uninhabited towns. See some of the entries at List of ghost towns. The demographic and geographic characteristics (population and size) of the city being considered as relative to the relevancy and topic notability of an individual who works within it's limits is a flawed argument. Also, does this !vote include an analysis of sources presented in this discussion, including [28], [29], [30] and [31]? Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign developments, 2007#New Hampshire campaign office hostage-taking. If there is more content that needs to be merged that can be done from the history. I'll leave the redirects to the bots. Sandstein 05:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis[edit]

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

More than four years on, I think it's clear that this was a passing news story with no lasting notability. The only reason we have an article on it (indeed, the only reason the news media covered it in the first place) was because it took place at an office of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. But there was no further political angle to the story, and the 'hostage crisis' ended peacefully after a few hours with no violence. The media briefly returned to the story a year later when the hostage-taker went to trial, and haven't covered it since. After considering the factors listed at Wikipedia:Notability (events), I don't think this one meets our inclusion criteria. (It also contains a considerable amount of unnecessary personal detail about the perpetrator, which should probably be removed even if it is kept.) Robofish (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_developments,_2007 The Steve 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_developments,_2007 where there's an article on the topic which is already a third the size of this. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I already created one redirect into this one, so if it is merged, the closing admin must care to redirect all the old redirects. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bot that fixes double redirects, maybe several. See edits such as this. Is there a reason this wouldn't be fixed automagically ? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen cases where, due to a bug, those bots don't work like magic. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article and merge only most pertinent info to Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_developments,_2007. Per nom, far too much info on perp that isn't related to the incident reported in the article. DocTree (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Group[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There are no references that support the claim that this is "one of India's largest business conglomerates" ; like the editor who PROD tagged the article I have searched for sources but not found any. Page creator evidently has a COI. bonadea contributions talk 18:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact, in my opinion, this qualifies for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7. The description of that criterion specifically says "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible", and the only claim of significance (that it is "one of India's largest business conglomerates") is not credible. If that were true, it would certainly be easy to find significant amounts of coverage, but I have searched, and found no reliable independent sources at all. I considered speedy deletion, but decided instead to use a PROD to give the article's author a chance to provide evidence. Instead of doing so, however, he/she removed the PROD with a rather misleading edit summary. This is one of a set of articles, all created by the same editor and all related to the same business. All the others have been deleted either as copyright infringements or as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Tried targeted searches on Highbeam Research and Indian RSes, came up empty. All the links in the article are deadlinks. I can't imagine why someone would go through all this work to create a hoax article, but honestly, I can't figure out if this company actually exists. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mars Group eventually leads to a Facebook page which then eventually leads to an article at http://www.medianewsline.com/news/122/ARTICLE/8037/2011-07-28.html . After that everything dies all ties and links from July of 2011 die in an attempt to start something that dosen't exist or trying to make exist. - Pmedema (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to support. Ariconte (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is their website. I found a couple mentions in the media such as [32]. There is also a similar company [33], but I'm not sure if they are related. Regardless, I can't find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their website is already listed in the subject article. Besides the one you have mentioned says Sanjay Sharma is the director, while the article in question has some 20 year old Ojha. I also searched "Mars Group" + "Dharmendra Ojha", couldn't find a single notable reference, rather the total number of searches Google returned were 5 or 6. Fanofbollywood (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that "Their website is already listed in the subject article". All of the links in the article are dead links, apparently placed there to make it look as though there are relevant web pages, but there aren't. The web page that P. D. Cook links to describes its business as warehousing, packaging, and transport services. It bears no resemblance to the business described in the Wikipedia article, which has interests in fields such as Media and Entertainment, Marketing Communications, Education, etc, etc. It is clearly not the same company at all. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that the article is certainly a hoax. A business which is as large and prominent as the article claims, and active in such a large range of business areas, would certainly have extensive mentions all over the place, whereas in fact there is almost nothing about the business, and what little does exist is not in reliable sources. I am now convinced that this qualifies for speedy deletion, as I suggested above, but we are so near the end of this AfD that we may as well let it run its course. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unverified claims and no proof of notability. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm reasonably sure that a company of non-trivial size and recent founding would attract the attention of Mars, Incorporated which has had trademarks related to this name for > 80 years, and shortly thereafter be renamed or sued out of existence. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG ad WP:NRVE. DocTree (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 13:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Wars[edit]

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

Another WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable promotional que sera sera article. Please show the exciting second party coverage to maintain this in article space. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a GameSpot UK reference to the article. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very in depth thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Third party coverage found: [34], [35], and probably more, if I kept searching... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, two fanboy gamer, ~~"i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game",~~ sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Quite the jerk, aren't you.~~ SL93 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entitled to my opinion, are you aware that Wikipedia has a policy called no personal attacks? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You crossed out part of your comment, but "Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere." is rude as well especially because Livitup has been editing longer than you have. SL93 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have replied at WQA as you are probably aware, I was not implying that Livit is a fanboy gamer who etc. etc. and I struck my comment and apologized for the overreaction. As you were informed at WQA responding to someone's perceived incivility with out and out insults will result in both sides being blocked. So I have replaced the tag and ask you kindly not to remove it, as I have chosen to ignore this personal attack, everybody got a bit heated, and I am willing to assume good faith but do not restore your text, thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed it out which is the same thing. Stop removing my comment. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Insisting on putting it back is akin to making the attack, especially when I have said I am willing to AGF and forget about it. From WP:NPA: On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The (Personal attack removed) template can be used for this purpose. As this is the case, I request that you leave the template in place and refrain from making such attacks in the future. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can keep it there and crossed out without saying those things in the future. If it's removed in place of a template, it is still there in the history for anyone to view. It is basically the same thing. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that refers only to talk pages. This is not a talk page. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic: Yes, I'm fully aware of all the relevant policies, having done plenty of tours of duty in NPP and AfD. I found non-trivial coverage (in my opinion) in two sources deemed reliable by a subject matter guideline, WP:VG/S. That's enough for me to !vote keep. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I've never heard of this game, but there's third party coverage popping up everywhere. Zach Vega (talk to me) 05:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage out there. I'd suggest the nominator look over WP:BEFORE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sergecross73 msg me 05:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks, to the two previous posters, it would be helpful if you posted some links to these masses of third-party coverage. From WP:GNG:
  - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention
  - "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline
- So I'm not really seeing either of those, I apologize for my overreaction above, but all I'm seeing are a bunch of screenshots, and a couple of lines announcing the product on a majority of sites which are, more or less, gaming blogs, and a bunch of videos on DailyMotion and YouTube.
- From WP:CRYSTAL:
  - Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.
- That's all. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strategy Informer
  - Rock Paper Shotgun
  - IGN
  - GameSpy
  - Destructoid
    - All sites have prior consensus at Wikiproject Video Games at WP:VG/S as useable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spacesector.com - I'm not familiar with the website, but seems to be written okay, and rather detailed information about the game. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, if that's the criteria for including soon-to-be-released video games. I'm still not seeing in-depth coverage just trivial, game plot summaries and so on. And my initial reaction was also influenced by the fact that the article originally had about ten links to Camel101's website (as refs, external links) etc. so I assumed this to be another "let's plug our obscure game in development on WP". Try new page patrolling sometime, and see the stuff that you encounter. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another problem that I have is that if someone disagrees with you, you automatically assume they haven't read the relevant guidelines. I don't know if Sergecross has new page patrolled before, but automatically assuming that he hasn't is odd as well. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't New Page Patrolled, no, but I don't appreciate how Screebo is talking down to me, (and everyone else), so much. I've spent much time here at AFD. Please, Screebo, try to tone it down a bit.
    - As far as the article itself goes, it's not going to have the coverage to be a Featured Article any time soon, but not every article has to. It has enough to pass the WP:GNG though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 stop trying to stir things up all over the place (including here).

My comment above was a general comment, not specifically directed at you, Sergecross, or anyone in particular, and can hardly be construed as "talking down" to anybody. Other comments on this page such as "because Livitup has been editing longer than you have" or "I've spent much time here at AFD" do sound a little superior, I don't think that I say anywhere that "I'm better than you because". Anyway, you'll get to keep your Gemini Wars article and then we can all go back to doing whatever we do on wiki, and stop squabbling about this notable game. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you still ignore "*Another problem that I have is that if someone disagrees with you, you automatically assume they haven't read the relevant guidelines." Despite you saying not to squabble, you took me to ANI. SL93 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, now grow up and let's move on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not scared of you. I will move on if you withdraw the ANI report, but don't tell me to grow up. SL93 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GameSpot and Strategy Informer are proper sources to note it is being taken seriously versus other indie-developers. While it may be a bit early (as the game as not released) I see no reason in deleting the page at this point under WP:CRYSTAL as it is reliable, sourced and essentially a given that the game will release in May. The articles may have his indie status pegged pretty well, but this is definitely notable and it would only be a waste to delete it only to have it be recreated in less then a month from now when it actually hits stores. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the significant coverage in independant, reliable sources presented above; also because of a seeming lack of good faith by the nominator in his nom. & subsequent comments. Games "in development" or "unreleased" do not automatically fail WP:CRYSTAL, as long as notability is otherwise established. Salvidrim! 19:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but kindly keep your opinion about my lack of good faith to yourself, this is not the issue here, I am not a specialist on the criteria for notability of unreleased video games and, as noted below, the coverage is not very in-depth and a bit scarce on the ground. I was genuinely concerned that this was another attempt to plug a non-notable, low impact product (in this case a video game), obviously I have stepped into contentious territory, I would just like to point out to all my detractors on this page that I *do* play video games and have been doing so for over 30 years, so I have nothing against video games per se, I just object to Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool for unremarkable junk (or people for that matter). This debate shows that the game is considered to be a reasonably important event and so the article will be kept. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is what naturally happens when you come into a situation so aggressively, when you're "not a specialist". People doubt your motivations. I had figured you were unfamiliar with WP:BEFORE or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Other's doubted your "good-faith". Reasonably conclusions. But it's pointless to bicker about, there's a pretty clear consensus to keep here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said not a specialist in the VG/N or VG/RS or whatever you call it, yeah so I had big boots on and it was a bit late at night, but who's bickering? I'm certainly not, I just said above, "okay, so it's notable, let's all move on". I don't just hit XfD without trying to research the subject by the way, although I do find that WP has differing standards as to what is considered "reliable in-depth coverage in independent sources", particularly concerning certain cultural areas (video games, music, anime or comic book stuff). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as passing WP:GNG per reliable, secondary, independent VG sources above. It is not released, but media has given it reasonable attention and coverage. Ditto above, as WP:CRYSTAL does not automatically apply to unreleased products, though it does loom over this one a bit. Granted, this is not a lot of coverage, and definitely not in-depth in all of sources, but it's decent coverage in more than few outlets. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Andrews Millikan#Later life. Sandstein 06:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth cries of atoms[edit]

