The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn duel[edit]

Pawn duel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article was titled "Pawn duel" until a few days ago. I mistakenly renamed it to the current title - it is really a special case and slight modification of Northcott's Nim. The reasons for deletion are that the title "Pawn duel" has no secondary reference, no indication of notability, and a previous article about it was speedy deleted (see talk). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google book search shows Northcott's Nim to be notable per WP:GNG, as it is described in multiple reliable sources (a handful of books). If this is a special case of the game, why not simply clean up the article so that it describes the full general case? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• :: But the article was incorrectly renamed "Northcott's Nim" by me. The article is not about Northcott's Nim, it is about Pawn duel, which is a variation of Northcott's nim that doesn't have any references, no indication of notability, and a previous article with that name was speedy deleted (see the talk page). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were still named Pawn duel, this would make sense. But it isn't, so we should be discussing whether Northcott's Nim is notable, not whether something else that the article used to be named is notable. That is: AfD discussions are about whether a topic is notable, not about whether a Wikipedia editing history is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ::: But the title doesn't match the body of the article. The article is about "pawn duel" - not Northcott's Nim. The title was incorrectly renamed (by me) a few days ago. As an alternative, replace the text of the article with an article about Northcott's nim. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that this has been renamed back to Pawn duel. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Recap

1. User Okkay created the article Pawn duel. It was speedy deleted Nov 13, 2009 because of the lack of notability, see User talk:Okkay.
2. The same editor re-created the article on January 9, 2010.
3. I mistakenly thought that it was a special case of Northcott's Nim. It is not.
4. I mistakenly renamed "pawn duel" to "Northcott's nim".
5. Editor Okkay pointed out that the two not the same, and he is right.
6. Nevertheless, the article still describes "pawn duel" instead of "Northcott's nim".
7. I propose that it be deleted because Pawn Duel is not notable, there are no secondary sources for Pawn Duel, and the text does not match the title. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but we now have a title of an article with Northcott's nim in it. Is there any reason not to replace the rest of the article with something that really is about Northcott's nim? Doing that wouldn't require an AfD. The problem with doing it the way you seem to want to (burn it to the ground first, then think about making a new article) is that the AfD gives us a precedent that we should not have an article on Northcott's nim (because that's what the AfD is about). I disagree with making that precedent. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "As an alternative, replace the text of the article with an article about Northcott's nim." One thing, though, there is already a list of variation of nim at Nim#Other_variations_of_Nim, so it might be better to discuss Northcott's Nim there rather than have a whole article for a minor variation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this discussion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nim based on the above. Unless someone wants to write an article on Northcott's Nim. Even if the variation isn't described under Nim, the title and redirect make it clear that it's a variation of Nim. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've corrected the title; the article is now called pawn duel. If this is deleted, that should not be grounds not to create an article properly titled Northcott's Nim. Should we now speedily deleted the redirect from Northcott's Nim to pawn duel? (And why is the "N" in "Nim" capital?) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the redirect should not be deleted, but should go to Nim. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pawn duel is a chess variation played with only the pawns and the board. The only thing that comes up is Queens Pawn Duel[1] Delete and no reason to redirect Pawn duel since no reliable source mentions pawn duel. The chess variation played with only the pawns and the board describe in the article might be known by another name. But unless someone can identify it, there's no other choice but to delete. Per David Eppstein, redirect Northcott's nim to Nim (it might actually be called Northcott's game[2]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:51, 1 September 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. But a redirect is viable  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher du Pont Roosevelt[edit]

Christopher du Pont Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Mindbogglingly non-notable lawyer with a famous ancestor; see WP:NOTINHERITED. Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A famous father and a seat on some commission which will never have an article here doesn't cut it for notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - per nom, clearcase. ukexpat (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Roosevelt family, where he is mentioned. Redirects are cheap (indeed, I seem to recall reading that a redirect takes up less server space than a deletion does!) and it avoids leaving a recreation-bait redlink. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Roosevelt family per Bushranger. ZappaOMati 21:04, 30 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari[edit]

Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable scholar - external links/references do not support notability ukexpat (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. References in article fail WP:RS. No clear indication of notability from present state of article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The listed references are not reliable. Actually they are lousy sites and fanpages created by the author of this article. The same spammy references are listed on the other articles he creates, mainly for religious propaganda. --Itemirus^{Message me!} 05:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The reference -- "Peerzada Salman (January 30, 2011). "Saint and stones". Dawn. Retrieved August 26, 2012." -- is a good reference for the Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari article. Per that reliable source, people normally call him Zinda Pir. There is a Pir Khidir Zinda shrine, but there also is other source material on Zinda Pir (birth name:Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search excluding pages from Facebook, Wikipedia and Youtube scantly yields 21 results; none of these can be considered a reliable source, except the article you've linked to. Yet the article is more about the architecture of the village; the quack is barely mentioned because some deluded guy pays him visit once in a while, when he'd better educate himself observing the surrounding buildings or help the miserable residents get rid of the large chunks of uncovered garbage dumps and ponds of filthy water bordering them.--Itemirus^{Message me!} 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:24, 27 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Academic and Applied Studies[edit]

Journal of Academic and Applied Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

New journal, article creation premature. Not included in any major selective database, no independent references. Published by an equally non-notable academic organization. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nominator for reasons already stated above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:45, 28 August 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. Note that the words local and regional don't appear in WP:N and WP:RS at all. So back and forth assertions with regard to that don't add up to much (in either direction, I suppose). Significance vs. Mention is, of course, but inspecting the sources this doesn't appear to be a case of just mentions. WilyD 08:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Schillaci[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Riley Schillaci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Appeared on a talent show; associated with notable acts; still seems to me to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Local paper squibs do not add up to notability, in my interpretation. Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough significant secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG. Based on a Google News search, the few articles from third-rate pubs all seem to focus on the America's Got Talent appearance.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Schillaci has received sustained coverage in reliable sources spanning multiple years and coverage that does not focus on her America's Got Talent appearance. In fact, two articles are from before she was on the show—"Hard to Swallow? from Webster Post (2007) and "Her Hobby's Hard To Swallow" from YNN Rochester (2008). "Allentown woman makes a living swallowing swords" from WPVI-TV (2012) does not even mention AGT, and "Allentown sword swallower: Cutting-edge entertainment" from The Morning Call (2012) mentions it merely in passing. Collectively, these in-depth articles satisfy the GNG and provide enough information to produce a decent-sized biography. Goodvac (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These are all local rags, and the last one (The Morning Call) is triggered by the America's Got Talent appearance (not really "in passing"). I love this quote: "Saturday, as we all know, is World Sword Swallower's Awareness Day, and Schillaci plans on participating." For some reason, I must not be part of "we" in "we all know". Still, wouldn't surprise me if the article is kept. We have other similar articles that we all have to swallow.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, was it really "triggered" by AGT? It was written a year after her AGT appearance. Futhermore, the point of that article—the reason it was written—was to discuss Schillaci and her participation in the World Sword Swallower's Awareness Day. Of course, neither am I aware that the event took place on that one Saturday, but a four-word phrase should not discount the article entirely. Goodvac (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The article was edited to be brief, and included references. Someone decided that the resume and references were not needed, and deleted them. If you are going to delete Riley Schillaci, they you should delete Dan Meyer as well. The comment "as well all know is international sword swallowers day, was sarcasm on the writer's behalf. Also Schillaci was one of the famed Kodak Babies of the 80's, which is culturally relevant, the pictures were displayed around the world, as well as used on baby products. Many pediatricians' offices still have the panorama hanging on their wall.

• "Meyer is also internationally recognized as the world's foremost authority in the field of sword swallowing as an award-winning author [1], Ig Nobel Prize winning Laureate [2], science lecturer, and President of the Sword Swallowers Association International (SSAI)." I think this sentence alone shows why Dan Meyer deserves his wikipedia page. There is a bit of difference between his resume and the resume of the subject. I don't see any cultural significance to the subject. It was written by the subject herself as a tool for self promotion only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.94.100 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any media coverage that Schillaci got was actually due to campaigning by her PR Representative, Laura Baughman. Baughman and Schillaci approached local news outlets both before and after America's Got Talent. Riley was getting press coverage well before AGT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2012 — JNukes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - Passes WP:BASIC per:

• "Hard to Swallow? from Webster Post
• "Allentown sword swallower: Cutting-edge entertainment" from The Morning Call
• "Allentown woman makes a living swallowing swords" from WPVI-TV
• "Her Hobby's Hard To Swallow" from YNN Rochester
• WFMZ 2/07/12, by Melanie Falcon

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I know Schillaci's internet troll/stalker personally. He has a vendetta against her for only Eris knows why. I can verify that this controversy did seem to start after he edited the article to be libelous. In doing so, he did break the laws of slander and libel regarding a public figure, in many states. (even if it only a local public figure). I say Schillaci should remain present on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeroloki (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Xeroloki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. That is the point of America's Got Talent: TO MAKE PEOPLE KNOWN. Think Riley Schillaci succeeded in doing so on a National/International level, through her brief appearance on AGT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment JNukes (talk · contribs), please stop restoring the unreliable external links. This contains links to blogs (can be written by anyone, so not permitted). This is from Tumblr (not Schillaci's Tumblr, so prohibited). This and this are wikis (user-submitted, so not reliable per WP:RS). This doesn't exist. You do not own the article, and you must abide by the policies of Wikipedia if you wish to have an enduring future here. Goodvac (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not generally notable. Doesn't meet WP:N.
  • Why? Goodvac (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a resume with nothing else to verify; the person "worked on" but wasn't a "member of" the other things listed there. I hung out with Dave Chappelle for a few hours a few weeks ago but can I call him my friend? No! More like WP:SPIP. Its just association that the editors are reaching for, nothing more: WP:NTEMP. WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E guidelines, and primarily the one event on the show WP:NPF WP:IRS. Three core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR aren't clearly met here, by WP:NRVE. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are reciting policies without applying them to this AfD. Please offer something beyond argument by assertion. Goodvac (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It fails per nomination. I hope that is clear as to my primary reason for delete. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always fall back on that when you can't come up with a reason, eh? Goodvac (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No...because the nomination is the valid reason in this case, as is with many. "Schillaci the Sword-swallower" just isn't generally notable. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you had worked with or opened up for Dave Chapel, that WOULD be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've restored the recently A7 deleted history, under similar logic to why such is done for DRV debates. This will allow anyone voting here to have a fuller idea of the history of this article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Goodvac (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't understand. There was an issue with the relevance of Riley Schillaci last year, and after providing sources and link, everything was OK. What changed now? Can someone please provide me with a simplified version of the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your account was recently created, yet you are familiar with things that happened a year ago. What was the name of your previous account?
    Please respond to my comment above. Goodvac (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I stated when I recently nominated this article for speedy (as a promo page), this article has several issues, including a lack of any apparent notability (beyond an appearance on AGT and some local/regional appearances, which does not constitute WP:N as I understand it), and WP:COI and WP:OWNERSHIP issues on the part of the article's creator and major contributor, Rschilla (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who appears to be the article's subject, and as far as I can tell from the user's edit history, is a WP:SPA to promote the subject of this article. I have been uninvolved with any of this until a couple days ago, when I nom'ed the speedy. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither COI nor ownership issues are justification for deletion.
    Notability is established by the GNG, links for which I have laid out above. Goodvac (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not suggest that COI or OWNership are criteria for deletion per se, but they (along with lack of WP:NOTABILITY) go toward indicating a WP:PROMOTION page. I don't doubt the subject is quite talented, but this is about the article, not the subject. My basic reason for nominating speedy and for deletion here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. And none of the editors here proposing deletion have to prove lack of notability. The onus of proof lies with the article itself to establish notability. Judging from what I have been able to turn up on the internet, it can't, because notability is not temporary or regional. This article, from its first edit, has been textbook WP:SPIP, and that is why it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In a discussion of COI at AfD, the only thing that matters is the neutrality of the article text. If it is neutral, which it is in this case, the intention to promote is irrelevant at AfD. Speculation on the motives of the creators is a distraction from the crux of the matter—notability. You contend that notability is not temporary, when I clearly laid out above that Schillaci receives coverage spanning multiple years. You also contend that notability is not regional, but the linked guideline never mentions "regional". Goodvac (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify one thing. The Rschilla account has admitted to being the subject's "PR agent", but not to being the subject herself. This does not make Rschilla's editing the article less of a COI situation, but I wanted to clarify just what has been claimed by the account. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Contestant on AGT is not notable. Mentions in local papers also don't count towards nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those articles are not mere mentions, as you classify them to be. They contain in-depth coverage of Schillaci's acts and how she came to practice sword swallowing. Goodvac (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed, significant coverage is certainly not "mentions." Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM. Goodvac (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• keep easily meets WP:N given the sources listed here (and in the article too I'll note). Hobit (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary or regional, and one notable appearance (such as on AGT) does not constitute WP:NOTABILITY. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are more than enough. Doesn't matter if they are local sources (which not all are by the way), they go into solid detail. You'll note that WP:N doesn't say anything about regional. And the fact that notability isn't temporary means that if the subject was ever notable she is still now. Could you explain why you think otherwise? This seems really open-and-shut. She meets the letter of WP:N by a wide margin indeed. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I have seen indicate any reason to believe that anyone outside of New York has ever heard of the subject, other than her one appearance on America's Got Talent, placing this article in the territory of WP:1E. The guidance at 1E advises a redirect in such cases as this one, so Riley Schillaci should redirect to America's Got Talent (season 6). What I mean about not being regional is that Gandhi, for instance, is notable because he is widely known world-wide, not just in Gujarat, and even if he had never left India he would still be widely known for the extent of his influence on international politics and nonviolent civil disobedience. People who had never left California in their lives knew of him and his influence back in the 1960s. Our swordswallower, on the other hand, made an appearance once on a reality TV elimination show and some local appearances in New York (which the rest of the world never heard a word about). Per WP:NOTTEMP: A single event that receives coverage only for a short period of time and never again is usually not notable. I don't think it means what you think it means. There is very scant secondary source material about her in reliable sources that are independent of herself and her publicist, and even this article itself is not independent of herself and her publicist. It is WP:SPIP pure and simple. By the way, whether or not "she" meets the letter of WP:N, the article fails WP:N because notability (in the sense of inclusion in Wikipedia) is not established in the article. Please remember that this AfD discussion is about the article, not the subject, who I think we can all agree is quite talented and probably a lovely person. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one talking about her talent, so don't patronize me with that admonition.
Where does it say a subject must be known "world-wide" to be notable? Who is arguing that Schillaci is known only for her AGT appearance? My rationale explains that that is evidently not the case. Please do not employ further straw man arguments and place words in others' mouths. Goodvac (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that you said anything? I was responding to Hobit's comments. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you were speaking generally about the arguments of the keep opinions. If I was mistaken, I apologize. But you did misrepresent Hobit's position. Goodvac (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the thing about article vs. subject was in direct response to something Hobit said above. I didn't know I was representing anyone's position other than my own, other than his assertion that WP:NOTTEMP implies permanence of notability even if coverage is temporary. (In Hobit's exact words: the fact that notability isn't temporary means that if the subject was ever notable she is still now.) I don't think I misrepresented it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[H]is assertion that WP:NOTTEMP implies permanence of notability even if coverage is temporary. The last five words of this sentence is a blatant distortion of Hobit's statements. Nowhere has he stated that the coverage is temporary. He stated that the notability was not temporary. Assertions about temporary coverage were debunked above when I demonstrated that the sources span multiple years, beginning in 2007 and continuing this year.

