< 4 August	6 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. relisted. No !votes to keep. No indications of notability. StarM 02:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mean It Man: A Thick Records Document[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. Till 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources for this compilation; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 31 July 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) 23:20, 5 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. has been relisted. No !votes to keep. No indications of notability. StarM 02:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille (Band)[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY; no sign of qualifying under WP:NMUSIC. The one-name name makes them basically unsearchable, but the two press clippings listed here are from very brief listings, one of them by a festival promoting them for an appearance, the other... well, I'm not sure what the blog entry is, but it's just a couple lines. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not notable --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's nothing that I can find that shows that this band passes the GNG. Additionally, the user name of the page creator indicates a pretty clear COI situation. Rorshacma (talk) 06:08, 5 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) 23:19, 5 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} 04:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Say Yes EP[edit]

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

Album does not meet WP:NMUSIC Zad68 22:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless sources establishing notability are found and added to the article. No sources listed in the articel, and no non-trivial RS found via a google search. Does not meet WP:MUSIC nor the general notability guideline. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 00:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails at the basics of being a Wikipedia article. There is a track-listing, but no text of any form beyond band name and EP name. The only coverage I can find of the recording is Idolator[1] and a few words on GigHive[2], which isn't enough to establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A9. The article just says "it's an EP". It doesn't say why it's notable at all. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even assuming the band's article is kept, I don't believe there's enough material in reliable sources about the recording to warrant a separate article. Gongshow ^Talk 10:11, 12 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) 06:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveWAFL[edit]

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

I don't think this framework is notable. Also interwikis are not true. (just the Persian one (فارسی) was not broken that was linked to another PHP framework, CakePHP) –ebraminio^talk 22:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful but did turn up an "Examples" page that's all "Coming soon". When the release number is zero-point-something and even the "Hello world" example isn't soup yet, this is looking pretty much WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another web framework, no significant coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:17, 30 July 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) 22:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. For that matter, even unreliable sources seem few and far between. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 9 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 merge to Canada–People's Republic of China relations. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Burton (sinologist)[edit]

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

Blatant promotion of the author and his consultancy business. Subject does not seem to meet notability criteria (no important academic position, no important public position, no published books), and his only claim to notability was a report by him commissioned by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. Note, this article was created via WP:AFC. BabelStone (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's author Maryge63 is presumably Mary Ge, who works for Charles Burton and Associates. BabelStone (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burton has a significant record of publication including books and academic articles http://charlesburton.webplus.net/pubs.html. I will remove the reference to the consulting company. I do work for him part time from here in China, but he did not solicit this entry. I put him in because I was surprised he did not have an entry in Wikipedia already Maryge63 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a reference to his work advising on policy at the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee Party School. As his materials in the external links show he has also done a lot of policy advising work at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and is adjunct at a number of Chinese universities. His work, op-eds and interviews are frequently translated into Chinese in Chinese blogs (he lists just some of the translations --- they tend to get deleted by the Chinese internet police) and in the Chinese "Reference News" and internal Chinese publications. He is a well-known figure here in China and gets so much press coverage in Canada as well as being on a lot of news panels, etc. He really is a significant international figure with a lot of influence and respect in China and among Chinese policy people in Western government, but he is modest and keeps a low profile due to the sensitive political nature of his work. He has accompanied the Prime Minister of Canada to China and is there when Chinese leaders visit Canada, met with the Dalai Lama in Canada at request of Tibet authorities every time he comes http://www.flickr.com/photos/cburton001/6992533818, etc., etc. I think BabelStone might want to reconsider. Maryge63 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Sinologist" should be capitalized if this is kept. No opinion as to notability or lack thereof. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appeared based on the references available that notability was clearly met while this was in AFC. I'm the one who reviewed and moved to articlespace. Although I'm concerned about COI, not sufficiently so to detract from the notability of the article. Perhaps there's a better title, as "Sinologist" is not a common disambig term dangerous panda 10:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Canada–People's Republic of China relations. I cleaned up the article a little. He does have an academic connection, but it's not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC, and neither is his very weak citation record at Google Scholar. His claim to fame would be through WP:GNG, in that he apparently did have an impact on Canada-China relations through a study he released in 2005; this is confirmed by various references at the article. That seems to me like a pretty weak basis for a stand-alone article, but still deserving of better than an outright delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 4 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) 22:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Canada–People's Republic of China relations as per MelanieN's argument. Quis separabit? 19:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - fails the PROF test, but his work ought to be mentioned in the bilateral relations article. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 7 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 speedy keep. I'm convinced. I withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decorah Bald Eagles[edit]

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

I am not convinced the sources show this web camera feed to be notable. I recognize the need to use informal sources in this area, but how to do so is a matter of judgement. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I did just a quick overview.) Sourcing appears to establish wp:notability, and 200 million views means it looks real-world notable. 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some good sources; the Huffington Post has reported on them quite a bit, also NPR and Mother Nature Network. A quotation from Huffington Post that might be helpful here: It's no secret that the Decorah eagles have captured the world's attention, but just how popular are they? They are so popular that almost every major news organization has reported on their activities. There have been more than 32 million page views of the website and at any given time, over 100,000 computers are watching the nest. Fans with binoculars are even flocking to the Decorah Fish Hatchery to watch from a respectful distance as the attentive parents care for their babies. Source petrarchan47^T c 03:26, 7 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, and author indef-blocked. In view of other hoax articles and complete lack of confirmation, there is no need for this to drag on. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Boys AFC[edit]

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

Another hoax article from an editor with previous for creating hoax articles on soccer. There is no such club as Birmingham Boys AFC, no former club called West Midlands AFC and no stadium as BT Stadium of Birmingham City (were a youth team to be based in a 71,000 seat stadium that at least would be newsworthy) Much of the article is cut and pasted from Birmingham City and as such is referenced. The only other reference given on this page - www.bbfc.com is a non existent website and the url given in the infobox - www.bbfc.co.uk is actually the website of the British Board of Film Classification. (Note - a CSD under A3 was raised previously) NtheP (talk) 19:39, 5 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 Cotaco Opera House. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Sun Lodge 29[edit]

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

Consensus has been that individual Masonic lodges are not notable. The buildings they are in can be notable,and in this case it is -- and it already has an article, Cotaco Opera House . FWIW, the article was accepted at AfC DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only WP:IRS that address the organization in detail are the two Decatur Daily articles, which aren't enough to pass WP:NCORP notability guidelines. As pointed out by DGG, most of this article is about the buildings, or is uncited. It would definitely be good to mention the Lodge in the existing article about Cotaco Opera House. Sionk (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Went through the 17 references. Two have the substantive coverage of the type that wp:notability requires. North8000 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While consensus can change, I do agree with Sionk's rationale. Unless more significant coverage can be found than the two local newspaper articles, it fails notability. A quick internet search did not reveal any potential new sources to me. Altairisfar (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Please visit http://www.risingsun29.org/ABOUT.html to try to determine if there is any additional information that might be incorporated to rescue this article from deletion. Thanks Cnhudson (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit. and not extensive coverage besides local. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cotaco Opera House - redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha's second studio album[edit]