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

Delete, or possibly merge to cosmic ray or Robert Millikan. A quick look into Google shows there is no 'birth cry' theory per se ([36]). This seem to simply have been a poetic phrase coined by Millikan, when considering the idea that atoms/matter was around due to some continuous creation via cosmic rays. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Millikan. There are sources discussing the theory, but only in the context of it being something Millikan believed that never gained wider acceptance, or even acknowledgment. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect; it's already discussed in Robert Millikan, and doesn't seem to be widely enough used by other people to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Redirect case. "Birth cries of atoms" is only suitble as a redirect origin, not an article title. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fahed Boodai[edit]

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

The references listed in the article are either associated with Boodai, or don't provide significant coverage of him. I couldn't find any other sources that would indicate he passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. there is also the Rich List entry, but I think that we should be wary of giving Arabian Business too much weight, as it is a business magazine, not a general publication. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Business magazines are the expected source for businessmen. What is asserted is notable, and unless you wish to seriously claim they made up the facts in their article, I see no reason to object. ` DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. Even if we disregard the fact that Arabian Business is a business magazine and not a general publication, the amount of coverage is still very small. On the page about Boodai himself there is only one sentence of content, and the Rich List page is primarily about the Boodai family, not him - he himself only gets one or two sentences. I could see us using the latter article as evidence that the Boodai group is notable, but not so much for a biography of one of the family members. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this point you made right now. In light of your concern, I will be updating the references section to include an ArabianBusiness article that gives him a full profiling[37]. --Saidkassem (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely Prince Andrew wouldn't shake hands with anyone who wasn't an exemplar of probity and a pillar of the Kuwaiti business community. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I met Prince Philip once, but that doesn't mean that I get to have a Wikipedia article... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links to multiple CNBC appearances are on the first page of the Google SERPs if you search for Fahed Boodai. I didn't include them because I didn't think that would be necessary. In my opinion, there is no need to hinge notability debate around the credibility of ArabianBusiness, although I did find it somewhat alarming that the Middle East's best selling business weekly would be questioned in any way. Said Hamideh --Saidkassem (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we can use the CNBC Arabiya interviews as evidence of notability depends on what kind of coverage it is. If it is biographical coverage about him from the CNBC reporters, then we can use it. If it is Boodai's opinion about some other subject, though, then it is a lot less useful for our purposes here. My Arabic is not so hot, so I will need to rely on other people's opinions to say which one it is. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious. At what point does this process reach closure based on what currently exists? I don't have any plans on adding additional facts or sources, unless it seems like the editors start turning against the article.--Saidkassem (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It usually runs for about a week, or maybe longer if it's a close result. Have a look at the guide to deletion for the details. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alchorne[edit]

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

Almost certainly a copy-and-paste copvio although I can't find the text online at the moment. If not, it is OR as per the article itself "During the course of our research the Coat of Arms for the family name. The most ancient grant of a Coat of Arms was:" Travelbird (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Presumably a copy of one of these things where you pay some huckster o much money for a history of your family name, the kind of people who clog up t spam foldeof your emil account.TheLongTone (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agree with the above, and check out where the link in the 'References' section goes. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ref sort of goes nowhere. It leads to the site where you get your Olde Coatte of Armes on imitation vellum for a ludicrous amount of money. I don't know why, but I've done a fairly radical copyedit on the article, removing most of the vast amounts of ill-written fluff, but I don't know what Wiki policy n articles on names is, so have no opinion on whether its a fit subject for an article. If the Mr or Ms Alchorne who wrote the article is copying it from a document they have commissioned, does that mean they own the copyright, incidentally?.TheLongTone (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The are other articles on surnames, I think I've rewritten the article enough for copyvio not to be an issue (alhough anybody who paid money for the article as was has a clear case under the Trades Description Act: a horrible bit of boiler-plated non-english) & there is certainly supporting stuff online which could be used to add references.TheLongTone (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. If you have references, expand the article and add them, or list them to the article talk page, or as a last resort, list them here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I deleted the "reference" to the "coat of arms on a coffee mug site". The remaining reference is a personal website of a guy who researched his own family history... SPS, non-reliable, no editorial oversight, no evidence of notability. The prose is much better, but there's still no policy-backed reason to keep this article. Since it's not acceptably sourced, the article really should be deleted. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can see it's not the name that is important but the person with the name and any that are already have an article. It's not even that it's a common name. Also the single reference used would be unlikely to pass any reliable source tests. Bjmullan (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, as is apparent from the preceding discussion. Sandstein 06:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VALO-CD[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion because it is completely insignificant and seems to just be someone's pet project. Canine virtuoso (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been written by 6 people (and one robot). I don't think the VALO-CD is insignificant, as it is now likely to be bigger than OpenDisc or OpenCD, both have Wikipedia articles too. --Ottokek (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC) — Ottokek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin This nomination was malformed, it is still listed in the deletion log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 28, it appears that due to being malformed, no one noticed that it was not dealt with during the review of that day's log. I have refactored the nomination and added it to today's log, I suggest treating the time of this comment as the start time for the nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, functionally, it's a relist. Happens all the time, no worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like to distinguish cases such as this where there was some problem with the initial listing from regular relists as the date stamp on the nomination would otherwise be deceiving as to how much time for discussion there has been. But basically a relist. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though the nomination is flawed - pet projects can be notable if they get coverage in reliable sources. The presence of articles on OpenDisc and OpenCD does not have any relevance to this article, really. What we need to see are sources that talk about VALO-CD and why it's important and notable. In this case, we have four sources - Two press releases, a Slashdot Posting (which isn't reliable as such, as it just reposts content), and a news article. That last, the Finnish news article, appears to support notability - but one source isn't sufficient. Is there anything else out there that discusses the importance of the VALO-CD project? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:35, 29 May 2012 (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 06:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Educational software collection with a noble purpose and 8 releases. --Hiddenray (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jalada GmbH[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP and is more a list of products than an article of an encyclopedia. Ocirne94 ^{Tell me!} 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ocirne94 ^{Tell me!} 17:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage establishing notability; no notable products at the present time. Article is a list of software with nothing but external links. I honestly believe this should have been PROD'ed, as an AfD seems a tad superfluous. Salvidrim! 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Hassani al-Yemeni[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)

No sources, vague assertions (no date nor place of birth, what did he do to become an "enciclopedic topic"...). Could be an oax and/or spam Vermondo (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC) He was a leader of the Soldiers of Heaven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.24.182 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soldiers of Heaven A scattering of GNews results, mostly relating to the Battle of Najaf (2007), mention him as its supposed leader. PWilkinson (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources to this figure and he has thousands of followers worldwide. To say that he is not "enciclopedic topic" is unsubstantiated. Dr. Reidar Vessir studies and researches within the field of South Iraq, and he has written very clearly regarding Ahmad al-Hassan. One thing to note is that the group "Soldiers of Heaven" have been confused with Ahmad al-Hassan by the media, but there are many more resources to show otherwise that he is not involved. In this article written by Dr. Reidar: when-to-confront-mahdists-a-challenge-for-the-u-s-military he has clearly described Ahmad al-Hassan. Dr. Reidar has published many books and articles and is a respected scholar in his field. Furthermore, apart from the many articles and websites in Arabic that write about Ahmad al-Hassan and his followers, there are English websites dedicated to his cause by spreading and disseminating information about him, of these are:

Hashemstudios headed by Abdullah Hashem, the creator of the "TADS" series and other series, which was the main inspiration behind "The Arrivals". His newest series is "The Arrived" which is specifically dedicated to the cause of Ahmad al-Hassan. http://www.hashemstudios.com and http://www.hashemstudios-board.com .
The Savior website, which is a website dedicated to showing information about Ahmad al-Hassan and to distribute his works in English as well as providing a channel of communication for people to ask questions. http://the-savior.com
The Yamani Ark, another website focusing on the proofs in the Holy books and narrations (Quran, Bible and Torah). http://www.theyamaniark.com/index-eng.htm

Although these next references are Arabic, they are mentioned primarily to denote the importance of Ahmad al-Hassan. The biggest Shia Scholar in the world, Sayyed al-Sistani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani), requested the Iraqi government and society towards confronting any religions which he deemed as "deviated" and on his targeted list was the movement of Ahmad al-Hassan. http://www.lahona.com/show_news.aspx?nid=77236 and http://www.haqnews.net/SaveNews.aspx?id=17251

I believe I have presented enough sources and references to show the importance, significance and legitimacy of the figure Ahmad al-Hassan, I apologise for any errors or standards which I have not followed on wikipedia.org, this is my first time writing on this medium. goamn (talk) 11:05, 05 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greentelligence[edit]

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

Neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Greentelligence is a self proclaimed neologism that is not notable. It appears to be trade marked by http://greentelligence.ca/ and is used as a trade show buzz word. Pmedema (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—SPAM/NEO Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPAM by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That is most probably spam by an unknown hillbilly trade show. --213.196.253.64 (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete per the above, as spam/purely promotional. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Captain Screebo, if the article's sole purpose is to promote the trade show it should be deleted as spam. Ducknish (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott (headmaster)[edit]