You are fond of referencing WP:NOTTEMP in your arguments. I will quote the section in full:

Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.
In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

Please explain where this discusses "Notability is not temporary or regional".
You also repeatedly appeal to the AGT appearance to say the article violates WP:BLP1E. This is demonstrably false because her AGT appearance was during season 6 (May 31, 2011 – September 14, 2011). She received coverage in 2007 and 2008, and those sources have nothing to do with her AGT appearance. She received coverage in 2012, where one source mentioned AGT in passing and the other never mentioned it. To base deletion on BLP1E because of her AGT appearance even though she was notable before that is a misapplication of BLP1E. Goodvac (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read her bio, on the web page (which appears to be down right now), you would see that Schillaci has worked with Ripley's Believe it or Not TORONTO, and lived in Allentown Pa for a number of years, where she performed at Burlesque festivals, Renaissance festivals, as well as clubs. As a Schillaci fan, I can tell you that she id most definitely known outside of PA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 August 2012

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Keep - Looking through the sources, she appears to easily meet notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I cannot see how she meets either WP:ARTIST or WP:ENT. She doesn't inherit her notability from a show she once appeared on. WP:BIO says, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I see coverage, yes, but significant coverage is probably a ways off. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She doesn't have to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:ENT—she just has to meet the GNG. Again, AGT is nothing to do with her notability. My analysis above demonstrates that she was notable before her appearance on the show, and the in-depth coverage of her focuses on her not as a contestant on the show but as an artist. Goodvac (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's where the problem exists - the article "focuses on her [...] as an artist" but we are being asked to consider her notability not on the basis of WP:ARTIST but on the basis of WP:GNG (as you say) because she, though described as an artist, fails WP:ARTIST.

As such, my view was that the question comes down to our interpretation of whether or not the coverage she has received as an individual can be considered "significant" or not (because she doesn't inherit notability). Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". Having had a look at the sources I was on the fence and settled on weak delete. But it was weak for a reason - my interpretation is exactly that and others will have a different interpretation (as you seem to have). That's the beauty of the WP:CONSENSUS system. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because she is an artist doesn't mean she needs to pass WP:ARTIST to be notable. WP:ARTIST is a secondary notability guideline; the GNG is the primary notability guideline. Goodvac (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, but she is being referred to as an "artist" and I would think the natural path for considering the notability of an "artist" would be to first assess the article against WP:ARTIST. If the article passed WP:ARTIST then it would likely put the question of notability beyond doubt. The fact that the article doesn't simply means we revert to the primary WP:GNG, or in the case of BLPs, WP:BIO which references WP:GNG. It doesn't really matter which I consider first and which I consider second - I don't believe it quite meets the criteria for WP:GNG and specified this in my original comment (by citing WP:BIO). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Please explain what deficiencies you see in the sources. Goodvac (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (Side note) - both User:JNukes and User:Rschilla seem suspiciously close to the subject of the article who performs as both Riley Schillaci and Riley Nukes[3]; both of them have only ever contributed to this article and my suggestion is that there might be a bit of WP:SOC'ing going on. You were right to be suspicious (your comments above). But COI, no matter how blatant, does not make a subject non-notable. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rschilla has, at least once, referred to him/her-self as Riley's "PR agent". So in that case, at least, it's not a matter of suspicion. The COI has been flat-out admitted. (The admission was in a legal threat mistakenly placed on my talk page, then removed a few minutes later. The threat was obviously intended for Riley's troll, not me. I left a note on Rschilla's talk about not making legal threats, and consider that part of the issue closed. But the post also contained the COI admission.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. One of the users was "contributing" to this consensus discussion even last night so I think it's important that others coming here to contribute understand the context. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Rschilla claims to be Johnny Nukes, Schillaci's PR agent, which resembles "JNukes". Are blocks warranted here? Goodvac (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Having had more of a look, I think they might be. Sorry, but arguments about notability aside, I don't believe for a second that a part-time amateur entertainer has his or her own agent. How many legitimate agents use their client's name (as a username) and email address (as he has done)? How many entertainers perform using their own name and then occasionally that of their agent? I strongly suspect (and think it far more likely) that the subject of this article created Rschilla and used the profile to create this article, then used it to make that pseudo-legal threat (while claiming to be Johnny Nukes, her "agent"). I think she knew that making such a threat about her own article would have made her look amateurish and would have rung COI alarm bells immediately. When the threat didn't work, JNukes was created to continue the campaign here.

I'm almost certain that a checkuser search would reveal they are one in the same person. Her Facebook page lists the email address referenced in your pre/link as her own and the page makes no reference to an agent in any context. I cannot find any reference to a "Johnny Nukes" as an agent of any sort, in any context or even as a person in any way linked to the subject. My suspicion is that "Johnny Nukes" does not exist and that the subject created this article, heavily edited this article, made threats against people editing the article (claiming to be someone else) and then opposed the deletion of the article at this AfD (with a new username). I would also suggest User:Xeroloki fits in there somewhere - their only contribution has been vandalism, an edit to the subject article and a Keep contribution here (which was substantially a carbon-copy of part of the legal threat made by Rschilla). Stalwart111 (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To your question; sure, happy to... (Again, this is about building consensus - I didn't come here for the express purpose of deleting an article. I'm happy to be convinced. I read the article and the sources and the historical AFD discussion and came to a conclusion.)

Reference 1 is simply a list of sword swallowing artists and isn't coverage of the subject. That's an easy one.

My interpretation was that references 3, 4 and 6 (which appeared after her appearance on AGT, all within days of each other) were likely prompted by her appearance on AGT or at least efforts on the part of an agent to to do post-appearance promo after AGT or pre-appearance promo ahead of Sword Swallower's Day - two of them reference AGT specifically. My conclusion was that coverage prompted by AGT or Sword Swallower's Day was getting a little too close to WP:INHERIT. While they constitute coverage of her, without her appearance on AGT she wouldn't have received the coverage. That said, the same arguments can be put in relation to most actors and the films they are in (at what point does the notability of the artist match that of the film to then justify a stand-alone article?) which is where my consideration of WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT came in. It's a line-ball call, sure, but that was the call I made.

2 and 5 are historical and while notability is not temporary (as has been highlighted), these two articles alone (considered at a point before her appearance on AGT) would not have been enough to constitute significant coverage.

Notability of the article, then, relies on the combination of historical minor coverage and newer arguably significant (but at least partially inherited) coverage. On balance, my conclusion was that the references provided did not constitute significant coverage to substantiate the notability of the subject.

Beyond the existing references I would also argue that there is a case to be made that the subject meets the criteria of WP:BLP1E - other than in the period following her appearance on AGT, the subject has received no significant coverage. Ongoing significant coverage not linked with her AGT appearance could allow the subject to meet notability criteria in the future, in which case it may be that the current article was simply created too soon. As it stands, at present and based on my interpretation as detailed above, I came to the conclusion that the article should be deleted. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Thank you for the detailed explanation of your position. I will respond later today. Goodvac (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course; am interested in your interpretation of the same concepts. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Just for clarity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
  I agree with you that reference 1 provides no coverage. References 3, 4, and 6 were not within days of each other or near her AGT appearance during season 6 (May 31, 2011 – September 14, 2011) and are far from being "prompted" by it. Reference 3 (February 24, 2012) mentions her AGT appearance as an introduction—to express surprise at the judges' rejection of her act and segue into Schillaci's career. It briefly discusses Sword Swallower's Day (three paragraphs) in relation to Schillaci, and the rest examines the following: how she came to practice sword swallowing, her parents' opinions about her career, her other acts, and her future as a sword swallower. Both AGT and Sword Swallower's Day are discussed marginally, with the main focus on Schillaci. Reference 4 (March 31, 2012, a month later) does not mention AGT at all. The information overlaps with reference 3, but it explains why she branched off to other acts and the name of her show. Reference 6 (February 7, 2012) adds some additional details about her acts and briefly notes her participation at Sword Swallower's Day. Taken as a whole, these references provide significant coverage of Schillaci without hinging on her appearance on AGT or Sword Swallower's Day.
  The "historical" references (2 and 5) do indeed constitute significant coverage. Reference 2 discusses Schillaci's other talents and the effect of sword swallowing on her. Reference 5 notes her day jobs and how pre-show routine. Of course, these references overlap with each other and with references 3, 4, and 6, but taken altogether, they add up to significant coverage per WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability").
  I found another article predating her AGT appearance that provides additional coverage—"Sharpening their skills" (Google Cache) from Times News (June 12, 2010). Although it also discusses her partner, the article provides ample coverage of Schillaci, including her college education and job history. Again, there is overlap with the other sources, but taken together, they add up. She also was interviewed by Rochester Insider (cover of that issue on Flickr), but I have not been able to find the article online. Goodvac (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you listed those references in the order to which I was referring (the same as in the article) - sorry, should have made that clearer. Just a quick one - that link you provided isn't working. Thought you might like to have a crack at fixing it before anyone responds. Only fair that we should all be considering things on equally. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, sorry about that. I've fixed the link and the title. Let me know if it works. Goodvac (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, sorry. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, it works for me. I've added a Google Cache link. Goodvac (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First, yes that cached link worked. Second, I suggested from the beginning that I was on the fence and so could be convinced and you've convinced me. I still don't believe the subject inherits notability from her AGT appearance and regardless of timeline I still believe one was prompted by the other (she would have known, I contend, that having filmed on x day, she could expect to appear on y day, some time later and the coverage was part of a little AGT-related PR blitz).

Regardless, while I felt I could remain on the fence about 2 small-paper articles as "significant coverage" (prior to AGT), 3 or possibly 4 independent sources (all prior to AGT) is enough to get me off the fence. I must say, I thoroughly enjoy being convinced when, despite a willingness to be, I really didn't think I could be.

I still have major concerns about some fairly serious sock-puppetry, especially in relation to this AfD which, like all AfDs, includes the note, "be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust", which appears above every edit window every time you edit. However, as I said earlier, COI or sock-puppetry (no matter how blatant) by editors does not impact on WP:N or WP:GNG and should not have an impact on the final consensus.