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

Album has no title, no release date and no track listing. This article shouldn't exist in mainspace, at best not until there are definite facts available in authoritative sources and it has been widely reviewed. Probably it should be incubated until that time. There is already a meaty paragraph in the Kesha article about the speculation. Sionk (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to disagree because there are songs recorded for the album, and it is due to be ready anytime soon, we have 6 tracks so it's not a complete waste and there is a lot of information on the page about production, influence, sound, composition, etc so I don't think the page should be deleted at all. WillWalker23 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough information to warrant its own article. It's as simple as that. Statυs (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it might not pass WP:HAMMER, but does pass WP:GNG with all the sources. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Warrants enough info for its own article, it's actually bigger than most album articles that have already been released.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This album has been in the works for nearly half of a year, and enough information has been given to make a cohesive article. --User:Pokepokey (User talk:Pokepokey) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article has more than enough info and sources to be an article. It would be pointless to delete the article and then have to re-write the entire article once the album is released. Nicholas (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can somebody close this down now? WillWalker23 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC) * NOTE: this editor has 'voted' twice *[reply]

Comment - another rash of 'Keep' votes based on the fact the article is big and there are lots of sources listed, neither of which is a Wikipedia rationale for keeping an article. As Bearian says, it clearly doesn't pass WP:HAMMER, it has no name announced, no idea of a release date and no definite track list. Basically its an article about 'things Kesha has been doing since 2011', so at best it should be incubated until we know something definite. Looking at the current sources, they are almost all Kesha making brief statements about what she wants her next album to include. She's basically throwing a few juicy bones to keep the press interested. There is not much at all said by anyone else, for the obvious reason there is nothing definite to review or talk about. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Incubate has quite a lot of information and reliable sources. It might be released later this year so it doesn't need to be deleted. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:29, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Dunlop V8 Supercar Series season[edit]

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

WP:CBALL. Future sporting series with no references and largely speculatory content. Falcadore (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CBALL doesn't apply when there is a reasonable certainty that the event the article is about will occur - which is the case here. Further details and references are needed but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added references for the Teams and Drivers section and cleaned up the lead a bit. Plus I moved it to 2013 Dunlop V8 Supercar Series to keep in in line with previous seasons' articles where there is no season at the end. V8dude2 (talk) 03:41, 10 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} 04:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Brick Factory[edit]

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

Total mess of an article created on the 29th. Most information is duplicated from Brickworks and brick, leaving an incoherent mess of redundancy. Contains large amounts of copyrighted material. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is the remedy for this very badly done article. There might be some content which could be added to the brickworks article, but care must be taken not to use copyrighted text. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Brickworks Has some good material on an enclyclopedic topic. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the copyright concerns. Anything salvageable has issues. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presumably the copyright concerns are about copying text from other Wikipedia articles? *If* any of the new information can be attributed to a reliable source, I will argue it should be merged with an existing article. But at the moment there is probably too much duplicated and/or unattributed info to justify the article's survival. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think there are copyvio issues with some of the images, and some of the text seems to have been taken from the linked articles. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:34, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Curtis (broadcaster)[edit]

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

I nominated this page, because it is a clear violation of WP:N and WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO. The creator of this page is the person himself, a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is also a violation of notability guidelines - (not "independent of the subject") and no significant coverage or awards. He's on a local station that is rarely watched by people in the area. It's all about self-promotion 173.69.30.178 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) - discussion page created on behalf of IP 173.69.30.178 by Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep - it is not a good article at all and needs a major clean-up, but I don't know where the nominator gets the idea it was written by Curtis. However, the likelihood is Curtis meets at least the bare minimum for WP:GNG. There is this article and this, for example. His profile on ABC6's site (though not entirely independent) lists awards and achievements in the 1990's which mark him out from the journeyman reporter. As a regular news anchor he probably meets WP:ENT. Sionk (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the messy article, it passes WP:GNG and contain a few WP:RS's. TBran dl ey 16:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi. I am disappointed someone wants to delete the page about me, Mark Curtis (broadcaster). For the record, I am not the author of this page, nor am I a regular editor. Various people whom I do not know, regularly update my page. I have made periodic additions, such as when I received my doctorate, but I have honestly been puzzled by who posts employment updates, etc., about me. I have no idea who they are. I hope you keep my page up, as some find it newsworthy and interesting. Sincerely, Mark Curtis (broadcaster). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtisnews (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 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 speedy delete. G11; also WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Hyner[edit]

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

Article about a motivational speaker created by a new account. Google results return little except his website and various speaker booking sites, and gnews turns up nothing. The article seems promotional but I wasn't comfortable with a G11. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional and unsourced BLP. I'm seeing nothing close to independent coverage in reliable sources through the first 5 pages of a Google search. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable, advertising.TheLongTone (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and unsourced BLP. Google results return little but his website and unfortunately, there are no reliable sources to back the article up. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable evidence of notability. (The BBC and TES links look most favourable, but both BBC West Midlands "Your Space" and the TES Resources appear to be essentially user-submitted content.) AllyD (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 speedy, promotional advertising. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interlibertarians[edit]

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

I see no signs of notability here; the only third party reference is [3] , and it is just a reprint of their manifesto, written by one of their governing body. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is ignoring [4] as a third party reference. Thus, there are two third party references on the topic. Also, this reference: [5], despite not being a news source, does state that there will be a 2012 Interlibertarians conference, so they have not discontinued their meetings. Gold Standard 20:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article. I consider it a press release, and furthermore not significant coverage. All it does is announce the existence of the meeting and give a link to their web site. Existence is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not just announce the existence of the meeting. Read the translation here, it describes what the meeting is about, along with other information about the organization. Thus, it constitutes valid third party coverage. Gold Standard 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two third party references doesn't demonstrate notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out where at WP:GNG it states that two third-party sources is insufficient? Gold Standard 21:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." This particular article has one very brief article in a local newspaper, a brief reprint of the organization's manifesto, and that's it. This isn't even the ballpark of notability, IMO. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are expected, but not required. IMO, the three-paragraph local newspaper article at least gets this into the ballpark of notability. This certainly isn't a no-name garage band. Gold Standard 03:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, has multiple, third-party news references. Gold Standard 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Hard to evaluate an article in English Wikipedia where all but one of the references are not in English. WP:notability is probably established, and real-world notability looks likely. The content of this stub is OK for a stub. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I said in talk page, IL did not receive a notable 3rd party coverage. moreover, if you can read Italian, you can see on their website that the edition 2012 of IL did not take place for lack of fundings (they sold only 60 pins on 1000 they needed). So, this is just a group that did just 1 convention and NOTHING MORE. --Louisbeta (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, and since this organization received significant third-party coverage for its first meeting, it is notable. Gold Standard 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's not temporany, but it must BE sometime. When and where you can see the significat coverage?--Louisbeta (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When: Interlibertarians 2011 Where: TicinoLive and Tio.ch Gold Standard 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sincere answer. TicinoLive and Tio.ch are surely a significant media coverage.--Louisbeta (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Keep for now" makes no sense. Italian sources are not that hard to evaluate (eastern sources are often hard for westerners), and keeping an article as a stub just because it might be notable is not valid.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 7 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} 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VP530[edit]