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

Contested prod. High school principals are not generally notable, and this one fails WP:GNG, though it is difficult looking for sources due to the name being common. St Anselm (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in Who's Who in Australia, which counts as significant coverage (ie, meets GNG) in my book. Jenks24 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of any further sources (or legitimate claim to their existence), appears to fail WP:ANYBIO. -- Trevj (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never argued that he passed ANYBIO, but I would argue that he meets WP:BASIC. Your request for more reasonable, though, so in addition the Who's Who in Australia entry ("People are included if they have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level. [...] Each person's nomination is considered on its merits alone and entry in the book cannot be paid for. The book is a snapshot of Australian society at a particular point in time."), there is also an abundance of coverage in major Australian newspapers. Here are some examples: Sydney Morning Herald, SMH, SMH, SMH, SMH, Daily Telegraph, news.com.au, SMH. These are all from the first page of my gnews search for "David Scott" + "Newington" – there are 100 more articles like that and that's just for one of the schools he was principal of. Also, while I'll be the first to admit that probably only the first article is primarily about Scott, he does get significant mentions in the others, which to me falls in line with WP:BASIC's "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to what I've just said, I had another look at the article and it appears that many of those SMH articles were also carried by The Age and Australian Associated Press (e.g. [38]). He has also been interviewed on national television, on ABC current affairs program, Lateline [39]. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being in the Who's Who isn't enough to be deemed notable. Beyond that, none of the articles cited are about him in particular.JoelWhy (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is. Also, don't confuse the Australian Who's Who, which is a quality independent publication, with other Who's Who publications from other countries where you can pay for an entry – they are not related. Jenks24 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our entry on Who's Who in Australia states that it lists notable Australians. I agree with Jenks24 that this makes this Headmaster notable. The other sources add to the notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on sound arguments of Jenks24 and BDuke. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per BDuke and Jenks24. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Delete I do not consider any who's who, at least beyond the original UK who's who in the early years, reliable at all for determining notability. Our article on the australian one should not be relied on: since when is Wikipedia a RS for anything? We're a RS only in so far as we have references to RSs, and looking at the evidence in that article that the publication is an accurate measure of notability, I see it is only a bald unsupported statement--as is everything else in the article, one of our many articles that exemplify the promotionalism we need to be getting rid of. Admitting this series as evidence of notability would be a sharp decline on our standards. The reason we do not accept who's who publications as notability is not generally that one can pay for inclusion (although there are some of that sort indeed of that totally deceptive level), but that the subjects have considerable control of the material in them. (The various US regional who's whos don't accept payment either, but their standard for inclusion are truly arbitrary.) The other references in the article arenistky not about him,. but about the school.-- the one cited above as being about him is a attack article, of the sort we rarely give credence to. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong reply. No one is saying that the subject's don't have a say about what is in their entry, but they don't have a say in their inclusion, which is where the notability comes from. Check out this article in The Age: "entry in Who's Who in Australia is by invitation only. An editorial board vets nominations, conducts research, checks prizewinners and follows the media and Australia Day honours." Also, they generally include about 300–400 people per year. In a population of 22 million you have to do something significant to be one of those few. Also, it has been cited in plenty of scholarly works [40], for example two Deakin University professors used Who's Who in Australia to get a sample of community leaders in Australia for their International Journal of Science Education article [41] (subscription required, can email you the article if you want). There are plenty of other articles like that if you look through the gscholar hits. On your last point, I strongly suggest you re-read the article – it's far from an "attack article". Not to mention it was published in The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's highest circulation broadsheet. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - To add to this, although from the publisher's own site, this is the stated criteria for inclusion: "People are included in Who’s Who in Australia if they have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level. They are people who have built a positive profile over time. There are no restrictions on age or sex and entrants need not be born in Australia. Each person’s nomination is considered on its merits alone and entry in the book cannot be paid for. The book is a snapshot of Australian society at a particular point in time". This is from http://www.crowncontent.com.au/whos-who-entry-criteria.html. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BDuke. You have clearly established that Who's Who in Australia is a source of notability (as is Who's Who (UK)). By contrast, Marquis Who's Who is not a reliable source of notability. They even touted me for an entry. All Who's Whos are not equal and one has to discriminate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decay: a zombie story[edit]

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

Unremarkable book, does not meet WP:NBOOK. West Eddy (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing independent to support notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I prevent deletion? I am the author of the book. Jpdeadly (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NBOOK for starters.

If it's newly published by a non-star author, I'd be surprised if it was possible to keep it (and rightly so). This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Stuff (not just books) doesn't get added "because it's good stuff", but because it's "WP:Notable" - broadly that significant, uninvolved 3rd parties have already had cause to pay attention to it. For books, publishers and bookshops don't count, but reviews in a credible literary magazine or column would do. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go ahead and delete it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpdeadly (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per WP:G7? If not, the book does not meet the standards of WP:N - Pmedema (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete—I CSD'd it G7 per the author's comments above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Short Stack. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Clemmensen[edit]

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

This person has no notability outside of the band Short Stack. memphisto 15:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Minor musician and plagiarist. Far below encyclopedic notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. memphisto 22:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Short Stack, like Bradie Webb and Shaun Diviney do. Not independently notable, but still a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Short Stack as per above. To date, the subject's music as well as his work as a director/producer has related to the band. Gongshow ^Talk 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The One and Only Zoe Lama[edit]

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

So far as I can see, there's nothing to distinguish this. It's (in terms of notability) very much a typical children's novel as far as I can tell. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's listed in bookshop sites, but there's no sign of any serious critical review or comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no reviews or articles. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged to Melbourne General Post Office. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Post Office, Melbourne[edit]

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

This article duplicates the more thorough content at Melbourne General Post Office. The name Melbourne General Post Office seems to be in more general use. I have merged all relevant content from this article to Melbourne General Post Office. Callanecc (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've done the merging, be bold and just redirect this as a plausable search-term. Lugnuts (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT - I've taken the time to be WP:BOLD and have created the redirect - if it is to satisfaction, can someone close the AFD please? Pmedema (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I thought there was a guideline about merging recently created articles into the older ones, whereas this merge occurred the other way 'round. Is that correct? StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, as long as you comply with WP:CWW it doesn't matter whether the newer or older article ends up with the content. Generally, newer articles are merged into older ones, but that's just because they are normally smaller and it's easier to merge a small article into a big one. Here the opposite happened and that's fine. Jenks24 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Forces Source[edit]

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

Non-notable game in development, fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was just about to nom it myself, per the above, has twice been turned into a redirect, only to be re-established by page creator, this is a bunch of "enthusiasts" and the game will be just a user-mod of the original Mobile Forces, highly unlikely to achieve any notability even when released. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Mobile Forces Yasht101 14:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Forces --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry, but what has redirect got to do with it? The game was called "Mobile Forces", the creator of this article maintains that this has nothing to do with the original game so who would search for "Mobile Forces Source" and expect to find the MF article. Just delete as self-promo, internet plundering, wiki-resource eating etc. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could've put that across more politely. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do my comments sound harsh? They are not intended to be, AfDs aren't just for voting, people are expected to qualify their vote, you give no reason for a redirect, that's all, and I can't see that it makes a lot of sense. Cordially CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No issues. I specified redirect because the first impression one gets is that this and that are the same. I too was under the same impression till you told me so. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whatever the oucome is, I clearly oppose a redirection, as it had nothing to do with the intended targets discussed above. Salvidrim! 00:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 California 37. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feels Good at First[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGThis article is a stub that should be deleted, as it is for a non notable, iTunes only single. In it's current state it is a list of technical information about the single and lacks any statement or prose as to it's notability and provides no information that could not be found via the album page. It's charting is a minor chart or statistic, if it were on a top chart, I would not have nominated it.

Addendum, I could easily see a redirect being appropriate.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the song has charted and, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if it has charted on a minor chart as long as it has charted on any country's national music chart it passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually it states a national,NOT any countries national music chart. The significant chart for this region would be an EU or the UK chart, as they carry the same weight as billboards top charts. Furthermore the clause also goes on to state that being on a chart does not make a stub on a single song, worthy of it's own page inherently. It also goes on to state that a page like this should be merged into the Blum or deleted. I originally chose merge, by tagging it, TWICE, once after you removed the tag without discussion. Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, not all charting songs are notable. This only charted on a secondary, digital-only chart, which just isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Song is not notable at this time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would agree with the redirect rationale as well.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California 37, the song's parent album. The best coverage I've found for the song - [42][43] - are mentions within reviews for the album. There does not appear to be enough material to warrant an individual article at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to California 37. The Steve 07:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Lucaj[edit]

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

Bio for non-notable model. Zero gnews or gbooks hits. Ghits and provided citations are model directories only, as far as I can tell. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Non notable models.User:Lucifero4
Delete. Had a search for her last night as well, with no luck. Mabalu (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pixar#Product pipeline. Keep arguments that "This article will gain importance in the following months", "information will be gathered" and "it will have to be recreated anyway" are pure WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Dinosaur[edit]

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

No proof offered that film is in active production, with sequences being rendered. Per WP:NFF, this film article exists way too early and should be deleted and instead redirected to Pixar. McDoob AU 93 12:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --McDoob AU 93 12:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the Spanish film Dia de los Muertos (2015 film) whose release is not until the fall of 2015 (too far in the future for a good article,) this film's release is only 2 years in the future, and some information is known. It will get bigger eventually. Georgia guy (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, Dia de los Muertos is "only" three years away, and some information is known about that too. But both fail notability guidelines for future films, and there is little more here than a press release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It's 3 1/2 years away. 3 1/2 years is definitely too far away. Georgia guy (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an arbitrary figure. Is there a guideline that says that a film two years in the future is okay, but three and a half isn't? No. But there is one that governs notability for future films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pixar#Product pipeline to prevent premature article recreation. Delete stub for now. WP:NFF exists to prevent premature articles on films "planned" to be shot years into the future. Since policy does allow that properly sourced information on future events might at least be spoken of somewhere, and we do not as yet have enough information OR enough sourcing for this to even be considered as a possible exception to the guideline for unmade films, we can send readres to the one place where it might be mentioned in context to Pixar's plans for future films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rd per Michael Schmidt. Recreate when you have more than a sentence to say about the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pixar list of film articles indicates multiple references for this one (and one in fact leads to a much more extensive article from the same source which would be a better reference - showing prototype artwork). Release is not far away by the standards of animation. Orfeocookie (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is the film out of the pre-production process? Even if it was, WP:GNG#Events would not be met, as this is little more than a press release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article will gain importance in the following months, if deleted, it will have to be reacreated anyway, for it has a final title already. Deleting will be a waste of time.Gussisaurio (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article should be kept as information will be gathered. 109.149.86.254 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFF, "information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material". If we redirect, information can slowly be built up there, until such time as this meets the guideline and becomes notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. WP:NFF is clear: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process..." No evidence has been presented that it is out of preproduction, and it probably isn't. Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NFF is clear. I would invite the editors opting to "keep" to familiarise themselves with this guideline (and WP:CBALL). This is little more than an announcement. Should really have been speedily redirected. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is it possible (not very likely, but possible) that while this film is in its current stage its release date could be pushed back to a year like 2020?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is possible. It is also quite possible that this project is cancelled altogether. Anything is possible. What's the relevance? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you not concur that as the topic has some limited sourcability, it would be reasonable enoug to redirect it for the time being to the one place where it makes sense to have it mentioned? Or that the redirect might act to prevent an untimely recreation? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Struck question. I see the editor agrees that a pre-emptive redirect would have been the better course than this AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you deleted it, someone will have to add it back. 75.111.18.181 (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chamoisee. v/r - T P 14:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chamoisee[edit]