Finally; Goodvac, thank you for assuming good faith from the beginning and for playing the ball rather than the man. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I appreciated how you thoroughly laid out your ideas with substantiation—the epitome of consensus-building—unlike some other participants.
  As for the sockpuppetry, I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rschilla. Goodvac (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the SPI report, Goodvac, I had been thinking a while ago about filing one.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise, and I will add a short comment there also. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep, IF all those things about her are verifiable and cited inline. I am also now Aware of World Sword Swallower's Awareness Day. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So thanks to this heated debate, I guess people now definitely know who Riley Schillaci is, outside of NYS. And I stand corrected, she did not work in Toronto, it was the Ripley's at Niagara Falls ON. The significance of the person should not be in question. We should be more concerned with making sure that the facts contained in the entry are accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.169.217 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a few Wikipedia editors now know she exists but their new knowledge of her would still constitute original research. The notability of the subject is in question, whether editors like it or not, thus the AfD nomination. In that context and given that this is a consensus discussion, I'm sure everyone here would be happy to consider any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that you think supports the case for the article being kept. (Also, I cleaned up your comment so others could respond). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy preparing to go out of town, and will leave in a little while, so I may not be able to have any further involvement here, but I think it has been a pretty good discussion for the most part, and thank you Stalwart and Goodvac for your contributions to the discussion. I could be convinced to keep if there is anything here beyond WP:SPIP, I just haven't seen the evidence of anything I would consider notable in an encyclopedic context. My initial concern was the blatant self-promotion and stuffing of the article with WP:OR (oh, yes and then there were some secondary sources linked at the bottom of the article, but not placed as inline citations), and though I could be convinced there is significant coverage out there, I still have some concern over WP:V. After the speedy delete failed, I tried to do a quick clean-up and couldn't find anything that wasn't SPIP or OR. Can we please try to get some citations to reliable secondary sources in the body of the article, to sort out the OR/self-promotion from verifiable, encyclopedic information? If there is enough encyclopedic material cited to reliable secondary sources, then I would support keeping, if not then I'd say it's all snow. I'd help out with this effort if not for my activities IRL, but thank you all for your efforts. Cheers. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused a little at your invocation of WP:SNOW. This debate looks to be far, far from a WP:SNOW situation to me, with several people on each side, and neither side snowballing the other. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to source the article. Goodvac (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not trust local coverage of a local performer to be reliable, rather than just PR. Appearance of AGT or any similar show is not by itself notability, as can be seen by looking at the articles on the seasons of the show: very few have been considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is arguing for Schillaci's notability because of her AGT appearance, so that is a non-issue.
    WP:RS does not exclude local sources from being reliable, and to speculate on the PR activity of the subject is beyond the scope of AfD. Goodvac (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – All of this discussion with sparse improvements to the actual article after being nominated for deletion! It's obvious this person passes WP:GNG, which doesn't discriminate against "local" sources! Besides all of this, sword swallowers are relatively rare, aren't they? Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added referenced information I found through Google news archive search as well as looking at the list of press coverage she has on her official website at [4]. Dream Focus 10:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sword swallowers aren't automatically notable IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. A-list actors tend to be automatically notable, but definitely not sword swallowers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lot of information about her at [5], not just passing mention, and it says there are only about a hundred sword swallowers in the world. Others have already pointed to reliable sources which cover her. Dream Focus 10:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GNG (also, I cleaned up the article.[6]):

• significant coverage: Tori Uthe (January 13, 2008). "Don't try this at home, boys and girls. Sword swallowing 'extremely difficult and dangerous'". The Springfield State Journal-Register. p. 23. Retrieved August 28, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• significant coverage: Seth Voorhees (February 28, 2008). "Her Hobby's Hard To Swallow". YNN Rochester. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
• significant coverage: Al Zagofsky (June 12, 2010). "Hard economic times led couple to ... gulp ... a strange profession". Erie Times-News. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
• coverage: Jodi Duckett (October 28, 2010). "Special tricks and treats for Hallo-weekend". The Morning Call. p. 4. Retrieved August 28, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Schillaci letter to the editor: Riley Schillaci (October 18, 2011). "Allentown protesters don't deserve insults". The Morning Call. p. A14. Retrieved August 28, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• significant coverage: Melanie Falcon (February 7, 2012). "Woman with unique talent finds rising stardom easy to swallow". WFMZ-TV. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
• significant coverage: Steve Siegel (February 24, 2012). "Cutting-Edge Entertainment. Allentown woman is one of few professional female sword swallowers in the world". The Morning Call. p. D1. Retrieved August 28, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• significant coverage: Walter Perez (April 1, 2012). "Allentown woman makes a living swallowing swords". The Morning Call. Retrieved August 28, 2012.

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are the "Local paper squibs" mentioned by the nom. They are of dubious reliability. for example I doubt the statement in the article that she is "one of few" female sword swallowers, it looks like something the newspaper just added to make things sound more unusual/exciting. Writing letters to newspapers doesn't make someone notable, and they are primary sources, and do not help with significant coverage in secondary sources, which is GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. See WP:NOTTRUTH. Doesn't matter if you doubt something, if a newspaper says it, that's it. And these aren't some small town papers with a few dozen hicks reading it. The newspapers aren't just publishing letters, they are writing editorials about something of interest to people, often going to events to take pictures of her performing to include in their articles. Dream Focus 13:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG does not exclude "local" sources whatsoever. Why would it? If this were the case, then only the utmostly "most popular" people (according to mass media) would be allowed to have Wikipedia articles, because the most popular people are hyped the most in infotainment-style mass media nowadays, and receive the highest levels of coverage. All of these sources simply serve to further confirm that this person clearly passes WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) and Dream Focus (talk · contribs) for adding content to and cleaning up the article. Goodvac (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have further expanded the article. Goodvac (talk) 00:41, 3 September 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. Per the references provided. A discussion to merge this article into an article on the company (should such an article be created) can take place on the talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picoo Z[edit]

Picoo Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

PROD removed without explanation by an IP. The reason for the prodding stands: this is a non-notable model aircraft that utterly fails the WP:GNG. The only claim to notability is that on release some sold for $150, but that's not enough to merit inclusion as a full article here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 11 August 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as a toy it doesnt seem particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is this based upon a search for sources and WP:N, or is it your personal opinion? Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 26 August 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,  HueSatLum 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment There was a claim in an earlier version of it being the smallest in class acto Guiness; don't know why this was lost. No opinion as to whether this would constitute sufficient notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The nomination is utter nonsense. This product has MASSIVE notability and absolutely deserves an article. Belchfire-TALK 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per:

• Tiny helicopter hot new gift item | Deseret News
• BBC NEWS | Programmes | Working Lunch | Sky Challenger Picoo Z helicopter set
• Archives | The Dallas Morning News, dallasnews.com
• AR.Drone made into nano sculpture | Toy Industry | News by ToyNews

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Those are intriguing, but, except for the nano sculpture, are any of those anything more than "Christmas is coming, here's a gift idea" articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice how the first article in my !vote above goes into significant detail about the product itself, rather than being simply a "gift idea" article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: See WP:Product if company is notable, merge, otherwise WP:FAILN would apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs) 03:39, 26 August 2012‎
• Keep Normally I would vote to redirect this to Silverlit Toys, but since that article has yet to be created, it will have to be kept, along with I-Cybie.  The Steve  06:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PRODUCT via article and above sources, plus [7][8]. -- Trevj (talk) 14:17, 31 August 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help to reduce street children in Tanzania[edit]

Help to reduce street children in Tanzania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is not an encyclopedia article about a defined topic — but rather an essay, written partly in the first person singular, advancing a personal opinion about what should be done about a social problem. The article title, for instance, is not the name of a non-profit organization that's working on the issue; it's a request to the reader. There's certainly a place for this sort of content on the internet at large, but per WP:SOAPBOX Wikipedia ain't it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree on the soapbox issue. The author should take this somewhere else. ALH (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essay / Opinion Piece PeterWesco (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An opinion piece. The title is not even a subject. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Note to closing admin: you might want to look at some of the various edits the original editor has done. They've done some editing on various other dodgy-ish articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just ran across this article for the second time. It isn't an encyclopedia article.SchreiberBike (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP: NOTESSAY. Electric Catfish 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An essay/opinion piece. As North8000 points out, the title is not even a topic. CtP (t • c) 00:37, 29 August 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 discussion below leans towards a conclusion that this news site doesn't (yet) have enough external mentions about it to be notable. Deryck C. 15:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasota News Leader[edit]

Sarasota News Leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Disputed prod/prod2. Prod reasoning still applies: New online publication with no clear notability other than someone sending out a prank issue. Currently a topic of drama and threats from the publisher at ANI (see talk page). Basically: fails WP:GNG. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I deleted the prank issue material as non-noteworthy and coatracky.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored by BMK (in my view, it doesn't pass the smell test), but I won't revert it during the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bbb23: You could well be right, I just didn't think it was "smelly" enough to delete. I'm not taking any stance on whether the article should be deleted or not, it didn't seem to me to be prod material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Smell is in the nostril of the besniffer. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can assure everyone now that there are no threats from anyone. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coatrack or not, the subject lacks general notability. At best this is WP:ONEEVENT which is still not good enough either. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google News search turns up zip. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The publication has been in place for months, it is not a matter of one edition being sent out as a prank. Initially they issued news and opinion as it happened, and now have switched to a weekly format. I made the stub and initial entries to the article as well as creating the image. I have no connection to the publication. I consider the publication as notable because of its high quality and its rapid acceptance in its market. The staff is composed of many established writers followed regularly by readers in the region and its output is being quoted in other publications. I also created the image. Without a rush to action, I think the article should be allowed to remain. Regarding the issue of "hoax" vs "spoof" -- I believe that one copy sent to one person as a joke is not a hoax. It was a parody of the front page of their new format. It was described as a hoax in another publication that I read as sensational, so I described it in terms that seemed more rational to me. The fact that an article published in a regional paper publication about it, furthers justification for notability. The market served by this publication often is dependent upon these minor publications because the major paper has been accused repeatedly of failing to represent many concerns of its readers. That reinforces even further my feeling of its notability. Let's see how the discussion enfolds. Needless tot say I shall vote to keep and would be glad to edit further if there are areas of concern._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, do you mean you uploaded the (initial but now deleted) image? You don't really mean you created it, do you?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, taking a screenshot could be seen as creating an image, which is then still a derivative work. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I uploaded a screenshot, yes, considering it fair use. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider the publication as notable because of its high quality and its rapid acceptance in its market. - Are there reliable sources to verify that? (Note: the publication's own sources and statements cannot establish notability.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a wordpress blog that has been online for 2 months. If standard are going to be dropped to 2 month old blogs where does it end? Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing WP:TOOSOON PeterWesco (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And who are you, Mr. My-first-edit-was-to-send-an-article-to-AFD?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree; the smell of WP:SOCK is strong in this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have an accusation to make then please put it through the official channels... I would welcome the scrutiny if hopes of a nice apology I can polish monthly. Publicly suggesting a user is SockPuppet would fall under Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless PeterWesco (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• Sorry if we're wrong, but Wikipedia:History strongly suggests a newbie who goes straight to AfD and knows all the WP: links isn't a newbie. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears I am going to have a trophy, a page of my own, and my name in lights then :) It should be a testament to the ease of use of Wikipedia and the documentation available. Although the AfD did take me an hour or so to get right, but I have the hang of it now. As I stated originally, research me, I will even fax you all of my details... in hopes that my new Wikipedia page will start with, "I thought he was a SockPuppet" PeterWesco (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment. It is accepted as a news site to which subscriptions are taken as well. The editors and reporters on its staff are professions from established publications in the market for many years and the publication is taking the place of one of them, as it ceases to fill the role it had for years since it was acquired by an out of state chain that is using the old publication as a coupon distribution rag.