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

unsourced product description from a non notable company. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Product description, yes - non-notable? No. These phones are commonplace in many offices in the UK where conference calling is a necessity - It is a technology article which deserves proper expansion and sourcing, and I am happy to do that. I've already started by uploading an image of the product. Give it a fair shot before you hit it. Fish ^Barking? 15:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for CSD G11 - further research of the web proves unfortunately limited sources, most are manufacturer based - withdraw keep, nommed for CSD. Fish ^Barking? 20:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--NOTE- Jarry1250 has declined to CSD this article, so in the face of that, I move to Delete per the OP. Fish ^Barking? 20:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources contained within the body of the article and I found nothing except references in fora and blogs, etc., upon a brief search. And there are implications of advertising here. If there are verifiable references to arm's-length third-party expert sources of opinion that indicate any merit to this commercial product that can be added to the article, that would change my mind -- but this process is the "fair shot" requested above. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Route 17[edit]

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

During a recent GA review it has been suggested by multiple editors that this article would fail Notability. More recently another editor suggested the same at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Clarification requested on "broad in coverage". I think instead of just talking about it, we need to test whether this article should be kept in the first place. The relevant points are listed below:

Ritchie333: "IMHO, not suitable for an encyclopaedia and should be deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL"
Alpertron: "is this article satisfactory? I've just read the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The General notability guideline section starts with the following text: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. But it appears that the only source that can be used in this article is the DelDOT Website, which is not independent of the subject.
Masem: "I would argue with the Delaware Route 17 article is that it fails notability guidelines - much less GA. Most the sources appear to be from the Delaware DOT or related, and regardless all are primary. Heck, this would even fail the third-party test from WP:V. "