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

The creator on the talk page said that this isn't meant as a color page, but as a goat's color page. Either way, this color is not notable. It is an actual color (at least for goats) as shown in Google Books, but they are in descriptions of goats which is not significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh - I don't see the big deal either way. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (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) 11:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - This article is a stub of a stub (Chamois Colored) The "Pattern" and the "Color" can be put into the same article. - Pmedema (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Mind[edit]

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

Like its just-announced sister film set in the world of Dia de los Muertos, this article is way ahead of the film being in final production, per WP:NFF. Needs to be deleted and redirected to Pixar until actual production of the film commences. McDoob AU 93 11:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --McDoob AU 93 12:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until an actual title as opposed to a phrase such as "The untitled Pixar film that takes you inside the mind". Re-create when an actual title is revealed. Georgia guy (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pixar#Product pipeline to prevent premature article recreation. Delete stub. WP:NFF exists to prevent premature articles on films "planned" to be shot years into the future. Since policy does allow that properly sourced information on future events might at least be spoken of somewhere, and we do not as yet have enough information OR enough sourcing for this to even be considered as a possible exception to the guideline for unmade films, we can send readres to the one place where it might be mentioned in context to Pixar's plans for future films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Given that it seems even the title is not decided (WP:HAMMER, anyone?) even a redirect seems pointless. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per The Good Dinosaur. 109.149.86.254 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is premature as well. Until the project has commenced principal filming... or if not, has such a tremendous amount of ongoing and persistant coverage to perhaps merit being a possible exception to guideline to have a separate article... the best place to speak about "planned" films is in the article about the company doing the planning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF is clear. Should really have been speedily redirected. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This project is actually referred to as Untitled Pixar Project that Takes You Inside the Mind so this is not needed as a redirect. When it gets a title or better yet some actual information about it is covered in sources it can return, but until then a brief mention at Pixar#Product pipeline is all the coverage that is warranted. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or redirection is an editorial decision, so this is not an opinion on the appropriateness of these options. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cam-in-block[edit]

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

A somewhat complex nomination, as the article scope is complicated and subject-matter dependent.

This article is a WP:NEO, with a side-order of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There are two notable sections within this article, one about sidevalve engines (L. T, F heads) and the other about overhead valve (I heads). However there is little real connection between the two groups. The important thing for engine design is the valve position, not the cam position.

"Cam in block" has been used as a term. However it's a back formation from the later overhead cam engines to indicate the previous types. It has no contemporary use for either side or OHV engines. The notability is enough to justify a redir, or as would be far clearer in this case, a disambig, but not an article that would inevitably duplicate and merge two other articles.

This article should be split and merged to the appropriate two sections. If the term has any marginal notability, then we can preserve that much as a disambig between sidevalve and OHV. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that it has no contemporary use run afoul of 'notability isn't temporary'? Modern use is significantly less than 50 years ago, granted, but the article does describe the various methods of a cam in block design, and plenty of OR perhaps, but good OR that would benefit from sourcing rather than deletion. Sourcing for these kinds of articles is difficult at best, because it isn't like you see a book on the subject on the NYT best seller list every week, and internet sourcing will be thin, but surely there is a large number of publications printed over the last several decades that can verify the information. (I now live in a town with no library, but I've done similar research in my younger days, they exist.) The topic is notable and verifiable, so the question is, does it serve Wikipedia better to have this as a stand alone article or to redirect. I agree that the article has problems in the source department, but that can be fixed, even if not for a long time. I won't battle over it, and merging and disambig (rather than redirect) admittedly solves some problems, but I think we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. In the end, I understand the nom, but I have to disagree with the conclusion, and think we should Keep and be patient for sourcing. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Contemporary" (at least as used here) means "at the same time as the valve designs it describes", as opposed to "current".

Notability isn't temporary and doesn't diminish over time, but this article is instead trying to back-date it. Sidevalve designs could be described as pre-war, overhead valve as post-war to 1970 (very broadly) and the common appearance of OHC designs. The term "cam in block" just doesn't appear before this date. It was never used to describe the designs it refers to, at the time that those designs were the designs of the moment.

The term has enough notability to justify a redir, probably a disambig, or even a short dicdef that states, "The term cam-in-block was coined at the time overhead cams were appearing in common use, as a way to describe the methods preceding it". Anything more than this would be (as it currently stands) duplication of two articles under much better titles, and worse than that a quite unjustified merge of that duplication, as if the cam placement had been their defining factor, rather than their valve placement. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't labor the issue, but if it had to be changed, I think the disambig would be the better choice as it would combine the dicdef with links to related articles. I think a delete or simple redirect would not adequately explain the term, which might not have been the most common term used, but was common enough that it needs a little explaining before shuttling the person off to another article. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2012 (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, 21 April 2012 (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) 11:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination would remove an article with modern terminology about one aspect of engine design, because other articles about previous designs of another aspect of engine design exist. Metaphorically, this removes an article on external hard drives, because there are already articles on Zip drives and ditto drives, and anyway, what's important is a USB flash drive.

Cam placement may well be less crucial to efficiency than valve placement. But it is obviously an efficiency improvement, and worthy of consideration in articles about engine design, or the other types of cams would still be in use instead.

After the overhead cam came into prevalent use, all discussion on prior designs by necessity were destined to be made in terms of comparisons between prior designs and the overhead cam, simply because the professional usage, scholarly terms if you like, had moved on. Unfortunately, the articles on the old designs do not adequately reflect this; the one that does mention overhead cams wants to tout the advantages of the older, 'uncomplicated' designs, in direct contradiction to the flow of innovation and industry design standards: Flathead engine: "The valve gear comprises a camshaft which operates the valves via simple tappets, without any further valvetrain paraphernalia (such as pushrods, rocker arms, overhead valves or overhead camshafts)."

Moreover, the differences between the prior designs and overhead cam are definitive aspects that require mention in the other articles. There is the mention above, for example, but also Pushrod engine, which reads,

"overhead camshaft (OHC) engines benefit substantially from the ability to use multiple valves per cylinder, as well as much greater freedom of component placement, and intake and exhaust port geometry."

This statement puts the importance of the overhead cam in a different light with respect to overhead valves, does it not? Without the overhead cam placement, multiple valves, let alone overhead valves, are impossible.

212 results for "cam-in-block" in Google Books. Anarchangel (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Overhead valve. --Kvng (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was first posted in 2006 when WP rules/guidelines were different than today. Independent source citations are needed to Wikify but the information is accurate and notable historically. Cam-in-block (or "in block camshaft") was how internal combustion engines were made until fairly recently. (From a guy old enough to remember replacing rocker-arm springs to reduce 'valve float'. Google that!) DocTree (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic combat (video game)[edit]

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

No indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 11:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. --McDoob AU 93 12:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glennznl Please dont remove it. This is my first article on Wikipedia and I improved it a lot already.

I'm sorry but please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, two of our most of important policies for inclusion, and this page doesn't seem to meet either--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glennznl I added sources, does this fix your problems? :3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennznl (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks good to me now with the changes... the WP:RS is not the best and could have some help on content but IMO it's good for inclusion. Pmedema (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the IGN source is to their wiki and MMORPG.com leans toward the unreliable side, according to the linked discussion at WP:VG/S. Glennznl, I know it's tough to have your first article nominated for deletion but I highly recommend cutting your teeth on some other articles before trying to create one from scratch. See if you can get involved in the community at WT:VG if you're interested in games. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a gamer myself, and I've never heard of it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 13:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Utopia (Tom Dice song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGThis article is a stub that should be ~~deleted~~, as it is for a non notable, iTunes only single. In it's current state it is a list of technical information about the single and lacks any statement or prose as to it's notability and provides no information that could not be found via the album page. It's charting is a minor regional statistic, if it were on a top EU chart, I would not have nominated it. Newmanoconnor (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the song has charted and, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. SplashScreen (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Song has been ranked on national or significant music chart, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again charting is not sufficient to have a standalone article. This article provides no information about what makes it significant, is a stub list of technical info, that will likely remain as such.In these cases the article should be merged to the album or artist page, or deleted. While the UltraTop 50 is the national chart for Belgium singles, I would hardly call it significant rank at 23 on that small chart, in today's music ecosystem.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Song has charted on the Ultratop chart, even if it is not top 10.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I thought this was an Ultratip not Ultratop chart reference, I'd like to change my rationale to merge, if you feel the AfD should be closed keep and a mere tag placed I can understand that, but I wish you all would really look at this article, and where it charted, it doesn't justify a standalone article under WP:NSONG. Stuff like this just encourages paid editing for singlesNewmanoconnor (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ultratip is a valid chart, and the sources for some of these charts is considered reliable, and the chart is not inclued on the WP:BADCHARTS. Greenock125 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NSONG with a position on a national music chart. The Steve 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 13:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Only the Horses[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG Newmanoconnor (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the song has charted and, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. SplashScreen (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment To meet WP:NSONG, the song article need to be more than a stub , and describe at length details about the song and it's effect. Being notable is not enough for a standalone article for a song, without enough material to devote to a single page, it should be deleted or merged to the album. As far as charting goes, it is required to have charted on a national or significant music chart. For Belgium this would be Ultratop 50 singles, not the low 40's or 60's on UltraTip("Tipparade" ). Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Song has charted. It does not matter what chart that is. It will also be officially released in the greater music markets in 2 weeks, so it does not make sense to get rid of this article in any form now. It passes WP:GNG anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree, the Ultratip chart is not the "National" or significant chart for Belgium, the Ultratop is. While this single could warrant a standalone page at a later date. If not deletion, a merge would make more sense following WP:NSONG using WP:CHARTS to satisfy WP:IRS.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The matter still stands that Only the Horses has a decent number of third-party reliable sources which means it passes WP:GNG.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage for the song at MTV [44][45] and NME [46]. Gongshow ^Talk 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like standard coverage to me from music sites, kinda like sports coverage. But it's something...Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is not the only metric we should use to determine song notability.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from comments not listed as votes, this appears to be a Keep Consensus. That might even make this a candidate for Non-Admin Closure. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 13:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Anywhere in the World[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG Newmanoconnor (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the song has charted and, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. SplashScreen (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To meet WP:NSONG, the song article need to be more than a stub , and describe at length details about the song and it's effect. Being notable by charting is not enough for a standalone article for a song, without enough material to devote to a single page, it should be deleted or merged to the album. As far as charting goes, it is required to have charted on a national or significant music chart. For Belgium this would be Ultratop 50 singles, not such a low number on UltraTip("Tipparade" ). Or 185 on a French chart. Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs)