• Keep. It is a sound and professional publication with established editors and reporters who have served the market for many years. Their coverage of the communities in the market matches or exceeds paper publications in that market. Daily publications since its premier add up to a significant body of work to qualify it as notable. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are only allowed to !vote once. As you have !voted keep above I've struck the bolding here to avoid confusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry... considered that a comment with discussion of my intent to vote later. Are you sure my vote will not be overlooked? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bold 'keep' made it a !vote. No worries, it'll be counted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—Because WP:ILIKEIT. And because there is one (actually 1.2 if you count the Q & A with the dude separately; they're on separate pages of the print edition) reliable source that discusses it. In some cases this is enough to meet the GNG, and I think this is one of them. And I like it.Yes, I know that WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid. I habitually seek out things that are to be avoided.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Seeking out things that are to be avoided' could be argued as WP:POINTy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, that part was a joke; that's why I made it small. I'm serious about this comment, but I'm making it small because it's of little consequence. My keep was serious enough.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, sorry. The approaching hurricane has amputated my sense of humor, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think, of course, nothing of it. Good luck with the hurricane!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarity: I am neutral on the keep/divide of this article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we "allowed" to be neutral nominators? Sounds like you're hedging your bets. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I considered it pretty much a procedural nomination, since the PROD was removed but everybody was still saying it needed to be prodded or AfD'd. So I grasped the nettle when the prod was removed. That said, it's also fence-sitting as the sources found might meet the GNG, but I want to see more before "changing" to keep! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral nominations for the sake of procedure are appropriate when they're helpful. In this case, the question of deletion got a bit of discussion at WP:ANI, so the removal of the prod meant that this really needed to be brought to AFD instead of being left alone. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the prod, and might well have taken it to AfD myself (procedurally), if I didn't find setting up an AfD to be quite laborious. The removal wasn't because I thought the article was obviously keepable, but because I thought its degree of unkeepability (?) went beyond PRODding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You should try Twinkle and avoid having to follow the Wikipedia-tedious instructions (I used to hate them).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. The "spoof" section needs to be removed since it concerns a very ephemeral incident with no encyclopedic significance (until independent WP:SECONDARY sources say otherwise). The rest of the article describes a "news and commentary source" that is available for free on a website or by email—there are thousands of such "news" letters, and no reason to believe this one is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Our only real objections to the page were inaccuracies about the first publish date (April 13th), the actual date of weekly publication (June 15th) and the spoof story, which is not news - as observed - of encyclopedic significance. But our publication is not intended to be one of thousands of news letters. It always was planned to be a published, standalone publication "printed" to virtual platforms (iPads, iPhones, Kindles, Nooks, etc. and a PDF-based online reader), with content available only to subscribers (although subscriptions will be free). Our apps for iPad and iPhone will be available in the Apple App Store within two weeks, and we expect to publish our first standalone edition either on September 7th or 14th (depending on when the app is available for download). Our virtual publisher is Tecnavia, which publishes most of the iPad/virtual editions of major newspapers in the USA. The blog version was simply an ad hoc transitional medium whilst the official publication was created, and will be phased out as a place to publish news within 30 days of publishing the standalone edition. We will be one of the few such publications in the United States, publishing traditionally laid-out content only to a virtual medium, rather than on a desiccated emulsion of ground-up tree parts. Since Newsweek's owner, Barry Diller, has said Newsweek is going to virtual-only publication within months, and the New York Times predicts virtual-only publication within 2-3 years, we do not believe we will be the last. Our thanks to all for their input.Afahmasp (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so it's clear, Afahmasp states he is the president and co-founder of the Sarasota News Leader ([9]).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Without the spoof story, now removed from the article, I don't actually like it any more and will change to delete if the material actually can't be kept for some policy-based reason. I left a note about this on the article's talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support reinstating the copy on the spoof also. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that alf supports reinstatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do support reinstating hoax but not interview, I just thought that the article talk page was a more appropriate place to discuss it. Without the hoax material, this is a clear delete, since that's the only mention of the website in a reliable source and if we're forbidden from mentioning it for some policy-based reason, there are no usable sources for the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there are policy reasons for not including material. However, many times there are other legitimate reasons for not including material such as guidelines and WP:CONSENSUS. Even assuming the hoax material were reinserted, why would one item be sufficient to make the article notable?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that usually one item is not sufficient, but in this case, because I like the hoax so much (and I do know about WP:ILIKEIT), I thought I'd just argue that one source was enough, as I explained in my keep upstairs there. In reality, I fully expect this to be deleted. That will make me sad. I will deal with it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're very entertaining.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I also left a comment on the article's talk page, wherein I questioned the veracity of the "interview" (in which I was the interviewee).Afahmasp (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do I get the feeling that if this article is kept, there will be constant interference in the maintenance of the article by editors with conflicts?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but that can be dealt with through ordinary editing. It happens all the time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it happens "all the time" is an overstatement. It happens. I have no idea how frequently. Sometimes when an article has borderline notability - and whether that's true is up to the closing admin after this discusssion is complete - such problems may tip the balance in favor of deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is nothing to be gained from protracting the issue by the interviewer and it will be left alone. Ordinary editing should suffice. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afahmasp is doing as I asked and is using the talk page and not editing the article, which is what we ask COI editors to do. I don't see a problem there. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There being no discussion following for some time, I have been bold, reinstating the copy about the spoof e-mail since some of the voters express their desires to retain it and the details about the founding staff. I think some of it explains the reason the publication was founded, and therefore, is relevant to its history._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I was not aware that it was such a problem, but why eliminate all of the other copy about why they founded the publication?_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand now about the details of the interview being challenged. Are you aware, however, that an article about the spoof e-mail was published on the front page of the paper that published the interview? Sorry, I had not posted any of the copy related to the interview when it was introduced to the article, I simply was reinstating what had been deleted. Noting the spoof and the publication of the "news" article about the spoof would merely relating historical facts. Perhaps discussion of reinstating some should be discussed further. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of reinstating sections that were printed in a legitimate newspaper notwithstanding (and the veracity of which are questioned), I would like to go on record as opposing any entry that purports to know "the reason the publication was founded." There are only two people privy to those reasons, and neither of us has revealed those reasons to any publication that can serve as a legitimate source. However, there will be information published in at least one respectable publication in the coming weeks that will shed more light on the publication, its owners, and the reasons why we founded it. If this article has not been deleted by then, I will ensure reliable editors provide that information, properly cited.Afahmasp (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (I'm going to try this again on a different line) Delete - Not only is there a lack of significant coverage as required by WP:GNG, there is no coverage in reliable sources independent of the Sarasota News Leader subject, probably because the website began publication on April 13, 2012 and the publication merely is online. The website notes, "The Sarasota News Leader" and "The Progressive Voice of Southwest Florida" are trademarks of New Sheriff Publishing. Neither The Progressive Voice of Southwest Florida nor New Sheriff Publishing meet WP:GNG. I searched for SarasotaNewsLeader.com and didn't find any WP:GNG source material for that, either. The website's editor, Rachel Brown Hackney, has a few WP:GNG hits --[10][11][12] -- but it's not enough source material from which to write a Wikipedia biography article. Nothing published by the website has every been cited within Wikipedia.[13] I don't have any other ideas on how to get information about Sarasota News Leader into Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure this helps, but the website's virtual publisher, Tecnavia, might meet WP:GNG and Dr. Robert S. Hackney, the president and co-founder of The Sarasota News Leader,[14] a certified relationship coach and counselor, and author of the 2007 book The Avatar Syndrome, might eventually meet WP:GNG.[15]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like Stan I.S. Law came out with The Avatar Syndrome in November 2006,[16][17] about a year before Robert S. Hackney's book of the same name. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are reliable independent sources covering the Sarasota News Leader. The Observer gave it front page coverage on August 16, 2012 with its article that was cited here previously [18] that could be cited to fulfill that requirement. An interview that was published later by the Observer about the subject of its own article has been challenged by the subject as being inaccurately reported and professionally unethical, but that was a separate story. I concur with declining to note the later, but believe that including information about the former, the initial story on the spoof e-mail, ought to be allowed back into our article—especially since it is a recognized independent source. I think that could be worked out easily to the satisfaction of our standards. Even if it is not, however, undeniable independent source information exists for our purposes in evaluating the notability of the publication. The choice to note it is ours, but not noting it in our article may not qualify as a lack of its existence. There are many blog and club newsletters that cite the new publication (can cite them if necessary). Its professional reporters have many years of acceptance in the market it serves, removing it from consideration as an upstart without any history. A move of well-know professionals into a new collaboration in a market is noteworthy in itself. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A move of well-know professionals into a new collaboration in a market is noteworthy in itself. I'd like to point out that this is not the case per our general notability guidelines. And notability is also not inherited. Even if we had a page on Tecnavia that wouldn't merit having an article on the News Leader simply because the publications uses Tecnavia as a platform. And last but not least, notability is finally established by multiple reliable sources reporting about a subject (excluding most blogs and newsletters). The Observer may repeatedly have covered the News Leader but that alone is still insufficient. We should at least have two independent sources with in-depth coverage. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I incorrectly thought that the above AfD discussion was about the Wikipedia article containing a spoof such that the Wikipedia article was the originator of the prank issue material. I'll take another look at the topic in view of the source to which you linked. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There are only two sources for the Sarasota News Leader topic and they both are at the same link:

• 1. Article entitled "E-news outlet targets the Pelican Press with fake story",[19] and
• 2. Interview "Q & A with Robert Hackney" general manager of the Sarasota News Leader (as an attachment to the bottom of "E-news outlet targets the Pelican Press with fake story").[20].

• Background on the story: Basically, Pelican Press News Editor Alex Mahadevan is the former boss/co-worker of several employees at Sarasota News Leader. Mahadevan alone received a hoax email, apparently from someone at the Sarasota News Leader, which claimed that Donald Trump planned a 50-story Trump Tower in the local county. The local County Commissioner noted, "Anyone who has heard about this fake story should know that no zoning would accommodate such a tower."[21] It seems likely that Pelican Press News Editor Mahadevan knows such zoning in the county in which he works. "Via interviews with others who had received the e-edition, Mahadevan learned that he alone had received a News Leader edition that was different than all of the others’ e-editions."[22] Sarasota News Leader competitor Mahadevan generate news by calling a variety of public officials, one of whom was on vacation.[23] Someone at the Sarasota News Leader competitor yourobserver.com somehow pick up the story and posted it to a webpage. Someone at the Sarasota News Leader competitor yourobserver.com also posted comments from a general manager at the Sarasota News Leader editor below the yourobserver.com webpost.
• The sources fail WP:RS: Both sources have significant problems from Wikipedia's perspective. Contrary to what is being presented, the source material is not from the Sarasota Observer. Instead, it is from yourobserver.com. As an online website, publisher yourobserver.com is not fixed in traditional printed format and there's no indication that this less-established outlet has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by Wikipedia's reliable source criteria (WP:RS). There is no indication that the piece of work itself received any editorial oversight and an archived copy of the media does not exist as required by WP:RS. WP:RS also notes: Care should be taken with sources that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. In this case, the direct or indirect cooperative efforts by two news competitors of the Sarasota News Leader to sensationalize an email sought to provoke public interest and excitement at the expense of accuracy. WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. In no way does the yourobserver.com story or its attached interview qualify as Wikipedia Reliable Sources.
• Use of the source material: - The yourobserver.com webpage post itself has little information that can be added to the Sarasota News Leader article. Most of the yourobserver.com article is about Pelican Press News Editor Alex Mahadevan and would only be of value in a Wikipedia article on Alex Mahadevan. The opinion quotes in the story are not reliable for statements of fact, and that leaves maybe one or two sentences of information from which to develop a Wikipedia article on the Sarasota News Leader. As for the Interview "Q & A with Robert Hackney," the statements made by general manager of the Sarasota News Leader Robert Hackney in that interview are not independent of the Sarasota News Leader subject and do not belong in the Sarasota News Leader Wikipedia article.

-- In view of the above and my own search (see my crossed out post above), the topic lacks any reliable source material and fails WP:GNG. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:36, 3 September 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 Ai Weiwei. Merge can take place using sources in article history  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fake Case[edit]

The Fake Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The website has no significance other than it is a means for its owner to draw attention to his tax dispute with the government. The fact that he has a website does not require a separate article; this can easily be included in the biographical article Ai Weiwei. Senator2029 • talk 20:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above argument. This really isn't notable outside of Ai Weiwei himself. The artist is notable, but this website is not. This just needs to be redirected.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Not independently notable of Ai Weiwei. Content best handled by merge. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 27 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Simko[edit]

Peter Simko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX. He had a professional record of 2 wins and 39 losses and a one sentence mention in an article about a javelin thrower (the only source) does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He does fail the boxer notability guidelines. dci | TALK 21:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh... Nahh Mofo[edit]

Nahh... Nahh Mofo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article appears to be hoax; only Google reference is one Wordpress blog. ⁓ Hello71 18:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• While Facebook isn't a reliable source, the MelvinVanPeebleswidLaxative facebook page, which seems to have a bit of a following, posted that "The cat is out of the bag! Melvin Van Peebles released a new album for his 80th birthday party earlier this week, on vinyl only! There are still some copies available at a special (Van Peebles-decided!) price and pending (Van Peebles) approval, particularly looking for DJ types and such ..." It may just be an incredibly limited release vinyl (as the page implies)... or just a complete hoax. I'll keep hunting. Theopolisme _:) 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. May not be a hoax, but I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 03:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gongshow - regardless of hoax or not, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Theopolisme 11:09, 27 August 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. Good debate, but it seems the rough consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 04:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Pop[edit]