Hope nobody minds that for efficiency I simply quoted earlier comments -- ELEKHH^T 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES and per WP:5P. The latter states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Our article on gazetteers states that one "is a geographical dictionary or directory, ... used in conjunction with a map or a full atlas. It typically contains information concerning ... roads." Further down, the article states, "gazetteer editors gather facts and other information from official government reports". (emphasis mine in all quotations.) If we're to "incorporate elements of gazetteers" and they detail information about roads from official government sources, then this article is perfectly acceptable on policy grounds. (WP:Notability is only a guideline, not a policy let alone a pillar.) Imzadi 1979 → 15:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up with some additional comments, WP:NOTTRAVEL says: An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." This article doesn't list such details.
- DelDOT itself meets the criteria laid down in WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Never mind the inaccuracies of calling DelDOT maps "primary sources" when they are first-party, secondary sources. (See WP:Party and person and then recognized that the primary source would be the aerial photography and GIS data used to create the map, a secondary source.)
- The "third-party test" from WP:V is WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, and DelDOT is an acceptable source under that test. As I mentioned above though, WP:N is only a guideline, while our stance on gazetteers is part of a pillar. Imzadi 1979 → 18:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - DelDOT articles as used here are not secondary sources. There is no transformation of information for analysis and criticism. They are also not independent of topic, and they are certainly not third party, failing WP:N and WP:V. And a gazetteer only requires we list the road, it does not require an article. Hence why redirection to a broader list of roads in Delaware makes sense in this case. (Be aware, the pillars are not policy themselves; they are a useful summary of the core policy approaches of WP. I'm not denying that serving as a gazetteer is part of WP's function, however. Just that a gazetteer doesn't require articles on the geographic features) --MASEM (t) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A DelDOT map is a first-party, secondary source. The cartographers at the agency did transform the information from surveyors' notes, raw right-of-way descriptions, aerial or satellite photography, or GIS data into a visual format we call a road map. They also made editorial judgements as to what details to include. (which rivers or streams to include? include or exclude rail lines? include or exclude additional minor/local roads?) Such editorial judgements, combined with the conversion of raw source data makes a map a secondary source, even if it's published by a first-party actor. We explicitly allow source material from "self-published sources" when it meets certain tests, and you can't seriously argue that DelDOT is not an expert in the designation and maintenance of its own state highway system. That means that as first-party, secondary sources, they are allowed per policy. Imzadi 1979 → 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Editorial decisions are not factors that make a work secondary. It is data about the road itself that they maintain. It doesn't matter if a map they publish includes or exlcudes features, that's not analysis or the like. This is not saying that the DelDOT sources can't be used, but we lack both third-party sources and secondary sources required by WP:V and WP:N. Unless independent secondary sources can demonstrate interest in the road beyond mere existence, we shouldn't have an article on it. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it is analysis. Cartography is a trained profession, and certainly not a simple one. A primary source is raw data, a secondary source is an interpretation of that data. WP:N is a guideline superceded by WP:5. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong. For the description of the route a road takes, a map is primary; there's no analysis involved to identify that. Charting the road as to minimize elevation changes, turns, etc., is trained, and if information about how the road had to be craft to avoid such things were available, that would be secondary. But the route that a completed road takes - the primary content of this article - is primary information, period. No analysis is needed to understand that from a map. Further, the Five Pillars have no status like policy or guideline - they summarize them but have no weight. This is no attempt to say that we can't serve a gazetteer function, but that can be done with lists and tables just as effectively and within all other policy (including WP:V) and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You can bold it all you like, but it doesn't change the facts. I'm training in civil engineering, and I can tell you there is a hell of a lot more to making a map then tracing a line over an aerial photograph. What the information is about is irrelevant to whether it is primary or secondary. All that matters is the number of interpretations that have been performed since the collection of the data. You're right that no special knowledge is required to interpret a map - which is why it isn't considered original research for us to use them to write our route descriptions. Again, how they are used (whether for a description of the route or the history) is irrelevant to the specifics of the source. I'm sorry that you feel that a page that begins The five pillars summarize the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates has no status, but I'm sure the closing admin will disagree with you. I'll leave it to them sooner than waste my finger-strength. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        A source can be primary for some topics, and secondary for others. A map of a road drawn up by the organization that built and maintains that road may be secondary for aspects like the local geographical terrain features, elevations, property ownership, wildlife regions, and a number of other factors, because as you very well state, all those details had to be compiled to plot out its path to minimize cost and impact and maximize benefit. But, with that road in place and drawn on the map, the map is primary with respect to talking about the road. It is fundamental data with no analysis on the route it takes (as that has been completed). And no, it's not original research to take primary sources and summarize them (this is done all the time in fictional works, much less other published works), that's not the issue. The issue is that without any secondary sources, there is no relevance for this article; it is just a "stat dump" to speak without stating any importance to the general reader. It fails notability, which every other field has to meet. We can still meet the gazetteer function of the pillars by putting the route into a larger table of state highways in Delaware. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In case you haven't looked, I added some non-DelDOT sources to the article. Dough 48 72 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        They only mention the road and give no other analysis about it, ergo they are not secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – State highways are typically notable. Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Also keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 15:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 15:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the longstanding consensus about numbered state highways recently and overwhelmingly reconfirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. Through the constructive efforts of many editors, Wikipedia has built excellent coverage of state highway systems. Picking holes in the coverage is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep - Per WP:USRD/NT, WP:ROADOUTCOMES, and the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. Dough 48 72 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that reading these: USRD/NT (besides being an essay) doesn't immediately say all routes are notable; ROADOUTCOMES says nothing about a state route like this (particularly as there's very little beyond the route info itself). There is no clear case to keep unlike if this was a village or town per OUTCOME. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there is - national- and state-level highways are treated exactly the same as towns and villages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, but this is not a state-level highway. It's a 8 mile, 2 lane road. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a state highway, so it is a state-level highway. Plus, if you want to go that route, Delaware is a small state, so it does not take much to be a state-level highway. --Rs chen 7754 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Granted I'll give you that , that it's technically a highway, despite the fact that its short and doesn't have high speed areas that would usually be part of a road's importance. This, to me, highlights the problem that this long-standing walled garden of road notability has had; just because it says "highway" doesn't make it notable. Or actually, to be more consistent with all other notability guidelines, there's not an issue if the road project wants to make the assumption that all major state level highways are presumed notable, but that recognizition needs to come that some, like this one, fail all other expectations for article quality and sourcing, and thus is not automatically notable. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're slightly misrepresenting our position: we do not consider the vast majority of county highways notable enough for their own article. --Rs chen 7754 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I recognize you're not considering county-level roads. I can't deny that this is a "state highway" since it's labeled by the state as that. But I do dispute the fact that there's no consideration of "presumed" notability here. Per other subnotability guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:NSPORTS, its reasonable to say that topics meeting specific criteria within a given field are presumed to be notable and hence can have a full topic, so in this case, I can understand that the article would likely be created and given time to grow. But now that presumption is being challenged (particularly after someone stated it was GA-ready, ergo believed to be complete), it needs to be shown this article meets wider expectations for notability, namely the need of secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The article does have non-primary sources (the maps, which are actually secondary, along with a couple of news references). Dough 48 72 20:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Maps are not secondary sources when used to describe the path a road takes. The news references are not secondary works about the road as the road is only mentioned in passing. So there remain no secondary sources about the route. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The article does far more than simply describe the shape of the route, and the maps are also used for history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The additional information (like the traffic count, and the years it was constructed) are still primary data with no analysis. Why was the road built? Why is it still maintained? What's its importance to the traffic? How has or hasn't it helped? I suspect many of those questions have broad answers underneath some article about the whole of the Delaware route system, but not on specific routes. I know there exists 2-lane roads well longer than 8 miles that aren't state roads or even numbered, but certainly wouldn't be suitable for an article on WP. We need to understand why this specific road is important beyond just existing. Otherwise, its better suited to be listed as part of table of roads in Delaware (as to remain the gazetteer function). --MASEM (t) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate list. There is no secondary information about this road. Unlike villages and towns where people actually live there and thus will have a good chance of history expansions, roads are just roads, and unless more information beyond their primary data can be found, they shouldn't have their own article. We can still achieve the function of being a gazetteer by having such roads given in a list article; a gazetteer doesn't require a separate article for each element within it. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we redirect every other Delaware highway to a list? If we did this, the list would have issues per WP:SIZE. Dough 48 72 16:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary splits of large lists are acceptable. I dunno where the split would need to be but "List of Delaware State Routes, 1-200" and "List of Delaware State Routes, 201-400" would be fine. And those routes that are notable can retain their separate articles while still being listed in the larger tables for completeness. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370 and WP:ROADOUTCOMES as well as WP:N. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enclyclopedic topic, good sourcing, good content. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per arguments about the notability of state highways, many of which are linked above. Also per precedent; this goes against the longstanding consensus about the notability of state highways dating back over six years. --Rs chen 7754 18:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and WP:SNOW close - we just went through this last week. As part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer, enshrined in the Five Pillars, state-level and above highways are deemed to be always notable and are included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per previous discussions on state-highway related matters, WP:5P indicating that Wikipedia includes components of a gazetteer, and WP:ROADOUTCOMES indicating state-level highways have sufficient notability to meet the requirement of being mentioned in such a work. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close per WP:POINT. –Fredddie ™ 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I realise this is going to have no effect on the outcome (except possibly preventing a snow close), but I questioned the notability of a similar article and said that I would suggest deletion if it came to AFD then. I can not see how an article that has no real coverage outside of maps can have notability. It is like writing an article on an object just based off a picture or diagram. It fails WP:GNG which has more weight to my mind than Roadoutcomes and a Wikiprojects notability guideline. The WP:5P argument seems a bit of a stretch too. If we use the same reasoning for almanacs we would have blanket inclusion of "weather forecasts, farmers' planting dates, tide tables, ...". AIRcorn (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree that those siting the Pennsylvania Route 370 AFD is basically using the argument to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a new discussion in a new light (specifically, the fact that this article cannot ever reach a GA in this state, and thus questions the appropriateness of the article in the first place). --MASEM (t) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that an article cannot make it to GA, or should be removed from GA, is not a reason to delete it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only point about noted the GA discussion is to point out that this is a different argument from the Pennsylvania road AFD. In general, it is considered bad form to launch a re-nom or a different nom on a similar topic for a reason when that same reason clearly failed in the previous nomination. All I'm saying is, because this is coming from "how could this have been made into a GA?" discussion, it is a new argument, so any similarities to the Pennsylvania route AFD should be dropped from both sides. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except that the aforementioned PA 370 is also a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because, as exemplified in a statement of one of the proponents of deletion, "in general, it is considered bad form to launch a re-nom or a different nom on a similar topic for a reason when that same reason clearly failed in the previous nomination." (wikilinks added) V C 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I pointed out, the reasoning for this AFD is not the same as the previous one. Ergo, this is a bogus !vote. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is essntially the same as PA 370 and the same reasonings apply. Dough 48 72 01:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is a GA and should have been de-certified from that status before being sent to AfD. I do not believe any good/featured content should be subject to XfD until and unless de-certified from that status first. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Good article criteria does not deal with notability. Therefore it is possible for a non-notable article to be classed as Good. AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good article status, or the ability to attain or keep same, is, anyway, irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added some news sources to the article that are not from DelDOT. Dough 48 72 04:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep despite the insistence that maps are primary sources (a good faith mistake between primary and first party IMO), the article has second party coverage. This is in addition to the well reinforced community opinion that state and provincial highways are all eligible for inclusion. This article is well beyond the threshold for its own independent article, but there are plenty of Toronto street articles that could use an opinion! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm 100% positive that a map, as a reference to simply describe the route a road takes, is a primary data source. What analysis or critical claims are being made? What transformation of information is being made? (About the route, not about how the map was made) --MASEM (t) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an editorial decision whether or not a road is major enough to be on a map, in particular, on a state-wide map. Residential streets are not notable enough to be on state-wide maps, generally. --Rs chen 7754 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The raw data is surveying measurements, angles and coordinates. A cartographer then determines which data - the road or otherwise - to include in that map. They determine the scale, the symbols used to describe information, which roads to include (because they are notable) or which to not include (because they are minor and not of importance to the intended audience of the map. They determine which towns and villages to include on such a map, which features are worthy of labelling. This is an editorial judgment and makes the final outcome a secondary product of primary data. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also see Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_39#Regarding_maps_being_.22primary_sources.22_according_to_this_policy. --Rs chen 7754 00:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not transformational information about the road, simply a choice of the map maker. For a state-level map it would be silly of the map maker to exclude any numbered state highway in the first place. Editorial decisions of what or what not to include from a larger data set does not necessarily make a work secondary. Recapturing of data without additional analysis from something like GIS also does not make the map secondary with respect to the topic of the road itself. That discussion in the archives doesn't seem to convince editors that maps immediately qualify as secondary sources; they are certainly acceptable primary sources about roads, etc. and should be included in notable road articles, but cannot be used to demonstrated notability since they are, for all purposes, processed data with no discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "For a state-level map it would be silly of the map maker to exclude any numbered state highway in the first place." - Not true; what about secondary-level state highways, or ones that are less than a mile long? Also, what about other roads that are not state highways but show up on those sort of maps anyway? As far as the archive debate, a quote from User:DGG, a professional librarian: "How can something representing nature by conventional man-made symbols be regarded as a primary source?" --Rs chen 7754 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If I chose to publish a set of Yellow Pages but with only the A entries, that is not a secondary source just because of that editorial control. The periodic table is something from nature being represented by man-made symbols, and it would be considered a primary source if we were talking about any of the elements on it. Another argument is this: Anyone can take the publically available GIS data, and using home-built software tools, create a map of the road. For purposes of demonstrating what the route of that road is, that is not original research (this is done all the time for charts and graphs). Secondary sources normally necessitates that the information is original research that cannot be claims by Wikipedia's editors. Since a user-map map just showing the route is not original research, it is not likely going to be secondary research as well. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And even if one considered a map as a secondary source, the GNG requires "significant coverage in secondary sources". The road's route from a map is very much not significant coverage - it's just data. We need multiple secondary sources, which have not been provided. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:5P. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's also a gazetteer. Gazetteers include information on national- and state-level roads; also overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS: WP:OUTCOMES is that all state roads that can be verified are notable and kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        5P is not policy, but we can still achieve the function of a gazetteer by putting not-notable roads into lists. OUTCOMES can be challenged, and is not an assurance an article can be kept, and given the arguments presented to keep, there needs to be a re-evaluation of this for roads. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean we should have an article on it (per policy WP:V). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "5P is not policy"...now I've seen it all. 5P isn't "policy" because it's a Wikipedia founding principle! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No it's not. It's a fallacy that it is a founding principle of WP (the only principle is m:mission). WP:5 was created as a means to summarize WP's core policy and guidelines into these 5 pillars. I'm not saying that they don't reflect how Wikipedia works, but it is mistaken to think they're infallible or immune to counterarguments and consensus changes. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Debates and discussions are nice and all, but this one flies in the face of an overwhelming consensus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some additional information from secondary sources has been added to the article which adds notability to the subject such as indicating that it is part of the hurricane escape route. I think that if given more time, more information from secondary sources can be added. Alpertron (talk) 17:01, 8 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} 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besso Limited[edit]