Keep or Merge. According to WP:NSONG, Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album, which proves both of the above points. If this article can be improved and expanded to "warrant a reasonably detailed article," keep it, if not, merge it to Mark Ronson and Katy B. In no case should it be outright deleted, since it does meet the basic requirement of WP:NSONG of charting. - Jorgath (talk) ^(conribs) 17:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. that's really your interpretation of "Charting on a national or significant chart"? It seems like a copy and paste of the policy. Don't get me wrong , I'm all for merge/redirect if it's needed. But the top 50 singles chart for Belgium is the Ultratop, not the Ultratip. Which the way WP: NSONG is written implies to me just as sports or any other criteria, the chart needs to be a top level chart. Not just charting in the top 200 songs of some tiny nation for a week at 183 or 60,etc. I'm not even suggesting it needs to be the EU Hot 100. But at least in the top chart for that nation. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Song is not notable at this time. There are no reliable sources showing it passes WP:GNG currently.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Song is notable because it has charted in Belgium [47] and France [48], therefore, passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charting and WP:NSONG, Wikipedia outlines what charts are considered reliable for this very argument. Simply charting does nor meet WP:N whether it's WP:NSONG, or WP:GNG. They can be found her at WP:CHARTS the SNEP chart for singles only classifies the top 50'as having "charted" though they track to 100. Again Ultratip is not a valid chart, and the sources for some of these scharts is considered unreliable.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ultratip is a valid chart, and the sources for some of these charts is considered reliable, and the chart is not inclued on the WP:BADCHARTS. Greenock125 (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage for the song in multiple reliable sources, Rolling Stone [49] and ESPN [50] in particular. I've added them to the article. Gongshow ^Talk 23:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment Someone please close this as keep, it's part of a global advertising campaign for Coke, and these two sources change the ball game Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, is that a withdraw? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I withdraw my NOM.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think we still have to keep it open because User:Ryulong !voted "delete" also. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 20:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Spatial Frame[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There are no citations, apart from one external link to a page which may or may not be an independent source: even if it is, it is not substantial coverage. The article seems somewhat promotional. (PROD was contested without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Couldn't find much on notability. I did find some peer reviewed articles discussing it (e.g. Taylor Spatial Frame in the treatment of upper extremity conditions. However, I don't think that's enough to make it notable.JoelWhy (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Merge to Ilizarov apparatus. This device appears to be a version of that apparatus, not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This device has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Examples include Post-Gazette, NY Daily News, IOL. There's more in the news results. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking just the first of your links, the Post-Gazette article goes on at substantial length about external frames. It briefly mention the Ilizarov frame toward the end of the article, then cites the Taylor frame as an example of an Ilizarov frame. That's it. This article could be used as evidence for a redirect to Ilizarov apparatus but it certainly doesn't establish any notability of the Taylor frame. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the NY Daily News and IOL articles feature the Taylor frames as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2012 (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) 13:37, 20 April 2012 (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 10:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Whpq has found some coverage, but well short of what is needed to show notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - factual description about device in context, related to but not direct version of Ilizarov frame as uses different principles and has different applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.136 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but that is not what we need to establish notability. In fact, if, as you suggest, the Taylor frame is substantially different from the Ilizarov frame, then that makes an article mentioning the latter even less relevant to establishing the notability of the former. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in orthopedic medical niche [51] and [52] and [53] and [54] and others.The frame isn't the subject of the articles; treating fractures with it is the focus. DocTree (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Search for this topic in medical sites and journals, not in general newspapers and magazines. [55] is in the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, a non-trivial source, under the title "Treatment of complex tibial fractures in children with the taylor spatial frame". The other links above I found in a couple minutes of searching of 'complex fracture treatment taylor frame' with many more links returned. I'm certain that his is notable within the medical community and would be valuable to an ordinary person whose friend or family member is to be treated with the device. I agree the article needs work including in-line citations and expansion but it deserves a place in Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. It appears to be an Article on a fairly standard medical device. It's a stub, to be sure, but that gets fixed by expanding rather than deleting. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by User:Doctree, and request expert attention from someone knoweledgeable about medical devices. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amirjon Salomov[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG at this point. As the article popped up in my watchlist, I guess it was already either prodded or speedy deleted.— Racconish^Tk 10:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was in my watchlist before, which means it was probably already deleted. I tried cleaning it up, but there is noting that even alludes to the notability of this cinematographer. Primary contributor has a clear COI. So, delete. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. The subject appears to be one of the team who made the John Dewey High School entry in a 2011 festival of New York City youth-made media. Insufficient current notability from that or his new film. AllyD (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby (Girl Group)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Yasht101 08:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jid'dat Bi Bi[edit]

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

Previous Prod with rationale "Wikipedia is not a hosting service for non-notable images." Prod removed by article/image creator without edit comment, so bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author's own work, not mentioned in secondary reliable sources. Non-notable. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 09:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsensical article that is self promoting. Fails WP:N and WP:OR. - Pmedema (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, per nom...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete please. AsadUK200 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable image. freshacconci talktalk 01:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Consensus is clear enough at this point. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Color psychology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Color psychology

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

This article is a mass of poorly written pseudoscience. The "poorly written" bit could in principle be fixed; the "pseudoscience" cannot, because the subject is little more than a marketing fad, reinforced in large part by the article's continuing existence.

Some notable people (Jung) have written about the supposed effects of colour of human thought. Such cases, I think, can be covered more than sufficiently with footnotes in the relevant articles. Reinforcing the idea that there exists a respectable discipline of "colour psychology" is not worth gathering these few ideas together. lws (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that there have been several books published on this topic, it is clearly suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly there is some pseudoscience here, & the article is not well structured, but its a proper subject: there is a lot of evidence to show that , for instance, the colour of a food or even its packaging affects perception o taste & also that the use of colour in environments has a behavioural effect.TheLongTone (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable; see The Encyclopedia of Mental Health for an example of an encyclopaedic entry about this topic in another work. Warden (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books alone has 15000 entries going back to the 1920s. Current condition of the article should not be used as a rationale for deletion. The Steve 07:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it's a fringe theory, that doesn't make it not notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that there is not enough sourcing/evidence to demonstrate that Weiss meets the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin D. Weiss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article fails general notability guidelines. The article is so poorly written as to require a complete re-write to comply with Wikipedia standards. And virtually every source cited is one of the subject's own web sites. Ithizar (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:AUTHOR. (and also there is substantial coverage of his ratings) Many sources available: just from the WSJ [56], [57] etc etc DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 21 April 2012 (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 05:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I tend to agree with the nominator. The article reads like it is trying to redress or rehabilitate the subject from various legal disputes, which may or may not have been widely noticed. Quite probably his books have sold well (in a specialist category, or generally?), but where is the proof of even one reliable review? The only saving grace would be the possibility of finding offline sources.

For some reason I forgot to sign this comment... Sionk (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attempt to present subject's take on his SEC troubles, apparently by the subject himself or someone working for him. Since it's a BLP witha large dose of legal entanglement, I've purged everything not reliably sourced, which leaves almost nothing. Comment above claims he meets AUTHOR but I can't locate commentry or reviews amid all the self-promotional hype. Absent that I don't see notability. EEng (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not helpful to delete 95% of an article before this AfD has concluded, is it? Sionk (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the material, except for that on the 1971 SEC trouble, was sourced to anything remotely like a reliable source. In a BLP that's a no-no; when it describes legal trouble it's a real no-no; and when such sources as are present are controlled by the subject, it's a triple-somersault-with-twist no-no. That fact that there's almost nothing left -- in what was apparently a bio written by the someone connected witht he subject -- does underscore the lack of source on the available, however. So in that sense maybe it's helpful to the AfD after all. EEng (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited in the article (and in the prior full versions that I reviewed) just aren't sufficient to support a BLP. While the problematic history of the article is not in itself a reason to delete, it underscore the difficulty of crafting a properly sourced and NPOV article. If we cannot maintain an article that is properly sourced and balanced then it is better for us to have nothing at all. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every few years for more than 30 years, the subject person Weiss has had published (not self-published) a serious new nonfiction, some of which have reached real best-seller lists (including NY Times). Additionally, he has been quoted as industry expert by finance sections of: New York Sun, Wall Street Journal (subscription only) and Washington Post. I'd guess there are plenty more refs out there: book reviews, interviews, the like, each with another grain of notability accumulating overall to keepable notability. Here is the article's "pre-pruned" version. Of course, subject's notability is not an endorsement of any particular iteration of the article, the now-existing stub and a previous puff-piece notwithstanding. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scattered one-sentence quotations are of littlle notability value -- though if you can fill us in on what WSJ said that might help a bit. As to his books, as previously stated I've had trouble finding independent reviews etc. among all the self-promotional hype. Could you add material to the article which would speak to the requirements of WP-AUTHOR (which BTW is the same as WP-ECONOMIST)? EEng (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weiss is a self-promoter, and his books and newsletters were/are intended to make money for him. So what! That doesn't change the fact that he has intelligent things to say and enjoys a measure of respect as an expert on the markets; he is notable and people in the industry know who Martin Weiss is, though I'd guess at least some of them dislike Weiss and would like to pretend he doesn't exist. I would be happy to see this article include honest criticism of Weiss, but that sourceable criticism actually tends to increase his notability (see WP:AUTHOR/WP:ECONOMIST). Incidentally, wouldn't that discussion help Wikipedia readers?

Weiss's notability is not merely because he was quoted in the Wall Street Journal (et al), but WSJ's 2008 choice of Weiss (among all experts they could have chosen to quote) implies that the industry (the newspaper's readership) already considered/considers his views to be useful/credible; in the context of a national newspaper specializing in finance, their choice of expert would open the newspaper to criticism if Weiss were entirely non-notable. In other words, this particular newspaper article (there are lots of others which haven't been ref'ed in this article previously) quotes only four experts on a complicated matter involving J. P. Morgan, and two of the four actually work for J. P. Morgan; the other two experts sure as heck better carry sufficient weight to be a useful counter to the company's own views. With that in mind, WSJ selects Weiss (even though he has no inside knowledge of the particular transactions) as one of the two overall experts with the gravitas to counter the company's official "there's nothing here, move along" view. Here is the quote:

"'Many pathways through this maze of derivatives lead back to J.P. Morgan," said Martin Weiss... "The domino effect of a major firm like Bear defaulting on its derivative transactions may have hurt other counterparties in the marketplace, many of which trade with J.P. Morgan."