Woody Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Old Sega game which does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Currently sourced with unreliable and/or tertiary sources only. Nothing particularly significant about it (vis-a-vis NSOFT). Google and GNews yield no notable sources at first glance, GScholar yields a few trivial mentions in game guides. BenTels (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unless you look through magazine archives you're unlikely to find relevant sources for 20 year old console games on the web. Like virtually all official and mainstream console releases of the period this will have been reviewed in numerous multi-format and sega-focused magazines. The Amiga Magazine Rack, despite being dedicated to an entirely different system, does confirm the existence of two such reviews, one of which is viewable online. Here's another magazine scan I just found. Those are just the ones that quickly came up. Three reviews should cover notability, though there's no way on earth that those represent the only reviews out there, newsagent shelves were bursting with game magazines at that point (they still are to a lesser extent). Someoneanother 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not trying to be offensive or anything... but I'm not exactly sure those reviews amount to in-depth coverage. Moreover, if and when you read those reviews, they both confirm that this game is just a clone of Breakout and therefore seem to contradict the idea of its notability. -- BenTels (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether they count as in-depth coverage or not is for you to decide, but whether the game is a Breakout clone or a 'how many Cadbury Fingers can I fit in a goose' simulator has no bearing on notability. Notability is secondary coverage, not importance or originality. I did read the reviews, but I didn't need them to tell me what it was, as soon as I saw the name appear on the AFD list a picture of the game's cover appeared in my mind's eye, comes from more than 2 decades of gaming. Again, looking at the two reviews which have randomly been uploaded does not indicate the level of coverage available, games costing £30-£60 (when a pound was worth something) did not pass by without the gaggle of gaming magazines then in print reviewing them. Trust me. Someoneanother 12:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • One further thought regarding the need for in-depth coverage, per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Also per WP:NRVE "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." We have 3 reviews, each is beyond a trivial mention, to me that's enough irrespective of any further reviews which will be locked in magazines. Someoneanother 13:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I disagree with you that being a clone is not relevant. The criterion for inclusion is not coverage, it is notability (i.e. "worthiness of notice"). Coverage in secondary sources (i.e. the WP:GNG) is a tool that creates the presumption but not the guarantee of notability based on the number of available sources. In this case the contents of the sources you have cited are, in my estimation, saying that the game is not notable, since it is simply a clone of another game. At best I would say this game could be mentioned in the Breakout (video game) article as a clone, but I do not see enough notability to warrant an article of its own. -- BenTels (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at your point about clones again, I see why that term in particular could be a deal-breaker, but I think you need to take on board that in video gaming terminology 'clone' has two meanings. In the (good?) old days there were literal clones, games reverse-engineered or just built from the ground-up to resemble the original as much as possible. Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids and Space Invaders were all heavily cloned, for instance. The other type of clone is one in which the game has obviously been inspired by an earlier title, which applies to the vast majority of games which borrow aspects of earlier games or share near-identical gameplay but have different graphics/plots. Because video games are primarily grouped by gameplay style rather than plot or setting (as in most mediums), it makes these comparisons much easier to make. The sub-genre for this style of game is actually called Breakout clone here on WP, so even though 'clone' can be used in a negative way it is also used to define genres of games, as it is in both of the viewable reviews. Someoneanother 11:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Care to expand? It's not a vote, and there are a lot of concerns with the nomination and the nominator's rationale... Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 27 August 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) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Someoneanother's arguments. Clone or not, it's an officially released game for the Sega Genesis, it had coverage in print media back in the day. The article's in terrible shape, but what matters is that coverage is out there, not the article's particular current state. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article's shape is not at issue, the notability of the game is. And available sources so far either do not establish or simply contradict notability. -- BenTels (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, for starters, can you explain to me why you don't accept the review from a hard-copy magazine show by the scan above? A published magazine that does a review dedicated specifically toward reviewing a single game just about always counts toward the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do accept them -- those are the ones whose contents I feel contradict notability of this software. Those sources classify this software as a clone, a copy of something that already exists. That is not notable. Fine for a remark in the article about the cloned software, but not notable enough for an article of its own. And I'm not saying WP:GNG has not been met, I'm saying that in this case it doesn't help. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your understanding of the GNG is not quite right. What establishes notability isn't whether or reliable sources call it original or a clone. It's whether or not it covers it in significant detail. It doesn't matter what the magazine's feelings are on the game, it's the fact that they decided to cover the game, and feature detailed reviews dedicated to the subject. Nothing you said in the comment above trumps the fact that it was covered in detail by magazines around the time of it's release. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that the mere act of a source calling something a clone means that the topic is not notable. If this game was briefly mentioned in an article about breakout and only mentioned that the game was a clone there may be a case but I do believe that a subject becomes notable if it is reviewed by reliable sources even if those sources mention that the game is a clone.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being worthy of notice is established by looking at whether coverage in reliable sources exist, and not by the opinions of editors. Coverage of games from that era are very likely to be offline, but the sourcing above provides evidence of coverage and there is likely more if one were to dig through paper (or possibly microfiche). -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are saying in the first line is incorrect, as WP:GNG does not establish notability -- read point 4 about the meaning of presumed. The offline sources you refer to (cited above) show the presumption of GNG to be incorrect in this case. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not idea what you are trying to articulate in your argument. Barring other issues, coverage in reliable sources does establish notability. There are other guidelines which we take into consideration that counteract this such as WP:NOT (especially not news), and WP:BLP1E, but none of these apply in this case. I see no guideline or policy that indicates that works derived from others cannot be notable. I'll also point out that the game is not a straight copy. I'll also point out that we have separate articles for Breakout and Arkanoid. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Someoneanother's research. Disagree with BenTels' personal notability criteria. - hahnchen 17:28, 27 August 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_State_Assembly_elections,_2012#District_28. Per MelanieN and PRESERVE. If he wins, restoring the article will be easier this way.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Walsh[edit]

Chad Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this biography on grounds "No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria." The Prod was removed by an IP. The references in the article establish that the subject works as a lawyer, also lectures at a School of Law and is a political candidate. However none of these looks sufficiently substantial to meet the Notability guidelines, whether as WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN, so I am bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His only claim to fame seems to be that he was a trustee of a community college and that he's a political candidate. If he wins his election, whoever wrote this could always ask for undeletion. ALH (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable - Wikipedia:Usual Caveats PeterWesco (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom.--Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge to California State Assembly elections, 2012#District 28 per usual practice for political candidates who are not otherwise notable. WP:POLITICIAN says "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this (notability) guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." At least he did make it into the November general election. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 27 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Delmay[edit]

Todd_Delmay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A BLP with no independent reliable sources present; all applied sources are connected or press releases. A reasonable search for online sources finds nothing which meets WP:IRS. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I used the NewPagesFeed tool to create this procedure, and I've notified the developers there about the underscore glitch in this nomination text. Nothing to fix in pagespace and no reason to change this procedure, since it shouldn't affect the outcome or searches for sources. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that this was previously PRODded by me, and a new user account removed the prod without explanation. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not seem to meet WP:GNG. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I previously added notability tags to this article (removed earlier today by a new WP:SPA editor along with the Prod notice) and flagged various claims in this biography as the text that seemed to boost his role in the "Building The Ultimate Network" book far above the evidence I can find on Amazon. I can see no evidence of the subject having achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination. Maybe if one day he achieves something meeting WP:BLP WP:N,maybe; other than that he is just a man doing a job. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Claims for being a best-selling author are based on Amazon it would appear. As for the Editr's Choice Award, I can't find any indication as to what that actually is. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 27 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agora Philosophical Forum[edit]

Agora Philosophical Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This looks like an irrelevant topic and promotion for the philosophy/organisation. It lacks a normal wiki-layout as well btw. Any thoughts? Trijnstel_talk 16:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any independent indication of this group's notability. The only semi-independent source I can find is the University of Toronto After-class page (which has basically the same text as on the Wikipedia page btw). So while wishing them well, that's not enough to support a Wikipedia page. (Layout was mentioned above: that of course is matter for normal editing rather than AfD). AllyD (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added the article to the WP:PHILO scope, in case anyone there might have evidence or opinions on the Forum. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Many of these kinds of setups going on. Not generally notable--Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 August 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. Consensus seems to be a weak keep, so feel free to nominate this again if it doesn't get improved within the next month or so. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Austin[edit]

James H. Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Appears to be non-notable. Moreover, article is written in an advert-like manner. ⁓ Hello71 15:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. At first view, the GScholar results are very impressive. At second view, it looks as if the GScholar results may be combining two or more JH Austins, the subject of this article and one or more others from several decades ago (the 1950s to 1970s). However, even if they are, three of the subject's books show citation rates of 524, 143 and 80 - high enough to suggest not only significant academic impact but, given their relatively non-technical nature, a possibility that he meets WP:AUTHOR. That accounts for my "weak keep". As it happens, a quick look at what is visible of the subject's own books seems to confirm the identity of the subject with the author of at least a significant proportion of the older highly-cited papers - if this can be confirmed from reliable sources not connected with the subject, notability is, I think, unquestionable. While the current article certainly is written rather like an advert, we seem to have grounds for a thorough rewrite rather than deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep Agree with PWilkinson that the article needs a major rewrite, with more emphasis on his academic career, but he does appear to have a claim of notability. His books are published by the MIT Press and at least one has gone into multiple editions. Zen and the Brain was reviewed by JAMA although it is now a bad link. [24] If the article is kept, I suggest that the article about the book Zen and the Brain be redirected here; we don't need articles on both. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 29 August 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. Keep and improve, and then we'll see how it goes :) SarahStierch (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Hyderabad[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Hyderabad does not have a significant number of high-rise buildings and the subject of the article lacks sources. Secret of success (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve this relatively new article per WP:NRVE. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. There's also significant precedent for these types of articles on Wikipedia. For starters, see this search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that sources were not available in searches and not in the article. There may be other cities having a similar article, but we require sources to establish notability, and they are not available. Secret of success (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google web search does not give any reliable sources on the topic. Secret of success (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.There are plenty of high rises in Hyderabad as you can see in the updated list and also there are many more under construction, approved or proposed.This city is all set to become a skyscraper hot spot and this is a nice page tracking its development.Also its a fast developing city.So many more skyscrapers will come in near future,we all should keep some patience. Therefore,this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnmolSingh0019 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true, but we require reliable sources to establish notability, and since they do not exist, the article fails WP:GNG. Secret of success (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The list is constructed by sorting through a few commercial websites and ordering the buildings by height - clearly original research. The sources are not reliable sources and there may be many more, possibly higher, buildings even assuming the sources are accurate. Meaningless and possibly misleading list. --regentspark (comment) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Tough Call, but I don't find any strong reason to believe that the source "emporis.com" is not reliable. Also, the source used in this article has also been extensively used in List of tallest buildings in Mumbai. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis appears to have copied a lot of content from Wikipedia, like in this page. It doesn't look like an RS to me. Secret of success (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify that anything in the page you mentioned has been copied from Wikipedia. Copied from which article? --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis is a commercial enterprise and is unlikely to have done the sort of fact checking necessary for reliability. It does not qualify as a reliable source. Also, it is useful to note that commercial enterprises report information selectively, thus any list that relies on this site is likely to be incorrect. A list of this sort is useless if other taller buildings are missing from it. --regentspark (comment) 13:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Can you tell us which tall buildings are not included in this list,if there are any. This is a nice and complete article which should not be deleted.Lazyboyanmol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is the reliability of sources, and not the omission of data from the list. Since the sources are not reliable, the article does not pass the general notability guideline. Secret of success (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. References used here are from Emporis and Skyscrapercity which are most reliable sources available on net about any skyscraper.Also, Emporis does not copy anything from anywhere and data available on Skyscrapercity is the outcome of extensive research and hard work of forumers. No one can doubt that. References from these resources are used on every 'List of tallest buildings' page available on Wikipedia.This means you have to delete all that pages. Nothing on this list is copied from any commercial website.I don't understand what reliable sources you are asking for.You can give me the name of website and i will try to find some sources from there also. AnmolSingh0019 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking repeated vote by User. Secret of success (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Emporis is not a commercial website. This is also used as primary source in List of tallest buildings in New York City.AnmolSingh0019 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• References from Skyscraperpage have also been added now.Lazyboyanmol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 1 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Rotation Vane CRV[edit]

Cheng Rotation Vane CRV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I cannot establish notability by looking for "Cheng Rotation Vane" at Google News and Scholars. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete A decade-old item that doesn't seem to have made much of a splash in the long run. It's hard not to conclude that the highly promotional article was made on behalf of the manufacturer, as evidenced by all the OTRS tags for presumably corporate-supplied images. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same editor created a number of articles related to Dah Yu Cheng—all of them having the same problems. Dah Yu Cheng article is nominated for deletion but probably also Cheng cycle and CLN (technology) should be nominated. Beagel (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cheng cycle is a real thing that shows up in the literature; however the self-promotional character of the article is an issue. I'm heading over to WP:COI/N now. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable and spammy. ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 27 August 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. No policy-based consensus to delete/merge/keep this now. WP:PERSISTENCE may determine whether the article is renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)[edit]

Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, especially given that the first sentence admits this work is "of little artistic importance." The news item is already mentioned on the artist's page, which is enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the time being with a view to merging. The state of the painting does raise questions regarding restoration. -Alan (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not convinced that WP:NOTNEWS necessarily mandates deletion in cases like this. Let's give the article some time to be fleshed out. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In a nutshell : Articles in other languages, comments of notable artists of the story as a work of art (e.g. Alex de la Iglesia), internet phenomenon. Keeping track of the article will make reference to it easier in the longer term (especially as the primary sources will be harder to find later). To my knowledge, it is the first time a notable and documented error by an amateur artist draws so much attention and becomes a work of art in itself. Plus it is no longer just the work of Elias Garcia Martinez but also of Cecilia Gimenez (debunking the "reference to the work on the artist page" argument). Many reasons to keep it as an article imho. Loizbec (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Loizbec --82.170.113.123 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Elías García Martínez. Yes, it's funny and got a lot of coverage on the Internet, but it's not a particularly notable painting, and doesn't need its own article. Robofish (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Elías García Martínez. It is a non notable work by a not so notable painter. Everyone agrees the painting is of little artistic value. Lechatjaune (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because extensive news coverage makes it notable even if the event has no intrinsic importance, c.f. Balloon boy hoax. 98.112.153.79 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Elías García Martínez. It is a non notable work by a not so notable painter. The painting also rose to notoriety due to its restoration attempt. --Pinnecco (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Loizbec. Per WP:EVENT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." Most coverage in RS is in Spanish so far, but there are serious in-depth articles in English. Time will tell if this has enduring notability. Contra Lechatjaune, the picture is agreed to have no technical merit, but it is artistically remarkable nonetheless. --Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, especially not merge. The fresco (especially in its current shape) has already got more popular than the creator. I was surprised that just about all my international friends knew of the incident, only the death of Steve Jobb's seemed to be more well-known, and while popularity will normalize after a surge, it's rather naive after it hit thousands of newspapers [25] that it would simply go away forever. Universities have expressed sociological interest, there's a petition almost ready to go for keeping the fresco as is [26], it's hit internet culture and fans created parodies like this [27] and a game [28]. Love it or hate it, it's notable.--Razionale (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the notability of the painting is rocketing daily due to the botched job and there are now petitions to keep the painting on display. Definitely worth having an article on. --His Lordship,The Count of Tuscany (you wish to address his honor?) 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough. Husky ^{(talk page)} 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It would be insane not to keep this article and separate, it has become worldwide news. texastame 22:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.16.162 (talk) [reply]
• Keep and redirect Cecilia Gimenez to this. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its notoriety is increasing tenfold with each day that passes. It's also been reported worldwide. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is the most famous restoration I have heard of. --Fluffystar (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also a lot of coverage in the news of notable and reliable German media, like Spiegel Online and so on. --Fluffystar (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• why "especially given that the first sentence admits this work is "of little artistic importance."" is supposed to be valid argument? Bulwersator (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Loizbec. --Jeffrey Henning (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was actually in the original 4chan thread where the image-macros started, so It'll have to be yes I guess. - Another n00b (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pretty clear cut case of WP:IMPATIENTLYAFDSOMETHINGASSOONASITGOESVIRAL. Merging discussions belong on the article's talk page, not at AFD. It's pretty obvious that this information is verifiable and notable and should be mentioned somewhere, but I would also oppose merging per Razionale's razionale. - filelakeshoe 13:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin Note that many of these !keeps don't address the nomination reason; yes it's in the news now, but will it have lasting notability? Probably not. "I've heard of it" and "my friends have heard of it" are not WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of reliable sources that meet WP:GNG - Ohnotitsjamie comment above ("I've heard of it" and "my friends have heard of it" are not WP:GNG criteria. ) is therefore disingenous. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, since this is not routine news by any means. I thought about merging, but the painting and related incident received much coverage per se independently from the author, as Razionale mentioned. --Cyclopia^talk 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepNow it's most known the picture than the artist--Madalino (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have many sources from newspaper around the globe and the painting itself is more famous that the artist who made the original. There's no debate here Mr. Administrator, this painting is notable.Deltasama (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is about the painting, its origin, and its recent restoration. Bouncing those topics off the GNG criteria, the article seems satisfactory: those topics have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and can be verified. --Ds13 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The painting is notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:04, 1 September 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 Tabitha King. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small World (novel)[edit]

Small World (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG (nonnotable novel/story) Curb Chain (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tabitha King. There are probably more sources for this than the few I was able to find, but since this was published before the whole "put news articles on the Internet" thing even got started it's going to be incredibly difficult to find sources. The author herself is notable apart from her husband (despite it being up for AfD), so a redirect to her article would suffice.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:07, 18 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect to Tabitha King, per WP:NBOOK. No sourced content to merge, just an WP:OR spoiler. Valid search term for book which may be notable per printed sources yet to be found and not available online. -- Trevj (talk) 13:55, 31 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Atef[edit]

Nelly Atef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Failed to find enough reliable sources for this singer. PROD was removed by an IP (an IPv6 no less). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Versions of this person's biography already seem to have been through the round of CSD, Prod and now AfD in the past 2 days. And so too has the French Wikipedia: [29]. No evidence of notability; she may have a great career ahead of her but at best this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 19 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:49, 26 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlina Osta[edit]

Pavlina Osta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

It had a CSD tag on it, but doesn't qualify. There is some local news coverage but most of the sources are not reliable and the article seems to be spam written by a marketing firm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Fails WP: NMUSIC and I can't find any reliable sources about her on the Internet. Electric Catfish 14:09, 23 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:52, 26 August 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 abducted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Dome of the Rock UFO incident[edit]

Jerusalem Dome of the Rock UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article about an event that a) fails WP:NEVENTS and b) has been shown not to have occurred. Sources run afoul of WP:SENSATION. I'd also call it a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER except that... well... to call it news... BenTels (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply not notable, in accordance with the nominator's impeccable reasoning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I see no irony whatsoever in having a purported UFO incident occurring over a holy site. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I find it interesting and News Archive list from January 2011 to present has a number of good WP:RS stories on this, including CBS, MSNBC, Telegraph, The Sun, Washington Post, (some with two or three stories). I heard of it at the time and one of more notable sitings. If no one else beefs up article, I might. Also: Here's a story about a channel 10 Israel investigation showing it was a hoax. (I'm sure more searching will find better links to that and other similar sources.) CarolMooreDC 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this coverage is fine for wikinews, but it doesn't really indicate the topic is truly notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Videos posted on YouTube purporting to be evidence of a UFO incident are not an "incident." They are simply videos that have gotten attention in the press. These are not notable enough for their own article - but perhaps a summary can be added to List of Internet phenomena. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are either primary videos, or fail the "Slow News Day" caveat at WP:FRINGE. Even with more sources, I would question whether this particular UFO sighting merits a stand-alone article. At best, it might be mentioned in passing in one of the other, broader UFO related article... but the sourcing would have to be significantly improved even for that. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just not of note for an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best it could be in a List of fake Youtube videos, but then that article might end up overloading the WP servers, it would get so big. In other words, this particular youtube video isn't notable. First Light (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that this hoax has any enduring historical significance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Complete nonsense. There are endless examples of these things. Apparently UFOs appeared at the opening of the Olympics too [30] [31]. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 29 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Card Services[edit]

Alpha Card Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non notable very small fniancial services company company the awards are local only, and do not seem to actually represent any significant accomplishment. Basically, a violation of NOT DIRECTORY, DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alpha card services was recognized by inc magazine as one of the fastest growing companies in America 6 years consecutively( one of only 10 companies honored as such. They were also rated as one of the top 150 credit card processors in the world by the Nielsen report for 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.35.190 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 August 2012‎
• Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: The following details and sources have been added to the Alpha Card Services wikipedia page:

According to a March 2012 Nilson Report, Alpha Card Services was ranked as the 60th largest merchant acquirer in the United States.[13]

According to an October 2011 Nilson Report, Alpha Card Services was ranked as the 143rd largest acquirer in the world.[14]

As of 2011, Alpha Card Services was listed as one of Inc. Magazine’s 500 I 5000 fastest growing privately held companies in the United States for five consecutive years.[15]

2007 - Inc 500 I 5000 company listing #99[16]

2008 - Inc 500 I 5000 company listing #292[17]

2009 - Inc 500 I 5000 company listing #416[18]

2010 - Inc 500 I 5000 company listing #1328[19]

2011 - Inc 500 I 5000 company listing #1644[20]

2012 - Inc 500 I 5000 company listing #2564

Alpha Card Service has been listed in Philadelphia Business Journal’s Top 100 consecutively since 2007 [21].

2007 - Philadelphia 100 company listing #6[22]

2008 - Philadelphia 100 company listing #11[23]

2009 - Philadelphia 100 company listing #50[24]

2010 - Philadelphia 100 company listing #42[25]

2011 - Philadelphia 100 company listing #57[26]

An article was just added and establishes notability. source is credible and has a wiki page The founder was interviewed by Crissa Shoemaker DeBree staff writter for Calkins_Media which owns 8 news papers and 3 television stations. The article Success through Service details Lazaros Kalemis' upbringing, Alpha Card Services business history, growth, and phylospohy, and future plans. http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/money/success-through-service/article_08067bf3-9b51-548c-89c2-dd04e53f4e64.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlauer1865 (talk • contribs) 13 August 2012‎ and expanded by 173.49.38.20 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 August 2012‎

• KEEP: this company seems to be a national company with great growth. Making the inc magazine list is notable. Ranking as one of the top 150 companies in an industry in the world would be notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.38.20 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 August 2012‎

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment - the majority of the sources in the article are primary sources and trivial mentions. However, two of the sources that are in the article appear to have potential for establishing notability, although I'm not familiar with either publication. These two are: http://greensheet.com/company_profiles.php?flag=display_profile&id=417 and http://www.electran.org/trends/2011/Dec/TT%20Dec%202011.pdf (neither publication appears to have Wikipedia articles of their own - it's not a requirement that they have one of course; but it would have made it easier to research the editorial quality of those sources). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 24 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:38, 25 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ComicsAlliance[edit]

ComicsAlliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is just a random blog, a clear fact that this article has been trying to hide (I've since added the word "blog" to it), and the blog consists almost entirely of misc. opinion columns by a few regular but non-notable contributors. I'm highly skeptical that this is notable enough for an article here, per WP:N generally and WP:WEBSITE more specifically. It cites four so-called sources.

1. The first source is just site database information from Alexa, and does nothing to establish notability, nor verifiability of much of anything in the article (one might as well quote whois records).
2. The second is the site itself, so it does nothing to establish notability, nor verifiability of anything other than who the site editor is.
3. The third is a dead link, and would be a copyright violation if it actually worked (like everything else ripped from TV shows and posted to sites like YouTube and AOL's YouTube-wannabe), and thus is worthless either way. It's about a contributor, anyway, not the site (the site cannot inherit notability from an allegedly notable contributor).
4. The fourth would-be source failed verification; the page no longer mentions anything about the 2010 and 2011 Eisner Awards. While a usable version can probably be pulled from Wayback, it's a moot point anyway, since a simple nomination for (vs. the actual winning of) a notable award does not confer notability to the nominee.
5. Notability is not heritable hierarchically, either; being "part of AOL's Asylum network of websites" does not automatically confer any level of notability.
6. Finally, an Alexa ranking in the 18,000s, for a topic as overwhelmingly and globally popular as comics, speaks for itself. It's an interesting site, but that doesn't make it a good Wikipedia article subject. It may well become notable enough for an article at some point. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no coverage. HighBeam also turned up only two sentences of coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 18 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:37, 25 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icon (Hole album)[edit]

Icon (Hole album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Despite being listed on Amazon and CD Universe almost two years ago, this album was never released and there is not enough information to meet WP:NALBUMS. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 20:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreleased album with no confirmed track listing or release date. No significant coverage found, either. This does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 16:19, 20 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Non-notable album, as it was never released. I for one can't wait to hear the latest noises from Courtney Love's Hole. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:52, 25 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Photoreceptor[edit]

Electronic Photoreceptor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Completely unreferenced, seems to consist mostly of dicdef and short summaries of other articles we have. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 20:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 19 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete A dubious rename for a few items that already have article. North8000 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research 2602:306:39E1:C830:9948:91B0:32AA:C927 (talk) 04:15, 27 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassey Ho[edit]

Cassey Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Subject's notability is dubious, and poorly supported by sources / external links. Most of these are primary sources, e.g. blogs created by or closely linked to the subject, and as such are probably not reliable.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I don't see the blog interviews as necessarily associated with the subject, but that doesn't make them reliable. It seems like she is indeed gathering the sort of attention that could create significant 3rd party coverage, and YouTube personalities' fame does tend to grow exponentially after some point, but as of now there's really too little to satisfy notability, and simply not enough to justify a WP:BLP — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 13 August 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,  HueSatLum 23:06, 18 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:37, 26 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomeo Ferrara[edit]