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

Page created by a single-purpose account, references in the article are all unreliable/primary sources, in my searches I found a little more, just a couple of press releases and a couple of trivial mentions. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Cavarrone (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given. (And I wonder about Michael John Wade too.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article written for $50, it seems. See this and preceding edits. (If the freelancer.com advert referred to is deleted, you'll find a WebCite backup here.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 9 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 speedy delete. Speedy delete per G5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynne Chandler Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne E Chandler[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Recreated by editor with a WP:conflict of interest. Originally deleted two years ago after this debate. Google searches do not seem to show any independent coverage. noq (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Non-notable author. Promotional page page created by her husband which has already been deleted. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:43, 5 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} 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LaMuff[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO, declined CSD A7. GregJackP Boomer! 13:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs are own website and social media, non-encyclopaedic tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non encyclopedic tone, no reliable, third party sources to back it up, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nuke from orbit - blatantly promotional. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 05:57, 6 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} 04:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social networking sites in Peru[edit]

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

This seems to be a student essay, including author, and while it may be a good student essay I don't believe it is remotely encyclopedic as it is. It is pure original research and strongly opinionated. The single source does not seem to substantiate the content in the article. It has been tagged with multiple needs for improvement for well over half a year and has not been improved. I believe this should either be deleted or incubated until and unless it is modified to meet our core policies. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – An essay comprised of original research and numerous unsourced claims. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 9 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. There is certainly a strong consensus for the article not to be kept in its current form; the main contention is whether it should be merged or deleted. Numerically, the delete and merge votes are roughly equal. Those voting for delete note that this is a fringe theory with no independent sources to establish notability. They have also contested that merging the article would not resolve this issue. No one supporting the merger of the article has countered this argument, so no strong case has been put forward against deletion. Canvassing was a slight issue which I gave minor consideration too; however, it did not have a significant impact and only one new editor made a comment following the incident. Therefore, the consensus is for the article to be deleted. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Mountain inscriptions[edit]

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

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

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

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

The topic falls under WP:FRINGE, which requires it to be discussed in a serious manner by several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I can only find one (iffy) source which does so (America B.C. : Ancient Settlers in the New World, by Fell, Barry, published by Simon & Schuster in New York). The article cites this... and a self-published website by Gloria Farley, the person who "discovered" the inscriptions and came up with the theory that they were of pre-Columbian Celtic/Punic origin (neither independent nor reliable, and so not good for establishing notability). It also sites some scholarly sources that debunk the general idea that there was any pre-clumbian settlement by Europeans (other than the aborted Scandinavian settlement in Canada) - but these sources do not mention Turkey Mountain at all. I feel that additional sources are needed... I have conducted a reasonable search without finding any, and I have repeatedly asked if there are any additional sources (not necessarily scholarly source... media stories, tourist brochures, etc) to support the notability of the inscriptions, but no one has been able to provide any. I would be happy to withdraw this nomination if it turns out that there are sources... but as things stand now, I feel I must nominate. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one independent secondary source that describes the theory that the markings read Gwynn in Ogham and Pyaa in Canaanite: History of Southwest Tulsa (2003) p. 14. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that published? Can you provide the ISBN? All I could find is a self-published pdf of the same name and date. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable fringe. The site exists, but is supposedly notable only because of the fringe theories associated with it, none of which is notable or has been widely discussed, either within or outside of the fringe community. Mainly mentioned on very-low quality fringe blogs and in other low-quality self-published fringe sources. No mention at all in reliable sources after extensive Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar searches. Scant mention in fringe sources, mainly to a self-published website and a fringe book by a non-expert. Extensive discussion on article talk page and FTN established that none the fringe sources that mention the insciptions are notable or widely held or discussed. No credible evidence of notability whatsoever. The reliable sources used do not discuss the insciptions at all, but are used only to undermine the premise of the fringe theories. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge At this time not seeimg any evidacen of any notabilty, fringe as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There was a request for sources to show notability in 2008. None have appeared. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). It could function as a short subsection of the main article. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chnaged my choice to merge, seems like this is a workable solution.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article already contains a short paragraph noting the existence of the inscriptions (which mentions that "enthusiasts" believe the inscriptions are of Ancient European origin). I think this brief mention of the inscriptions (and the theory of their origins) is appropriate... but to say more in the context of that article (an general geographical article about the mountain) would give WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe theory. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be sufficiant, but could move the 'sources' from here to there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merging won't do if there are no reliable sources, and none have been found. The Tulsa pdf is just that, something that appears to be an internal document (one paragraph even has a question to the author of the paragraph appended to it). Til is its strongest backer and has not been able to come up with anything meeting our requirements. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes passing mention http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/archaic.htm, not sure if its RS or not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not reliable. And we need a lot more than passing mention. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Doug about there being no point in merging. The inscriptions are not mentioned by any reliable sources at all, so we have nothing to merge. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7p4iAQAAMAAJ&q=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&dq=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&source=bl&ots=i9so8NCtzp&sig=-XR2mQORDB6cHqtHfQO6bamr0YM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PIceUPqIOqGe0QXV-ICgDQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p4ryAAAAMAAJ&q=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&dq=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&source=bl&ots=s9kw_d7jmk&sig=3FKXy0nVgrM6dbRI3Y_-GFbAvGs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PIceUPqIOqGe0QXV-ICgDQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA Needs checking.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First source mentions it only in passing, and even then, puts "inscriptions" in scare quotes. Second source is fringe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Cultural Resources Literature Search Arkansas River Corridor

Tulsa, OK May 2005 Submitted To: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District:

Additional evidence of early human activity in the Arkansas River comes in the form of inscriptions on rocks believed to be made by Vikings or similar exploratory early Europeans around 1,000 AD (O’Brien 1996).