User:EEng's view of one-sentence quotations is entirely valid if each quote were inconsequential (eg "Disco sucks!", said Joe Shmoe.) or one amongst a quote-farm (eg "REITs are a bad investment for seniors", agreed Joseph Shmoe [alongside ten similar quotes].). The fact is that Weiss's quotes are not typically trivial or buried amongst others; so in this application I disagree with EEng's categorization. Frankly, I would contend that a collection of one-sentence quotes does evidence a financial expert's notability, when the quotes have continued for decades in major financial publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. In the case of this subject though, there is much more, for example a sizable 1992 article in the New York Times which was entirely focused on Martin Weiss entitled "The Bad Boy of Insurance Ratings": see New York Times, January 5, 1992, [58]. The article includes both positives and negatives, as well it should, but it seems odd to consider Weiss to be non-notable after reading the effect he had on the industry in 1992 and the fact that 20 years later he and his books continue to be quoted by respected industry publications (many of these publications are subscription-only and thus not as readily apparent as those freely available on the internet).

None of this means that WSJ or NYT or another endorses Weiss, but they certain recognize the notability Weiss already enjoyed/enjoys. I do not agree with Weiss's opinions on most things, and I have absolutely no personal or professional connection with him or his projects. But his analyses have been generally respected and persistently cited, and have been proven correct enough that he has remained relevant for over thirty years. IMHO, it would be ~~moronic~~ ill-advised to delete this article; instead, it should eventually be improved (after all, there's WP:No deadline). While it's technically not incorrect to remove unreferenced material, I'm unconvinced that it is in the encyclopedia's best interests for editors to have removed all of it here. Again, keep. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Could you just add the sources to the article please, and stop all this pussyfooting around? See my further comments below. EEng (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to do as you demand of me, which feels vaguely like bullying. I have no interest in investing my work into an article which you seem fixed on deleting; since I see the matter as it is, it would be illogical for me to add material (such as this NY Times profile of Weiss) unless the AfD ends without deletion. I don't care much about Dr. Weiss or this article particularly, but I damn sure do care about Wikipedia, and I'm quite confident that it would be a mistake to delete this article. Are you just as confident that it's not a mistake to delete it? --→gab 24dot grab← 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is hardly an Article anyway. The whole thing is literally 2 or 3 sentences. Combined with notability in question, that is a great reason to delete it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually just one sentence at the moment but, to be fair, I should point out that it's that way because that's all that's left after I removed everything but reliably-sourced claims. He might be notable under those claims (though I'm not sure of that) but no one's supplying the sourcing. EEng (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are you certain that better sources do not exist? The WP:Notability guideline plainly states: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. [WP:NRVE]" --→gab 24dot grab← 04:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not certain better sources don't exist, but the more time you spend elaborately applying proof-by-contradiction or argument in the alternative or whathaveyou to convince us that sources exist (multiple, substantial sources, that is) while only actually pointing to one or two that even arguably qualify -- instead of just adding a sufficient quantity to the article for everyone to see -- the more confident I become of that nonexistence. Yes, everbody already knows that sources aren't de jure required to actually be in the article, but when we combine a subject who is so relelentlessly self-promoting -- making it difficult to pick the indpendent needles from the self-promotion haystack -- with a zealous advocate such as yourself who implies he has a list of abundant notability-qualifying sources, ongoing failure to simply add those sources to the article strongly implies that you don't know where they are, either. EEng (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I never intended to be coy about it. Again, so what! I absolutely reject the notion that a notable subject should be deleted just because it might be "difficult to pick the indpendent needles from the self-promotion haystack"; per WP:SOURCE, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I no longer have Nexis access, but it seems certain that an editor who does could more easily draw the grain from the chaff as it were. Thus it seems disappointingly short-sighted to dismiss a mountain of harvest and insist that it should be summarily dumped in a compost heap because no one immediately at hand is personally interested in doing the work; you yourself seem to concede the existence of a mountain of potential sources. Let me be clear: I am not interested in doing hours of work here, but I'm not so obtusely dismissive as others. Just because I'm familiar with the subject's notability (for thirty years he's been quoted as an expert by Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Sun, New York Times, et al and had multiple non-self-published books on NY Times bestseller lists) and just because I happen to have remembered the lengthy 1992 NY Times profile of Martin Weiss doesn't mean that I'm also interested in sinking hours into the sifting work required to please some arbitrary group of !VOTERS; by contrast I can bang out a paragraph of my own thoughts in just a few minutes. But let me be plain: I absolutely reject the notion that a notable subject should be deleted because he's unpopular or a few editors imagine (enforce?) some non-existent deadline. Per WP:NORUSH: "it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what?" --→gab 24dot grab← 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can find enough sources to establish notability even for WP:BLP but I also agree that the article proposed for deletion completely failed to meet WP standards for establishing notability, for neutral point of view, for balance, and for independent sources. BOLD move, removing all the unsourced and inadequately sourced material but appropriate for a BLP article. Hope another author or a big flock of Wikifaires will someday create an article deserving a spot in WP. DocTree (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undeniably the subject has the potential for notability. He is a well-known financier who has been embroiled in legal issues, he has written plenty of books and has been quoted in reliable sources. However, none of this is convincingly represented in the article nor in the sources presented by the keepers. At present, therefore, notablity has not been established. I suggest that this is a good candidate for userfying if an editor is prepared to work on it. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article does not evidence notability via sources to meet WP:GNG joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavan Antle[edit]

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

Delete The article Bhagavan Antle should be deleted for lack of notability. The article only has two references, and the references are not specific for Bhagavan Antle. I could not find any references to Bhagavan Antle in any mainstream media websites, or in any other Wikipedia sites. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are as follows: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. I don't believe that Bhagavan Antle meets this notability requirement. Debbie W. 03:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken out an unsourced section from the article which seemed potentially libellous. There are references here and there on the Internet to him, relating to the care (or otherwise) of animals. asnac (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2012 (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, 14 April 2012 (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) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable biography. Stormbay (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Final relist. The vote above is a WP:JNN !vote, which is something to be avoided.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point well taken on my WP:JNN opinion above. I support the delete posted by citing the lack of reliable references. There is a certain amount of passing interest coverage which, to my mind, does not reach the requisite level of importance/notability. I would like my opinion to be given due consideration in light of these additional comments. Stormbay (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to creating an appropriate redirect if desired. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PAWS Web Radio[edit]

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

The subject of the article is simply an internet radio station, of which there are many, with no provided distinguishing attributes... Notability? Ducknish (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. College web radio. I don't find much coverage at all, let alone substantial coverage from WP:RS. It is already listed in its college's article, so why not redirect there?--> Adelphi_University#Recognized_organizations_.26_clubs --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2012 (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) 12:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability found for this campus Internet-only club 'radio' [sic] station. A mention in the Adelphi University article is sufficient coverage of the topic, not a separate article. DocTree (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 13:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ryanair Flight 4102[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH for a standalone article. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. No WP:PERSISTENCE ...William 14:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 14:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions....William 14:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 14:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:AIRCRASH, The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I'm on the fence about this, but it should be noted that AIRCRASH is not a guideline for exactly this reason, because as safe as air travel is, "significant damage" or even "loss of life" are broad categories. GNG is a better guideline in this case. Namely, how much media attention did it attract, and has it been mentioned in any mainstream context since the immediate aftermath of the accident? That AIRCRASH policy strikes me as way too broad. Shadowjams (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the bird strike article's incidents section, where it is already mentioned. I can see no reason to keep this as a separate article, but it is a good illustration of the potential consequences of a bird strike; seems a good fit to me. YSSYguy (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets AIRCRASH in that the airframe was written off, and was also Ryanair's most serious accident at the time of occurrence (and is currently). Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As I said atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLM Flight 1673, this one similarly does in fact meet WP:AIRCRASH, but the nom's point about WP:PERSISTENCE is also valid. Leaning keep because I favor specific guides over general ones. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated, is Ryanair's most serious accident till date. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we don't hear enough about bird strikes.Red Hurley (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much is enough? Bird strikes occur literally every day, perhaps that's why there isn't "enough" coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously a very serious and notable incident with the aircraft destroyed. — O'Dea (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Flight 1673[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH for a standalone article. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. No WP:PERSISTENCE ...William 15:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions....William 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:AIRCRASH: The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per The Bushranger, it does in fact meet WP:AIRCRASH, but the nom's point about WP:PERSISTENCE is also valid. Leaning keep because I favor specific guides over general ones. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the bird strike article's incidents section. I don't think this warrants an article of its own, but would be a good addition to the bird strike article, which at the moment has a lot of minor incidents mentioned without sources to back them. YSSYguy (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to bird strike, per YSSYguy, based on WP:MILL. While the loss of the aircraft is certainly regrettable, there are many crashes of aircraft with total loss of the airplane. How does this one stand out from the others?Marikafragen (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. We are not a collection of news reports about transportation incidents. Sandstein 06:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Cruz[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Previous version of the article claimed that subject won SAG award as part of best cast for Birdcage but that simply is false as the award lists the specific cast members who are its recipients. ^Bongo_matic 17:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling seems to return info on a few different Francesca Cruzes. Not sure if this is the same one who's married to Eduardo Yáñez[59] and it's probably not the one who murdered her landlady in 1996. But none of them are really notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Hispanic culture she is a notable individual. I'm working on adding all of the references. I just added the Rick Martin Interview Reference^[1] I also added La Feria de la Alegria^[2] Reference. YouknowZACK (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source and can't be used to establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 01:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are a reliable source based on this Video Wikipedia Guideline.YouknowZACK (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything. Let me know if I'm missing something about the guideline. Just getting my feet wet here.YouknowZACK (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Francesca Cruz seems to be a notable individual based on this Entertainer Notability Wikipedia Guideline Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Francesca Cruz had lead roles in both Onda Max where she was co-host for 2 years & 3 years as entertainment reporter on Telemundo's news show Ocurrio Asi. The only place those episodes still exist are YouTube. A Google search will show many episodes with her in the leading role in each. These are not "self-created" as mentioned to look out for in the guideline for referencing Youtube videos. These were produced by Telemundo & Univision. The 2 biggest networks for the Hispanic market in the world.^[3] ^[4] YouknowZACK (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouknowZACK, you have already said "keep". Don't do it twice. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem JamesBWatson. Wasn't sure if I was suppose to do that or not each time I make an entry here.YouknowZACK (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes our WP:ENT guideline. That said, the article needs cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Francesca Cruz's SAG award. She received the award, however I see that only a few of the Bird Cage cast members are listed here: the award I called the Screen Actors Guild in L.A. & New York for an explanation as to why only certain cast members are listed. They were aware of the award but couldn't give me a clear explanation at the time and said they will be getting back to me. I spoke to a reporter, Nathaniel, at The Film Experience who said he thinks is a commemorative award given to all SAG members that participated in the film. It's still unclear so I'll be following up next week and will try to find a solid reference.YouknowZACK (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I verified that Francesca Cruz did receive the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture. The reason only a few of the cast members are listed here the award is because the SAG rules state "Motion Picture casts shall be represented by those actors billed on separate cards in the main titles." The difference is that the actors that represent the cast will receive a statue award while the other cast members will receive a certificate award. YouknowZACK (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable that Wikipedia should follow SAG's criteria for who is deemed a significant recipient of the award. ^Bongo_matic 01:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That award sounds notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamer Şahin[edit]