Bartholomeo Ferrara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 11:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG as there isn't enough coverage about the footballer. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 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. Rough balance of numbers, whether the sources are truly independent and reliable shows no consensus in the discussion, and to my eye is pretty marginal and could reasonably be interpreted either way - as the closing admin, I can`t discount one position or the other as being ungrounded in the facts of the case. (Mergers may be appriate with local consensus WilyD 08:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adherer[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Adherer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES in that they have no "significant coverage from several secondary independent reliable sources". These are all creatures from Dungeons & Dragons, and all the sources in the article are primary, that is, they are either :
a) the D&D official books themselves (everything from TSR/ Wizards of the Coast),
b) commercially published supplements/extensions to the D&D game, thus primary sources of original D&D material and fiction (and not of criticism/analysis as secondary sources are) and not "independent of the subject" (since they have licencing agreement from D&D copyright holders and they are only inteded to be used as part of the D&D franchise). That is the case of Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games, which "...requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"
c) official books from other role-playing games not related to D&D, that happen to publish their own, different fiction on creatures that happen to have the same name, thus primary sources not dealing with the topic (the creatures in D&D) and that don't provide criticism/analysis. That is the case of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game from Paizo Publishing.
For complementary information, these three kinds of primary sources have all been analysed in a previous AfD on similar D&D creatures and were found as not matching the criteria set in WP:GNG, which led to all articles nominated being redirected. The only non-primary source, which happens to be in the Brownie article, is an article from White Dwarf that is a short summary of the creature's in-game characteristics and of the ways to play it as written in Monster Manual, it is devoid of any criticism/analysis and would only allow to write "half a paragraph or a definition of the topic", thus it is not significant, per WP:WHYN. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar for each of the 3 articles gave no results. Not notable subjects, unsuitable for stand-alone articles. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sever Each of these three different creatures has differing sources, as has been shown by the various sourcing efforts on similar creatures that have happened over the past few days. As such, lumping dissimilar creatures together is unreasonable. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Jclemens, but I wasn't sure how to describe the position that these should be three separate nominations, as even a similar basic result (e.g. redirect) would have potentially different targets. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree. We have a precedent where a grouped AfD on similar creatures from the same D&D franchise was accepted by an uninvolved admin. The three articles have the same potential redirect target (List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters), the notability of each of these article was challenged a month ago, [32], [33], [34], so you had time to look for sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they do not have the same potential redirect target. For example, Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) could be merged with Brownie (folklore), where all the TSR/WotC sources would become non-primary and could be used as examples of modern adaptations of the concept. You should take a broader view of the situation instead of focusing on removing content. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Unconclusive, some articles from the previous AfD didn't have the same redirect target either. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the articles were withdrawn by the nominator from a previous mass AfD as a goodwill effort when blips of new content had been added during the AfD. However, the blips of new content are still insufficient to constitute any reading of "significant coverage by independent third party sources." per WP:POKEMON and WP:N delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) This user was WP:CANVASSed to participate here, and as such his opinion should be stricken as the result of partisan recruitment. 2) The "delete" outcome is incompatible with WP:ATD since all three articles are sourced and have multiple possible merge targets, and should be accorded no weight as it is not a policy-based argument. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) this is a false allegations of canvassing, notifications were neutrally distributed between opposers and supporters, user BOZ has also been notified 2) WP:ATD doesn't prevent deletion for a lack of notability, it only proposes alternatives ("could be merged" and not "should be merged"). All three articles are not proprerly sourced according to WP:GNG. TRPOD mentions WP:N, last time I checked it's a guideline, so perfectly valid as an argument.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) This user has been intimately to the point of rabidly involved in the previous AfD and the post coital discussion about what to do with these crappy articles and has has all three of the articles on this users watch list, and so any intimation that this user would not have been involved in this discussion and taken this position is ABSURD. 2)this user questions "Merge" as an option. WTF content is there TO MERGE? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, as the "Tome of Horrors" from Necromancer Games and the Pathfinder "Bestiary" series from Paizo Publishing are indeed independent sources, and thus I believe they constitute sufficient independent coverage to meet the WP:GNG despite the strident and repeated objections of the nominator. Additionally, White Dwarf is an independent publisher granting additional notability to the Brownie. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. The nominator has used the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) as an indictment to indicate that all fictional element articles related to D&D are non-notable and thus should be redirected or deleted, when in fact AFD discussions are not normative and all topics should be considered separately. Note that the majority of that previous discussion focused entirely on the Tome of Horrors as a source, and some of the responses concluded that it alone was insufficient; however, additional sources for these three turned up late in the course of the AFD, and I do not believe they were fully considered by most of the participants in determining the result. During the previous AFD, the nominator withdrew these three articles in good faith because of the additional sourcing found, and so the AFD's closer noted that they "are considered to have their nomination withdrawn". Despite this withdrawal, this AFD's nominator and User:TheRedPenOfDoom persisted in edit-warring to keep these three aticles as redirects, insisting that the AFD decision on the other articles applied to the three withdrawn articles as well. This faulty reasoning has led Folken de Fanel to redirect dozens of other articles on the basis that a few AFDs and a few discussions on talk pages could proactively determine consensus for any and all similar type of articles and allow a user to redirect dozens of articles without engaging in further discussion. Even if that were true, this argument does not apply to every article that Folken de Fanel has redirected recently; for example, Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), Bruenor Battlehammer, Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons), Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons), and Marilith have all been subsequently restored (each by a different user), and sources were added; in the case of the first two, independent sources already existed in the articles before they were redirected. Therefore, clearly, the argument that the results of the "Death watch beetle" should be applied to all of the articles he has redirected is blatantly misleading. My concern is that if this AFD results in "redirect" or "delete", this will only result in more of the same behavior. Please consider the argument that independent publishers do add to the notability of published material from TSR/WotC. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some question as to the reasoning why I consider these sources independent, although I will admit that I am not as articulate as some other users when it comes to that sort of thing. I am basing my reasoning primarily on that which was proposed by Sangrolu, Jclemens, and Web Warlock in the previous AFD, voices of reason which may have been drowned out by other users trying to shout their opinions above all others over and over so that only theirs could be heard. If that discussion was tl;dr, and you really, really require me to spell it out further, I can try to take my time to articulate my feelings. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by some convoluted interpretation, you continue to insist that Pathfinder and Necromancer are completely independent, then the critters in those game systems are NOT the D&D critters and so independent sourcing for the subjects of these articles still fails.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with the complex publishing and licensing relationships of the Dungeons and Dragons franchise and related gaming source material, you may find a primer here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Death_watch_beetle_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Publication_and_licencing_history -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for BOZ's initial "keep" arguments, the consensus at the 21-participants Death watch beetle AfD (and several inputs from WP:RS/N) already identified the "Tome of Horrors" and "Pathfinder Bestiary" as primary sources and thus ruled them out as elements establishing notability. I have already explained that in my nomination. BOZ's insistance in advancing a fringe interpretation of WP:PSTS that has been expressedly rejected by the community has me concerned that his behavior -if pursued- might eventually not be seen as constructive if no effort is made on BOZ's part to consider community consensus. And the White Dwarf source in itself, contrary to BOZ's claim, is not enough to "grant notability" since WP:GNG requires "multiple source", and "significant content allowing to write more than a definition of a topic", which the specific WD coverage is not. On a side note, there was more examples of edit warring and actual refusal of discussion from BOZ and his companions on these 3 articles than from me, and my reasoning wasn't that "the AFD decision on the other articles applied to the three withdrawn articles as well", but that a consensus was reached in these AfD as to the qualification of the sources used, and that similarly sourced articles would never survive an AfD per this consensus, and that a redirect was a logical and time-saving solution. I thus ask BOZ not to indulge in further misrepresentation of my actions and motivations, and to be careful to respect our tradition of discussion rather than inconsiderate actions if more bold redirects are implemented. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can apparently even count Jclemens amongst the users who agree Pathfinder/Necromancer et al" just because they're not D&D creatures ..." -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per BOZ. And yes, I realize there is a long discussion above, and yes I agree with BOZ. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it hasn't. You keep stating that is has, but then you can't point to a single discussion, closed by an uninvolved administrator, that adjudicated things in such a manner, can you? Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it has, see Death watch beetle AfD. Ask the closing admin if you doubt it. Several articles were sourced to multiple D&D sourcebooks and have been redirected per the admin, which couldn't have happened if they weren't primary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Adherer and Caryatid Column - it is an interesting one as they were submissions to White Dwarf that was then adopted by TSR (itself a secondary source at the time) as was almost everything else that ended up in the Fiend Folio. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not giving arguments that would substanciate your recommandation to keep. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". TSR is obviously not a secondary nor independent source on D&D, has never been and never will be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per "Designers & Dragons: A History of the Roleplaying Game Industry" by Shannon Appelcline, Mongoose Publishing, 2011. White Dwarf / were the licensed publishers of D&D content in the UK up to mid 1980, hence their contribution of Adherer in 1978 is inherently NOT third party. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, per Fiend Folio, the White Dwarf sections in which the creature originally appeared, and the Fiend Folio as published by TSR, have both been edited by the same person, Don Turnbull. No independence possible.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd merge Brownie to Brownie (folklore) as they are about the same critter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting proposition, Cas, and one which I disagree with. When we're dealing with both serious and fictional topics, merging them together seems to irritate the serious folks, who resist fictional additions to the "real" topic. Dark matter and Dark matter in fiction are one example that comes to mind. The issue with literature/folklore vs. physics may be less extreme, but there's large precedent for WP:IPC articles to cover fictional and other popular culture adaptations of notable encyclopedic topics, and that's essentially what I see these and other similar articles as being. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they are not notable topics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are asserting that Brownie (folklore) is not a notable topic? Please clarify. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm saying WP:IPC articles aren't exempted from being notable themselves, if that's how you want to protray these articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, yes, I think that based on your nomination statement absolutely no one is confused that that's your belief about these articles. Why you felt the need to restate that in an ambiguous manner in the middle of a different conversation is a mystery to me, though. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well hold on a second. Is Brownie (folklore) really a "serious" topic? It's an imaginary creature either way. I could see the D&D information being laid out as type of modern participatory folklore. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Like Centaurs, Dragons, Minotaurs, and the rest, many of the 1st Ed. Monster Manual creatures were based on previous folklore. How they've been handled in Wikipedia has varied widely. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But even in the Brownie (folklore) "In popular culture" section, you would be in trouble because there is only the primary sources of the D&D sourcebooks and no third party commentary or analysis showing how the brownie (folklore)'s appearanc in RPG games such as D&D is notable or encyclopedic. Just the primary sources that have the in game stats. If there were any significant third party commentary about the RPG brownie, we wouldn't be at this AfD.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am calling this a bad-faith nomination. This and the other AfDs should be ignored. Web Warlock (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be a bit more verbose? I really don't know that your statement is enough for the closing admin to understand. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given statements the nominator has made on Boz's page, this looks like a retribution AfD for not getting his way. Plus this nominator has a history of only tagging articles and not actually taking anytime to work to improve any of them. By my reading of policy he is skipping over many of the steps outlined in bringing an article to AfD. The issue is one of community. If you want to improve the Wikipedia as a whole then work with in the community guidelines and WITH the community. If the article can't be improved by this method then by al means move, merge or delete. By going directly to delete, the proper vetting process is lost, the community is disrupted and the nominator comes of looking like a vandal with an axe to grind. This is supported when there is no evidence of prior constructive edits. This is the very essence of bad faith, to go in and decide that you know more than the community working on all the articles and using bullying tactics to to get a point of view across. The article may have issues, if might be saved or not, but this is not the way to find out. This is trying to overwhelm editors who do the real work so at least something sticks. Web Warlock (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coming from someone who calls those who dare to disagree with him "dick editors", and seems to get openly hostile with those pointing out to problems in articles he likes [35], such obvious display of uncivility and battleground mentality is hardly surprising. This seems, unfortunately, to be another typical example of a user whose obvious personal passion for a topic made him lose sight of the encyclopedic aim of Wikipedia, and this obstinate refusal to see this kind of article questionned could eventually be seen as ownership. I will just say that I have respected each and every step of WP:BEFORE, "redirecting to an existing article" has already been attempted, some have reverted the redirects and when I opened a thread to discuss the lack of notability of these articles at Talk:Adherer a month ago and no one replied. When there is disagreement on article notability, WP:AfD is the right venue for that and no one is forbidden to recommand a merge/redirect instead of a deletion, whenever someone try to redirect a D&D article we're told to "start an AfD" so that's what we do, and that's the actual practice when redirects don't stick. I'm of course not surprised that D&D enthusiasts might prefer confidential discussions between themselves (that is, when they're actually willing to discuss) rather than more publicized AfD that might bring more uninvolved and objective users, but that's how it works. You talk about community, but your aim is nothing less than to substract these article from examination by the community at large. Editors are not "overwhelmed" in any way, D&D enthusiasts have seen from previous AfDs and discussions at the D&D Wikiproject over a month ago that this would be coming, and if they see it as overwhelming, then maybe they should have considered not letting all these articles proliferate in the first place. I see no reasons for D&D articles to be treated any differently than any other type of article which notability is questionned at AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources. Please provide an explanation as to how the articles would meet policy, rather that stating they do, your current comment is not strong enough to overcome the nomination rationale. All the articles are sourced to primary sources and as such don't meet the GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's been identified that you don't like it. That's about it. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right, "Per BOZ" killed my parents when I was a child so I swore to have my revenge on it one day... Now that we're done with such nonesense, can you drop ad-hominen attacks, and other assumptions of bad faith, or are you going to keep using them to hide your complete absence of valid argumentation to oppose my nomination ? We've already had an AfD on this topic and the fact is that consensus rejected this interpretation. Turning a blind eye to it won't change that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, but badgering every single keep vote, calling others' positions "fringe interpretations", etc, is a a lot closer to ad hominem attacks and bad faith accusations than what Hobit said. In fact, your behavior here is becoming borderline disruptive. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • if the "keep" !votes were actually based on policies or didn't include claims of independence of sources that the !voters either don't know (or are ignoring) have been repeatedly refuted; then there would be no reason to address each one. However, since those issues keep appearing in every "keep" !vote, then apparently the clarifications DO need to keep being repeated.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, you and Folken have repeatedly violated Wikipedia conduct norms, in ways listed above and in others I've enumerated elsewhere, not the least of which has been trying to wikilawyer away good-faith efforts to answer your objections. It's not really anyone's fault but your own that people don't seem to want to be associated with that Javertesque pursuit of one particularly narrow interpretation of notability policy. Fact is, a lot of editors in good standing who contribute to many areas of the encyclopedia don't believe your arguments, see the sources as adequate, and see the articles as notable. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No norms of conducts were violated, at least not by us. And of course, valid argumentation based on actual policies/guidelines and supported by several AfD outcomes, suddenly becomes "wikilawyering". You're always quick to claim that we're "pursuing one particularly narrow interpretation", and that "a lot of editors dont believe our arguments", how come then that your views were systematically shot down at AfD (remember Death watch bettle) and RS/N ? Aren't you indulging in a fit of WP:IDHT ? Jclemens, what you're doing is the very definition of "ad hominem", intentionally portraying us in a bad light, so that you can avoid actually answering arguments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brownie has now been edited and more refs added. Including refs that detail playing this creature as a character, which makes it unique in this mass-AfD. I request that either the AfD for this article be removed or seperated from the other two. The issues are different and to pass a verdict on three without looking at the individual merits of each article is a serious breech of protocol. Web Warlock (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the brownie article like all the other articles in this mass afd is still lacking in any third party sources means that it is still identically situated as all the other articles in this afd (and all the other articles in the previous AfD from which it was removed) in its blatant failure to meet the basic GNG. The only difference is that there is while the other article topics are not even notable within the fictional gaming universe, now perhaps there is a tangential claim that the brownie is perhaps notable within the ficitonal game as having been assigned player character stats, but there is no serious claim that there is any real world notability.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any reason to do that, sources in Brownie don't adress the nomination and don't indicate any individual merit to the article. Brownie is not the only article sourced to primary sources, I don't see any difference with the others. Actually providing secondary independent sources would help validating your opinion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Brownie, as it passes WP:GNG with multiple mentions in reliable independent secondary sources, specifically the Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts book and White Dwarf magazine. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Rebut, Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts "Requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook® Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" (p.1) and is thus a primary source not independent of D&D , and White Dwarf is already addressed in the nomination as non-significant content, as you don't adress the nomination and don't explain how WD would be significant instead of merely saying it is. Please don't forget AfDs are not votes, you should provide strong arguments if you want your opinion to prevail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm well aware this isn't a "vote", and I provided a suitably strong argument. Requiring the use of official books merely confirms it is definitely coverage about that exact version of the creature, and it's different, independent publisher. Please cease your badgering. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A strong argument satisfyingly addresses the nomination, yours don't. And your wrong, requiring the use of official books only means it's a primary affiliated source and doesn't meet GNG criteria for sources. The publisher is not independent since it is publishing a D&D product. Please cease to expect you can advance fringe interpretations that have already been shot down by consensus at previous AfD without being contradicted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with your interpretation, and I take exception to your continued description of my position as "fringe". It's frankly insulting and inappropriate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're of course entitled to disagree, but considering this is a discussion that will be evaluated through strength of arguments, I'm merely giving you opportunities to actually demonstrate the validity of your claims, rather than stating your disagreeement. You're free to refuse, but it also means you have to accept your views are likely not to weigh much in the discussion. Your interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by previous consensus at AfD, calling it fringe is pure fact and it is relevant in a debate in which arguments are to be weighed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Celtic Age also fails "primary" source designation. It is a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it being used solely to show that there was a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it. And the White Dwarf is being treated in the same way. They provide no significant content about the subject of the article- they are merely being used as proof of their own existance.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read any of these sources? Do you know what they contain? If not then you are just guessing. I spend hours looking this stuff up, finding sources, unless you are willing to do some of the work as well then you are only making commentary from a point of view of no actual knowledge. Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge as they say. Web Warlock (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were actually anything of substance within these sources, one would have to assume that someone who had spent hours and hours looking it up would have actually included the substantial information and commentary and analysis within the article to support their claims that substantial coverage existed. Because the only other option would be to assume that the researcher was incompetent, and I wouldn't want to do that without proof.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument in the AfD is about the nature (ie primary/secondary and affiliated/independent) of sources. Believe it or not, I really appreciate the good faith effort that was done in finding source, but my comment is not on your effort or you as a contributor. It is on the nature of the source presented, that doesn't adress the reason I opened this AfD, and what makes me say that is written in p.1 of the source. On a side note, "Mine is bigger than yours" comment don't belong in AfD (nor anywhere else on WP, I guess).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - due to lack of significant coverage in independant sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The articles don't explain why the topics are notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (though merge relevant info to the manual articles). While Pathfinder and other RPG systems may be independent, just because they include the same creature type (a bit of OR to assume its supposed to be the same) doesn't given any type of significant coverage required by the GNG. We are not here to list out every detail of a game system for readers; that's a job much better suited to a wiki. The notability needs to be an out-of-universe facets. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adherer and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) - Sourcebooks are not independent sources for the game they are written for per WP:RSN. These articles have zero third-party independent sources, the sourcebooks are all rule books designed for the games themselves; that's not independence. Weak delete for Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) - Per the post-1980 White Dwarf source, if another non-sourcebook, independent source could be found for that article, I'd have no issue changing that to a keep. - SudoGhost 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BOZ. Don't bother with your WP:UNCIVIL badgering. CallawayRox (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  per BOZ doesn't explain why the sources would be secondary, independent or significant.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have problems reading and like hearing the sound of your own voice. CallawayRox (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to the appropriate Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Boz's argument falls flat on its face in that Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing - or White Dwarf, or Avalanche Press in the case cited here - are not independent sources in the context of D&D monsters. Both publish modules for the D&D system, and in fact Pazio uses many of the monsters (barring those that are the direct property of the spooky wizards who live on the coast, like Beholders) in their own Pathfinder game. These are not secondary sources that discuss the monsters - these are primary sources that simply use the same monster. Between all three of these articles, there is no secondary sources, only primary ones; and it is very, very unlikely that there will be any secondary sources, as these creatures are wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monsters as part of a list of D&D monsters is both approprate and reasonable, as as a group they may very well scrape by on notability, and so merging them to the lists is what should be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if it wasn't discussing the Brownie of D&D then it wouldn't count as a source. If it does discuss it, it's not independent. Could you explain what kind of source you _would_ consider acceptable for this type of thing? And could you distinguish how, say, a baseball player need not be notable outside of baseball but this does? I can sort of see the point, but it does feel a lot like "because I said feel that way" and the same argument could be applied to a ton of things that we accept as notable (actors, authors, etc.) Hobit (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems you're confusing the area in which a topic might be notable with the actual elements that build this notability. D&D creatures don't have to exist outside D&D to be notable, but the sources used to establish notability sure have to be completely independent of D&D (ie not being an official D&D magazine or extension, and not being another game that is just making primary use of a creature). We're only saying D&D creatures must have significant coverage from secondary independent sources, and D&D modules or other games that make primary use of the creature are neither secondary nor independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Folken, I realize that it can be unclear, but that question wasn't addressed to you. I was hoping to hear what The Bushranger had to say. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - If the creatures appearing in the other publications are meant to actually be the same creature, ie they were officially licensed or borrowed from TSR/Wizards, then the sources would not be independent. These would be first party sourcebooks on the creatures. If they are not specifically meant to be the exact same creatures, then they would not fall within the scope of the articles in question as they would not be the D&D specific versions of these creatures, thus the references to them would be invalid. Additionally, whatever the status of the sources being first party or not is, they still fail to establish any sort of notability for these fictional elements. The information contained within the sources pretty much only contain in-universe information, and do nothing to establish any of the creatures having any sort of real world notability. I would not be opposed to a selective merge if others felt that would be appropriate, however. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all First, because I believe that the coverage is sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG, despite the large volumes of text from those who disagree. But most originally, and specifically speaking to Bushranger's and Rorschacma's merge and oppose, is because there is no single merge target for these creatures. "Dungeons & Dragons" is at least five separate product lines, and Pathfinder and other D&D-alike games are separate entities entirely. So, since there's no such thing as a list of monsters in fantasy role playing games, there is no merge target for the articles, each of which incorporate content from a half a dozen or so separate games. Note that I just wrote that essay earlier today and this is the first time I've cited it, as some of the recent thoughtful views different than mine prompted some detailed thinking on the matter, unlike much of the recent discussion on the topic which simply kept repeating contested assertions as if saying them again and again would make them more convincing. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that the ability to split content across multiple appropriate pages somehow means an article cannot be merged. The articles are already split into edition, and fortunately each edition has a main article for the redirect target. It is already conveniently centralized and divided by edition, so that the merge can put the first edition of a creature into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, the second edition into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, and so on. As merging is an alternative to deletion, if that alternative is not possible, then the article would then be deleted. A deletion without an alternative is a deletion, not a keep. - SudoGhost 07:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure it's possible, just like it's possible to have the same content about a non-notable band member copied into the article of each notable band to which he or she ever belonged... but longstanding consensus is to not do that, and keep the information together in one place, even if it doesn't necessarily meet notability guidelines. Why do you think notability has remained perpetually a guideline rather than a policy like WP:V? Because there are exceptions that are logically necessary to make the encyclopedia cover some topics smoothly, and I believe this to be one of them. Oh, and as has been argued above, either Pathfinder is or is not D&D. If it's not D&D, then including Pathfinder monsters in a central list of D&D monsters would be inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's not the same content. Each piece of the article has a place in a notable article, whereas these articles themselves are completely without notability. I don't think it's logical to say that that notability does not apply just because we cannot copy and paste the entirety of the article into another article. The band consensus you refer to is the opposite of this situation, that if two or more people are notable outside of a band, that the band is also notable (also sometimes known as a supergroup). The consensus you refer to is that an otherwise non-notable group might (per your comments on guidelines) be notable due to the individual members being notable. This is not similar to that situation, there are no smaller elements (such as a single instance of a creature in a single book) that give notability to the larger whole. If it were the case that the 3rd edition of the Brownie, for example, were completely notable, then that logic would have a great deal of merit, as it would be "a creature article which contains an independently notable version of the creature", but that's not the case in any of these articles. - SudoGhost 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jclemens, there's a huge flaw in your argument. First you claim in your recommandation that the content is "sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG", then you claim it's a case of WP:NSMT, as an exception to the notability guideline. If you feel the need to create an exception to WP:N, then it means you're de facto acknowledging the articles in themselves don't meet WP:GNG and need an exception to survive (this is clearly stated in the essay you wrote: "One well-established exception to the general notability guideline is the issue of when content is not separately notable, but has no single merge target"). So your argument is currently contradictory and that makes it unacceptable, an article can't at the same time meet GNG and need an exception to GNG because it otherwise doesn't meet GNG. For the sake of coherence, can you strike one of your arguments ? As to your second argument (again assuming that's the one you want us to follow), why can't we just have each creature merged to appropriate article and have redirects for each, like Brownie (D&D), Brownie (D&D 3rd), Brownie (Pathfinder)... It is perfectly possible to still have WP:GNG implemented, why this bias towards a denial of WP:GNG instead of just regular editing wich would follow WP:GNG? An exception to a guideline should remain an exception, not an excuse not to follow it that has no grounds.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • • • exactly what type of content from these articles is "mergeable" anyway? i am just seeing trivial crap. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:19, 31 August 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.