Such petroglyphs have been found at Turkey Mountain†† which is adjacent to the Arkansas River in the Middle Reach of the planning area (O’Brien 1996).

Does this satisfy all the hoops? It mentions the inscriptions, but not the "Colorado Ogham" theory. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.incog.org/Community_Economic_Development/River_Documents/ArkRivMP_Appendix%20C.pdf, note that the foot note says that the dates of these inscriptions are unknown and not well researched.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. It's only a passing mention that says nothing much about the inscriptions, and then only with qualification. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not a reliable source. It's a report "not for public use" of a group of people called "The Guernsey Team". For all we know it could be a bunch of kids. (No I don't think it is, but the point is that we don't know.) Not peer reviewed, not published, nothing. It's as unreliable as it gets. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility for merger... merge into Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses which already mentions similar theories at other locations. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. I fought hard to rid that article of non-notable fringe cruft, and so did Dougweller. And more still needs to be deleted. Nothing that isn't discussed in depth in independent reliable sources belongs there. Or anywhere else in WP, for that matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have a unreasonable definition of "reliable". When determining reliability, one has to look at context. A source can be unreliable in the context of verifying a statement of archaeological fact, and yet be perfectly reliable in the context of verifying a statement about what someone's fringe hypothesis is. In an article that is primarily about a fringe hypothesis, we do need to discuss what the fringe hypothesis says... and cite those who say it. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We have reliable sources for these fringe theories (namely the creators of the theories themselves). What we don't have is reliable sources that show notability for them. Or even the inscriptions. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We barely have confirmation from reliable sources that the inscriptions exist. No real decription or discussion of them. Not enough to make them notable. Nor do we have any confirmation from reliable independent sources that any of the "theories" about them are in any way notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And about merging, they are already mentioned in the target article, so there isn't much to merge. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do they exist, but you can see a photo of them http://fifisrag.blogspot.com/2011/06/ancient-celts-in-oklahoma.html Salon.com used to have an article about it with more recent photos including the guy with the cloth on his head showing it pecked into the stone, but it must have been taken down. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is not thier existance, it's who carved them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Til's first link is to a copyvio blog with a pic from Fell's book. Til, when you mention Salon.com, is it the mention here[6] which says "Here's a small write up on a blog I found on Turkey Mountain's Facebook account. Yes. Turkey mountain is on Facebook. *Sigh*http://blogs.salon.com/0002296/stories/2004/02/18/aStrollOnTurkeyMountainPetroglyphsAndLosCave.html" (url doesn't work even through the Internet archive). Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there is no mention of the petroglyphs the few sources I could find written about Turkey Mountain, they should not even be mentioned in that article either. Basically, they are scratchings that look like letters and could have been made anytime.[7] TFD (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pic you linked is another petroglyph on Turkey Mountain, but not the same one claimed in the sources to be Ogham and Iberic scripts. But there is a pic of that one in that set.[8] Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). But also suggest title of sub section should be changed to "Turkey Mountain petroglyphs", rather than inscriptions - since in the locality they seem to be known as petroglyphs (e.g. see the tourist map). Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: MERGE, but in effect DELETE. The consensus is clearly not to keep this article. I have moved stuff from here to Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) and will now merge these articles, in effect deleting this article since stuff is now at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). I know some people simply wanted a delete, but you can review Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) and change it if you think something is wrong there. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the AfD tag removal: there is a variety of opinions here, non-admin closures are not appropriate when the result is not clear cut. Also note that you have cut the AfD short, it has not run it's full course. An admin will come along and close this discussion as appropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Aarghdvaark. There is enough sourcing to justify mention in the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, hadn't realised there was a 7 day wait mandated. But I did think we had reached consensus. I read it that no-one above was for keeping the page, so that left either merge or delete. Since the petroglyphs were already on the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) page, deleting this page would mean the record of the discussions about them would be lost, whereas merging meant that if the discussion continued at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) at least people would know what had been said before. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree that there is a pretty clear consensus for merging. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I think merging is a workable solution. The inscriptions/petroglyphs/graffiti seem note worthy enough to be mentioned (briefly) somewhere in Wikipedia and the article on the mountain seems like the best choice. However, they are not notable enough for their own stand-alone article. It may be that, as time passes, more sources relating to the broader "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses" will mention Turkey Mountain... and if so, it would be appropriate to add a mention in that article as well. Indeed, it may be that as time passes we will have enough sources to support a stand-alone article on the inscriptions... but not at this time. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a clear consensus. Why merge? What reliable sources do we have? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Til is clearly canvassing, this is not at all neutral[9]. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, pretty blatant canvassing. I've added the canvassing template to the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 6 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 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hendrey[edit]