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

Notability. Even though the subject has managed to create a ton of incidental and primary, none are independent and establish notability. This appears to be an autobiography that is overlinked yet undersourced. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is there a reason not to consider SecurityFocus and Verisign independent secondary sources? Surely Wired, Milliyet and Hürriyet are independent reliable secondary sources, together providing more than enough coverage to establish notability. --Lambiam 11:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having your name listed as "$name discovered this virus" isn't significant coverage, which WP:GNG requires. The issue isn't quantity, it is quality of coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. You stated that none of the sources are independent and implied that none are secondary; that statement is totally false.
2. In my opinion, the Milliyet and Hürriyet sources provide significant coverage. Maybe you disagree, but then please explain why.
--Lambiam 22:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I also find this subject falls far short of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, especially as it pertains to third party coverage that is both reliable and substantial. I also find it hilarious that a single phrase would be supported by over 30 cites – it's just a claim he has made an announcement, with zero third party coverage to indicate significance. This kind of misleading prose and citation fits perfectly among the glut of WP:BLPSPS, related party publications, and insubstantial coverage. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to turn this into a viable article. JFHJr (㊟) 21:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain in what respect the articles in Milliyet and Hürriyet fail to meet the requirement of WP:GNG of providing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? --Lambiam 22:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2012 (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 04:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here the list of sources that would contribute towards notability:

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/11/13/haber/hab02.html (turkish) - profile on him
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/11/08/ekonomi/eko03a.html (turkish) - his hacking on a bank system
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,56481,00.html - Article on an unrelated incident, last three paragraphs are about him publishing internal Microsoft docs. A mention in passing.
http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=5999287 (turkish) - appears to be a general profile on subject

An uninvolved Turkish speaking experienced Wikipedia opinion on the sources listed is really needed here.--Otterathome (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Useerfy until the article meets or at least approaches Wikipedia WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES standards. I would accept Keep only if all claims not verified by an independent, verifiable source are removed. The subject may be notable enough for an article but the existing article that is nominated for deletion is WP:PROMOTION and makes many unverified or exaggerated claims, failing WP:NPOV. For example, the article says that a documentary film was made about Tamer but the film exists only on YouTube.com in Tamer Şahin's YouTube channel, a WP:POV and WP:COI problem. The article states that Tamer Şahin "lectures about being a hacker and its philosophy at universities" but the citation is to his own website and, in his website, the only evidence given is a link to photographs of him gesturing in photographs in albums on his FaceBook page. I could find no independent documentation that he actually lectured at a university. Most lectures on a university campus are well publicized on the Internet. DocTree (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only deletion arguments that reflect policy were the nominator's indications that had dubious notability and was unsourced. Changes to the article have addressed both points, with later participants indicating directly or indirectly that the article met WP:BASIC. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Ziak[edit]

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

Dubious notability; possibly an autobiography, and certainly an unsourced BLP. Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article and added references. He fairly significantly changed the historical record on a notable topic, the Lewis and Clark expedition, and had an federal amendment passed because of his discovery. Not to mention he won an Emmy. Silver seren^C 04:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are versions in the history with serious COI problems, and I think this is what prompted Orange Mike's nomination. The current version is keepable.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Keilholtz[edit]

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

This actor fails WP:NACTOR. The article lacks any references. I could only find one significant writeup; the profiles listed in the article are all by obscure, redlinked sources (The Flow links to an album). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a major revival occurs with references. I've delinked some things in the article - 'The Flow' and 'Nightswimming'. Both had irrelevant targets. Nightswimming has been stated to be in off-Broadway and film development since December 2006. That's a long time - either there has been success that's not been added, or nothing has come of it. While I wish the subject luck in his career, I don't feel that this article shows that it deserves a place here. I'd be quite happy for someone to provide further info and to reference what little there already is. Peridon (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. The consensus is that both subjects fail our notability guidelines. Additional sources were identified, during the AfD, but the consensus remained against notability for both articles. I should be happy to userfy if an editor wishes to develop either page, further, in user space. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edubb[edit]

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

Research sources are also found here: Images
Billboard Magazine article I.M. Records Edubb as a performing group at the super producers panel hosted by ASCAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band; very scant press coverage, major music never charted, no major awards. Delete per WP:BAND --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The music of the band has charted, I have also added the reference to the MTV Music charts for calender week 6 2012.--Regeek (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including an article about their song. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject meets the WP:BAND policy, since it has been placed in rotation nationally by major music television networks. It meets the WP:Songs as well since the All Music Search Engine is quoted as a reliable Source, the band and the referenced album is found there.--Regeek (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This group's page is just being set up, I am sorry but a math major is not a good fit to edit a band page. I am sure your research skills are ok but by your comments, you have no idea the impact of having not one but SEVERAL music videos in rotation on the MTV (Viacom) family of shows, nor do you understand the relevance of a band of this nature within the music industry. Unlike the street corner rappers, these gentlemen have created enough buzz, not just with their more than 8 MILLION YOUTUBE VIEWS BUT HAVE SEVERAL MAJOR PLACEMENTS FOR THEIR MUSIC ON BRANDED TELEVISION SHOWS. Please refrain from using your limited understanding of the music world to delete this post...allow the group's team to finish competing the page. You will change your mind if you have any understanding of how the music business...NOT MATH...works. Not only that, this group has had enough international impact on the entertainment industry at large with the creation of the term "Whooty", that they were awarded a TRADEMARK for the word Whooty which they built up into a globally trending topic. -- Jdobypr (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bit of advice - arguments here have to be backed by our policies and guidelines. I don't have an opinion on this article, but if you want to fight for it, I'd recommend you try to prove it meets one or more of the criteria of WP:BAND. For instance, if you can provide evidence that it has been placed in rotation by MTV, that might help, or might not. I don't know enough about music or MTV to say for certain. What I do know is that Youtube views don't cut it. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - I think the most telling reason to delete is that, despite all the impact, relevance, buzz, and trend supposedly associated with these topics, neither topic has received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to maintain stand alone articles. If people are making a bunch of noise and no one else cares to write about it, why should Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a text based media and that text merely is a representative survey of the relevant literature. If there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources that are indendent of Edubb and/or Whooty, what is it that Wikipedia editors will put in the Wikipedia article? There's nothing there! You can't maintain a Wikipedia article on hopes and dreams. You need text from which to develop the representative survey of the relevant literature. Since neither article meets WP:GNG, delete both. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- fail WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, I can find no reliable sources on which to build an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The band has received coverage from notable sources in the past and present. Another notable source from MTV New Releases news article on Mar 7 2006, in which the Album Don't Flex finds mention. Source: "New Releases: Juvenile, Matisyahu, Lil Wayne, Bad Religion, Stereolab, Public Enemy, Mogwai & More". The group has also received coverage from Flavour Magazine regarding their "Whooty" music "Edubb and their Whooty music". Please do not delete my contribution as I believe notability has been established and will through my upcoming additions to the article be solidified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is some coverage, it is not "significant coverage" as is required to demonstrate notability.--ukexpat (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment - just so that I may grasp a better understanding, MTV News releases, MTV Network sources and official releases with Billboard charting artists are not considered reliable sources or do not establish notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV article is reliable, but the coverage for Edubb is not considered "significant" because the only mention of the group is made in passing (ie, within a list of albums). Gongshow ^Talk 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert. Closest this comes to coverage is "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" but that type is not included in WP:BAND#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No non-trivial coverage found in reliable sources; subjects do not appear to meet WP:BAND and WP:NSONGS, respectively. Gongshow ^Talk 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ Meets WP:BAND Has been placed in rotation nationally by major music television network. Meets WP:Songs All Music Search Engine quoted as reliable Source, the band and the referenced album is found there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One !vote per person. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting help, I have revisited the guidelines and the WP guidelines for WP Band are met as well as WP Songs. Addionally I have added second sources and references. Would someone please give it another review I would be most grateful.--Regeek (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources have been provided within the article, the band has received coverage by various magazines and online blogs including print publications such as Ozone Mag, Billboard Magazine and Flavour Magazine. The band meets the WP:Band and WP:Song guidelines as they are in regular rotation across national and international television networks and meet the notability guideline for having created and trademarked a word, which is widely used accross the world. A simple search for the word "Whooty" shows well over 1 Mio. results.

Considering that the band owns all rights to such a word I believe notability has been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Registering a trademark establishes exactly nothing, since anyone can do that. Hairhorn (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely correct, but branding the trademarked name to receive this much notability across the world establishes everything, in particular notability.--Regeek (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence presented in the discussion that the Mr. Brinias meets WP:GNG or WP:FOOTBALL. Also note WP:NRVE. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Brinias[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept at AfD in March 2007, despite failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was contracted to a pro club. The guy has played at more than one professional club both in England and in Greece. He still should be considered as a pro player as he would quality for the Category:Panathinaikos footballers and Category:A.F.C. Bournemouth players because he was a player for the club at one stage or another.Simione001 (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what does any of that do in helping the article pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As Canley (talk · contribs) from the previous AfD said, Brinias indeed seems to have moved to Gamma Ethniki side Marko on loan from Panathinaikos in July 2002. [60] However, from what I can see in the archives of Athlitiki Echo (so precious...), Brinias only played in a handful of friendly matches with the Markopoulo team [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]. Because it appears he hasn't played in a fully professional league, he fails WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 14:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely someone who has played for Panathinaikos F.C., Wollongong Wolves and A.F.C. Bournemouth would be notable therefore passing WP:GNG?Simione001 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But how is notability being demonstrated when he didn't actually play any games for those clubs? It certainly isn't through WP:NFOOTBALL. And there doesn't seem to have been sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, meaning it doesn't pass WP:GNG. You seem to be implying that being on the books of these clubs makes him automatically pass WP:GNG, which doesn't make sense. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, playing for those clubs make him a full time profession because he was employed them.Simione001 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But how is that an assertion of notability? To pass WP:NFOOTBALL a player needs to have played a match in a fully professional league, which Brinias hasn't. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes but doesnt playing for those club make him notable WP:GNG? Also he ha played a senior match for Galway which adds to the list of reasons to keep.Simione001 (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No and no. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I dont agree. For mine there are enough reason to let him be.Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But you don't back any of those reasons up with actual guidelines. Simple fact is the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, meaning it isn't notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I think he meets the wider requirements of WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And do you wish to demonstrate how this is the case? Mattythewhite (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simione001, you miss the fact that the player hasn't actually played for Panathinaikos, Bournemouth or Wollong Wolves, having made zero appearances for all three clubs. Moreover, there is too little coverage about him on reliable independent sources. Saying that "he meets WP:GNG" is all nice and well, but you have to actually show how he meets GNG by providing links which justify the "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" required by GNG. – Kosm1 fent 03:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG, and as already stated above, Mr. Brinias has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

InVisionApp (company)[edit]

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

Delete. A run of the mill, small company of no encyclopaedic value. Note that the editor who created the article appears to have a conflict of interest. WP is not the Yellow Pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I second the above reasons. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, if ever. Sources are run of the mill and no actual notability is even claimed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Conway[edit]

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

Non-notable person. This is a biography of someone who briefly drew the attention of the British press, as his MP father was involved in a scandal at the time which he was tangentially involved in. However, he is not inherently notable, and there has been virtually no coverage of him outside of a short period in early 2008. As such, I don't think he has demonstrated the lasting significance that notability requires. I think the only real question here is whether 'Henry Conway' should redirect to his father's article, where he is mentioned, or to Henry Conway (disambiguation), which lists other people by that name. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. A real try hard attempt to get a WP article. Note also the attempt to get "reflected notability" from his politician father. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment: I do remember hearing quite a bit about him at the time and remember he kept popping up in the press at the time, also because of his connections to the Royal Family as a friend of (I think) Beatrice and Eugenie. I will have a look round and see what I can find, but I think he may well squeak into notability. I certainly recognised the name and knew who he was, and that's unusual enough in itself as I tend to be indifferent to such people! Mabalu (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there is rather a lot out there about him. I think it's clear that he is just notable enough to scrape through. There is quite a bit of coverage in the UK media, including recent references to the 'Fuck You I'm Rich' party and articles from the last three years, not just 2008. He has also been columnist for a couple magazines and keeps popping up in "these people went to this party" lists, although the latter alone wouldn't be enough to make him notable. But all the other stuff, I think, scrapes him through. I am editing the article at the moment to reflect this, and am changing my vote from "Weak keep" to "Keep". Mabalu (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm done, I've done pretty much all I can stomach, but I hope there's enough there to show that this fellow is still notable - regardless of my personal opinions, I don't think this article should be deleted. Mabalu (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, because this person has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [66], [67], [68], [69]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Merge anything useful with Derek Conway. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that the Daily Mail recently saw fit (for whatever reason) to announce that he's been hired as a stylist for the Oxford Street branch of TopMan. 1. So obviously the UK media still consider him worth column space. Mabalu (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. He'll never match the significance of statesmen or scientists but he is just barely notable enough (sigh). DocTree (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename; this Henry Conway is far from the most notable Henry Conway (see [70]), so "Henry Conway" must be 'Henry Conway (disambiguation)'. Rename this article to 'Henry Middlename Conway' or 'Henry Conway (Queen Sloane)' or 'Henry Conway (promotor)' or 'Henry Conway (writer)'. Again, the target of this current article certainly isn't the Henry Conway; please discuss at Talk:Henry Conway#Rename.--→gab 24dot grab← 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mabalu's work has sufficient sources and ongoing coverage to establish notability, though in a rather depressing way.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Frateanu[edit]

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

An entirely unsourced BLP, for one. For another, no real claim to notability under WP:PROF, but even if he has such a claim, it needs to be sourced. I could find no evidence of his notability myself, as expressed in independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With six published books listed, my default assumption would be that he's notable, but I'm not going to !vote to keep it unless/until we have sources. Additionally, he seems to be a victim of the American Biographical Institute vanity scammers — I removed some of their cruft from the article — which calls into question the trustworthiness of what's left. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2012 (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, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of books he published is actually pretty much the one required in Romania for one to hold an academic seat. No proper coverage in outside, third-party, sources is discernible. Dahn (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:PROF. I was unable to find any independent source in web searches to verify contents of the article. American Biographical Institute is a paid-inclusion vanity directory; awards granted by them aren't notable. Most of the article is word-for-word from the linked 'personal website' so WP:COI may be an issue. Unable to find the name listed in the Babeș-Bolyai University philosophy journal at http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri or other links to faculty (although translation software may be responsible). DocTree (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Summitt[edit]

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

An assistant college basketball coach is not inherently notable. Most coverage is due to the fact his mother is notable coach Pat Summitt. Notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:CRYSTAL may also apply, since he hasn't even started the job yet. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. DocTree (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Edited to clarify: Nomination rationale suggested the list was not notable because the act of putting a CC license on a work was not itself notable. WP:LISTN, however, doesn't require that, it does require instead that the topic of the list be notable, a subject for which was mostly ignored in the discussion.

Concerns that the list are unmanageable were argued, and were the primary theme of the discussion. This is a matter of editorial judgment, no policy sets out the limits of maintainability, and while "all CC documents" would be so clearly unmaintainable that it was beyond any sort of "grey area", "all CC notable works" is less clear to me, and seems within reasonable editorial discretion. Modifications to the article made during the discussion appeared to have the effect of convincing many editors that the list would be maintainable, including the nominator, and as such, I determined consensus that the list would be manageable.

Lacking other significant arguments in practice or policy for deletion, I determined consensus to be keep.

As a personal aside, I commend the effort to improve the list, roughly per WP:HEY.

~~Notable, encyclopedic. Concerns that the list was indiscriminate appear to have been resolved to many editor's standards by a full WP:HEY of effort~~ [72]. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of works available under a Creative Commons license[edit]

Comments made before the massive cleanup contributed by Izno[edit]

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

Putting a Creative Commons license on a site is not notable and a list of such sites is not notable. The article serves no purpose and is a honeypot for linkspam. Woz2 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate and unmanageable. If kept, however it should be limited to notable entries. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr. Wolfowitz. Here's the first indication that this is an impossible topic for systematic encyclopedic content: "Several million pages of web content use Creative Commons licenses." Carrite (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This was created as a spinoff from the Creative Commons article. It is clearly helpful to have a good list of examples which show the variety and nature of the material which is made available in this way. The current version seems fine to me but if it gets unwieldy we could just merge the best examples back into Creative Commons or divide the list further. This is all a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a manageable, representative list of examples in the Creative Commons article. We could add a note at the bottom of that list saying "if you want more go to http://search.creativecommons.org/ " and add an HTML comment saying "don't add more." I see no value in the one here and no way to corral it into anything useful. Woz2 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use the categories instead. There's already plenty Category:Creative Commons-licensed works, Category:Creative Commons-licensed journals, Category:Creative Commons-licensed websites etc.--Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion, Otterathome. If a web site is notable, there is (or will be) an article about it. The category mentioned can be added to such articles. Woz2 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: Procedural question: If the entire article is replaced with a redirect to Category:Creative Commons-licensed works, is that a deletion, or just a really bold edit? Woz2 (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:XNR, which is a no-no; doubly so for the fact that it's a redirect to a category. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What next? List of books printed on paper? Come on, lets try and get WP articles under control here!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Otterathome's suggestion is useful for readers that are interested in learning about more CC creations with Wiki articles.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made after the massive cleanup contributed by Izno[edit]

Keep per WP:CLN (to address the comments on the existence of categories: see Woz, Otterathome, Lenticel). The comments which mention the indiscriminate nature also point to the solution: discriminate! I'm personally fond of discriminating by notable topics, as is common for many other such lists (Liefting, Wolfowitz, Carrite). It's a trivial solution to the problems suggested with the article, and I think the navigation gains per CLN are salient above the points of deletion (everyone browses in a different manner!). The fact that it is a spinoff is also a consideration. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And in fact, the list is supposed to be limited to WP:N topics (edit the page; there is a comment which asks for editors not to add articles which are not listed on Wikipedia). --Izno (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Izno. Do you untie Gordian knots too :-) This solution works for me. Woz2 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list, of course, is supposed to be not about all those works in the world with CC licenses, but those works notable enough to actually have Wikipedia articles about them. As that is a relatively small number as compared to all the works in the world with such licenses, so will this list be. As we have room for the articles, we have room for the list of articles. Perhaps some day this will be the expected manner of publication, and the works without CC licenses will be such a small minority that it would be better instead to have a list of them, but that will unfortunately be a long time coming. And if there should unfortunately be a future time when printing on paper becomes an anomaly, the list of works printed on paper suggested above may also be necessary. At the present, this list is the one needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BTW, for visual convenience I put headings in for before/after the transformation Woz2 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's fixed I originally listed it here because until Izno's contribution I thought it was a hopeless case. It's pretty good now. Woz2 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, limiting to notable things. This sort of licensing is an encyclopedic topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Utterly random mish-mash accumulation. This is not a topic that can be systematically covered, no useful and functional list is possible. List of things made of plastic limited to only notable plastic things would be a similar case. The "topic" remains so broad than it can't be covered with any level of useful depth. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that this list article is limited to notable works, it is a discriminate list that is encyclopedic in nature, and useful to Wikipedia's readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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