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

I am unable to find coverage of this actor. [10] Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. Till 11:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete; only passing mentions on gnews, IMDB entry suggests a lack of career beyond the one role. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT at this time. Might be fine with redirecting to Footballers' Wives: Extra Time, the program on which he had a regular role. Gongshow ^Talk 15:09, 6 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ward[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fan page for a Youtube musician. Singularly fails WP:MUSIC - no albums, no singles, no label, no chart placing, no radio airplay. Brief appearance on a TV show, not the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" required by WP:ENTERTAINER - every guest on Dr. Phil has more exposure than that. Only claim of notability is "lots of YouTube hits", which is not evidence of notability per WP:BIGNUMBER. WP:BIO's basic criteria "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" is not met at all - there is not one review or journalistic article, just a salad of YouTube videos and booking pages - nothing that approaches WP:V or WP:BLP. The article has already been deleted 5 times, including by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward, and was recreated without DRV. Given the 5 year campaign by fans to recreate this article, it should be WP:SALTed after deletion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler will be releasing an official original competitive album by the end of February 2013 ^[1] Tyler Has been noted on many official sites in the past for his work and his exceptional covers and has been interviewed ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]^[6]^[7] He is not under a label as he is his own record label, with his own producing equipment and his own clients ^[8], I don’t believe needing to be under someone else’s record label should qualify as a means to have a Wikipedia page when many established artists have their own record labels and even sign people under that record label. Tyler has had an official placement in a chart listing which was in fact noted on the existing Wikipedia page ^[9] Tyler has appeared on Tv, more than once in fact, he has been showed with Christina Grimmie on The Ellen DeGeneres show ^[10] , On tv news stations ^[11]^[12] ^[13] Tyler has opened for many artists in the past including The Frey, Tickle Me Pink, The Jonas Brothers^[14] and even YouTube band Boyce Avenue^[15], he also tours constantly with his band/crew, including his recent upcoming tour to promote his new upcoming album ^[16] Tyler has had significant radio air play which contributed to his placement in the Top 40 Chart^[17] Tyler supports the Compassion international: support a child campaign^[18] ^[19] A log of other information about him and his crew, although written by a fan can be found here ^[20] Not only has Tyler separated himself from the traditional YouTube artist, he has also shown true compassion for music today, with how much work he puts into what he does... I think it’s truly disgusting and disrespectful that you would say that someone who has been featured on programs like DrPhil are more important. If what this man has done breaks what Wikipedia is about just because he is a YouTube artist then i think you should revise the guidelines for Wikipedia because YouTube IS in fact quickly becoming a more important media outlet then modern television whether you like it or not and give it time (like for quickly rising YouTube turned mainstream artists Conor Maynard) and Tyler Ward will have many notable and qualify-able facts for this Wikipedia page. Who is to say the amount of views and downloads of a video doesn’t mean the same as the amount of record sales simply because of the way it is distributed and performed and who is to say an interview from a independent blogging site or a YouTube based news channel is not the same as a huge and even corrupted news station's such as fox or Perez Hilton. Joetri10 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a fan page, as I explain in the edit history. "no singles" - The article had a list of 39 singles written or co written by Tyler Ward before it was removed by a user. no chart placing - "Tyler Ward was once number five on Billboard's Top 100 Uncharted List and was also ranked on Billboard's Social 50 Chart for several weeks." (as stated and cited on the article.) The article was previously salted but then unsalted by an administrator when the administrator approved the article at AfC. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 19:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well as i said, give it half a year and he will most likely have an official single in the main charts if it makes you happy but as i said before, YouTube is stronger than ever, the amount of views he has gotten not being a mainstream artist is exceptional. Listing his achievements is not creating a fan page, it’s simply listing what he has done, just like if you were to list how many sales a singer gets of their song. I’m not sure why you feel it’s a fan page just because he is from Youtube. If you do delete it, at least don’t make it salted, because i do feel after February next year, what with this album, we will hear a lot more in the mainstream. Plus there was a lot more information about Ward and his band before someone decided to delete it because they didnt know who Tyler Ward actually is. Joetri10 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO #1. WP:MUSICBIO instructions are that at least one of the listed criteria be met.. and #1 is. It does not require that more than one, or that all of the great list shared by the nominator, need be. We also do not expect a singer who meets GNG and MUSICBIO also has meet the criteria set for actors. I never heard of Tyler Ward before tyoday, and whether or not the nominator actually reseached his deletion nomination, a very quick look finds international coverage for both his current music career and even his past sports career:
NBC News: February 15, 2010, "Tyler Ward Signs With Lehigh University"

The Connection, April 17, 2011: "YouTube helps aspiring stars launch their careers"

KDVR, November 30, 2011: "Colorado native burning up the music charts using social media"

GAFFA (Danish), December 12, 2011: "Tyler Ward kommer til Danmark "

Chester Chronicle, January 19 2012: "Tyler Ward to perform at Manchester Academy 3"

Billboard, February 18, 2011: "Traphik, Tyler Ward, Teen Hearts and More"

Billboard, March 1, 2011: , "Former football star-turned-songwriter Tyler Ward is slowly climbing the upper rungs of the chart, moving into the no. 5 slot this chart week"

La Primera Plana (Spanish), March 8, 2012: "10 mejores cantantes jóvenes de Youtube"

USA Today, March 21, 2011: "Country stars, YouTube acts double up for ACMs"

and several dozen more reliable sources speaking toward this singer in English and non-English.

When we have a verifiable and notable topic that so nicely meets both the intent and spirit of the GNG, we discuss and address perceived issues, not delete a notable topic per a possible animus or lack of actually looking. I was asked to look into this discussion, and had notability not been so obvious, I would have gladly opined a delete. Whatever the history of this article in the past, at THIS POINT IN TIME, notability criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and WP:BAND. It could use more refs, such as the international ones listed above, but is easily above the bar. In order is a !vote for keep, and to salt: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward (3rd nomination). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May we come to some agreement now and add the list of information and source links to the page now, and the information including the fact that he is in a band (as many seem to deem it necessary to delete that information simply because of his name being the name of his band and/or because they don’t know who he is before this page was created. The page will need to be built over time for obvious reasons but good reasons nonetheless. I will not name others due to the fact that the YouTube haters will end up going to their pages too but i have found many other Youtube Artists with a Wikipedia pages in very good standard with the same type of information the page for Ward has. Joetri10 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe wait until this AFD is closed? And to avoid and problems per WP:BLP, add back ONLY such information as can be cited to reliable sources AND include those proper citations. Also, avoid long lists of his works, as prose is the preference... and inlclude only those works that are themselves verifiable in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Uncertain/Examining the proposed references above in turn ,

the first is a local station saying he went to Leigh as a freshman to play football.
"aspiring" stars are people who aspire to become notable, not those who are notable.
Another local article, saying he;s popular on YouTube which is not notability no matter how many people say it.
Concert announcement
Another concert announcement
Billboard article that doesn't load.
another Billboard article that doesn't load. The quote from it does not say he charted #5, but that he ranked #5 among the artists who did not chart.
another article saying he's popular on youtube. No matter how many article say it, they're not saying he;s notable.

DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

# That’s an article from NBC, what else do you want?, Just because he didn’t continue his career you say its irrelevant?

The term "Aspire" can be used to notable people as well, you can never stop aspiring to be something.
That is your own opinion on YouTube, you don’t get many singers that hit that many views and in fact he has gotten more views then that of signed artists, they who also have a Wikipedia page...
A concert is still a concert and he sells out and gets in the news for it, he is at high demand due to his talent and performances, i provided a link for that information once but it got ignored as Original research.
Maybe if the link was pasted correctly it wouldn’t have an error - for reference.
It says he debuted at #7, that’s good enough. The same article also features Timothy DeLaGhetto which wouldn’t you know it, has a Wiki page of his own!. (In before you go and destroy it)
He is 28th most subbed singer on YouTube, do you actually realise just how amazing that is for someone, he's even above a lot of Vevo channels!. Joetri10 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ DGG: You were the one who helped to teach me that ANY information included in a BLP had to be sourcable... even if it is a minor fact about being a former college footall player. And that the Billboard articles are not loading today does not mean they did not exist when offfered. Maybe their servers are having a problem, but at the time I listed them as sources I was reading them. When a nominator claims someone has received no coverage in independent sources, it is important to show the error of that statement. As for notability, you taught me that such is is not determined by what a source writes about a topic, but through the fact that they do write something. We may disagree, but the GNG and WP:MUSBIO #1 are met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's probably true that my standards have gotten a little more demanding over the years, presumably due to the amount of junk I've seen. I don't think I ever really said that it doesn't matter what the source says, it matters that it talks about the subject in a substantial and non-trivial way, and that it talks about matters that would be relevant to notability for something. I once accepted the GNG as a good solution to dilemmas about notability, but I now think it's been made less helpful by the very large amount of material available to us & its variability by subject field, and we need to interpret it according to what sort of sourcing is to be expected in the field : this is popular music, and extensive sourcing is available for anything likely to be notable. The key question for both the GNG and MUSBIO1 is the same: whether the coverage is nontrivial. As I see it, this depends on the contents of the Billboard material. Do you have access to the print? But if it's a matter of overall judgment, I defer to you in this subject area, so I've changed to uncertain. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was some of the demontrably incorrect statements by the nominator, based upon article state, and easily dispelled by two minutes of WP:BEFORE,[11][12][13][14] that raised my hackles. Is this fellow the most notale person ever? No. Does WP:SIGCOV require sources be "substantive" in content or "only" about the topic being sourced? Not at all... simply that they be more than "trivial" and provide enough detail so no original research is needed to extract the content. Is he receiving coverage in a more-than-trival manner in numerous reliable sources... even if not all are substantive? Yes. Could the article and the project benefit by this topic being expanded and sourced over time and through regular editing? Sure. Does he not being as notable as someone like Keith Richards mean we delete? I think not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the available sourcing, he does appear to meet the GNG, at minimum, with ample coverage. The article could certainly be better formatted and the sources listed above used, but I see no reason to delete it. Silver seren^C 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Silverseren sums it up nicely; enough coverage exists in reliable sources for this person to satisfy WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 07:52, 11 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah muslim school[edit]

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

Non notable school Iamthemuffinman (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't done a proper search myself yet, but even without it, long standing tradition indicates we generally keep institutions for secondary education. I don't see how this is different. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If we're going to overturn a very long-standing policy, there needs to be a reason; the nominator has given no reason why he doesn't think this is notable. Mogism (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General consensus is that articles on secondary schools should be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source that confirms the school exists? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is a list of institutions that are affiliated with the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in Islamabad[15], of which Jinnah Muslim School and College is one, although the address appears a little off from that in the article. However, there do not appear to be sufficient sources around to be able to expand the article beyond the one line so I would favour adding the school to List of educational institutions in Islamabad (where it does not currently appear to be listed) and redirecting this page there. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expand the Article and capitalize its proper noun title. After that, we can discuss notability again later. Then again, the Article is barely even a stub, so it wouldn't be hard to retype from scratch after deletion, if more sources are found. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 13 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of prisons in Ningxia[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with reason "part of a series covering the whole of China". As none of the list items currently have articles, and the source provided does not have enough information to create such articles, this would appear to not meet the general notability guidelines. This appears more like a directory than an informative list, rather than an encylopedic entry. While I admire the intention to cover the whole of China, that does not mean that everything in China needs to have an entry, and a list which consists of no links to articles, or significant amounts of information, does not seem to be sufficient enough to meet the expectations at WP:LIST PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 29 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's criticism seems directed only at the current state of the article, without regard to the potential of the topic. It is not adequate to only comment on the sources present within an article. I also don't think the "directory" characterization is substantive. Typically a NOTDIR problem is addressed by editing out unencyclopedic content. There is no contact info, no map, nothing that would actually enable people to use this to...what, visit the prisons? Whatever exactly a "prison directory" would do, I don't know. Which is not to say that there may not be a good and meaty rationale for deleting this; it just hasn't been presented yet. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have made it clear in the nomination, but I did see if I could find alternative sources, but I couldn't find anything which appeared suitable for use as referencing here. Potential can be a valid reason to keep, but not when there is no indication of that potential! Of course, if someone else can do a better search and find significant coverage of the individual prisons, at reliable, independent sources which show that the individual prisons are notable enough to warrant an article (at the moment, an article of any of these prisons would only have the same content as the list content!), then that would be different - but to have none of the items in the list having an article? That's not the use of a list on Wikipedia. I gave the criteria for deletion above - it doesn't meet the notability criteria. The comment about NOTDIR said it was like a directory, not that it was a directory. Again, I repeat for clarity - this does not meet notability, which is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. Incidentally, there is a good venue for a comprehensive coverage of all things Chinese - at the Chinese-language Wikipedia. There are lots of valid subjects about China and matters Chinese on this Wikipedia - but not everything merits inclusion on this Wikipedia. I don't know what that Wikipedia's policy is on content, but this Wikipedia requires subjects to meet the notability criteria, with reliable independent sources giving significant coverage of the subject. This list does not meet that standard PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this just a test nomination? Because this is one of a series, in Category:Lists of prisons in China, and I see no reason to single out Ningxia. The split by region is simply for the sake of convenience and is a rather obvious way to subdivide it. You seem to be looking at this only as a navigational list, as we use to list articles grouped by a given topic, and so are fixated only on the question of whether each prison is notable. However, the broader topic of "prisons in China" is definitely notable even if not every individual prison merits an article. So if they are notable as a group, these lists may satisfy WP:LISTN ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") or WP:LISTPURP#Information. Why is it not a reasonable part of covering the topic of prisons in China to list the prisons and some basic information about them? They are not so numerous as to make these lists trivial or indiscriminate. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick response: no, this is not a test nomination. I came across it while looking for something else, and thought it didn't belong on Wikipedia. That's the only reason why I've nominated it. I hadn't even looked at other "Prisons in China" articles. As for "individual items in a list do not need to be notable" - that may be the case, but surely some of them need to have articles? I agree that the broader topic of Prisons in China would probably be notable, but I would have thought that the broader topic could either be mentioned (suitably sourced) in the Penal system in the People's Republic of China article - or an overall article Prisons in China (which currently links to the Penal system article) could be created. Again, this would need to be reliably sourced, etc. However, this list appears to do what a category would normally do... but which a category cannot do in this case, as none of the prisons have articles. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...but surely some of them need to have articles?" Plenty do. See Category:Prisons in China. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... but not in this particular list, which is the one being discussed for deletion! Also, most of those consist of 1 short paragraph ("xxx is a prison in xxx. It has xxx cells. It is connected with xxxx prison firm", which hardly seems worth having an article about. If they all looked more like Tilanqiao Prison, it'd be a different matter... but again, none of the prisons on this list (which is the only one being discussed here) have articles - and a decent article on them would not be possible, as it would end up being an article consisting of exactly the same information as in the list. A case in point - List of prisons in Anhui has several prisons for which there is an article - but all of those articles repeat exactly the same information as the list article, albeit in prose-form rather than in table-form (in fact, most of the prison article have less information than the list article) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a sublist by region of prisons in the whole country of China, split purely for size reasons. If they were merged together, your criticism of "this" list as lacking any notable prisons would clearly be completely irrelevant; the fact that it is presented in separate pages shouldn't change that, and it is completely aribitary to delete some of this content just because of the characteristics of one sublist. And the information you dismiss as not worth documenting is exactly the information I'd want to know about a prison--location, size and inmate population, and as the issue of China's forced labor is an important one, the industry its inmates work in. That's all important information about China's prisons, so even if that is all we can verify for a prison, that's enough to merit inclusion. But it's clear you're determined to win here, so let's wait for other opinions to see if this can be closed as anything but "no consensus", as I've decided upon keep based on my comments above and the lack of a compelling deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not "determined to win" - if the consensus is to keep, I'm quite happy for that to be shown in a discussion here. I happen to think that this article should not be kept - and had no intention of nominating other, similar, articles, as I had not looked at them. If I wanted to do that, I would have nominated them at the same time. I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it! But that's what makes Wikipedia successful in my opinion - the community makes decisions on such matters, and if the consensus should be that this should be kept, I'm quite happy to move on; if the consensus should be that this should be deleted, I'm quite happy to move on. Either way, I don't take personal satisfaction or disatisfaction. And on that note, that will probably be my last contribution to this discussion! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prisons in China are notable as a group, so this satisfies WP:NOTESAL. James500 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice project! The notes column make a very interesting read. The topic is notable and should be retained, even if it means some pages may have little or no notability of their own. Yaniv256 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't read Chinese to delve into this more, but I think there is a presumption of notability given similarly titled/formatted articles elsewhere. List of United States state prisons contains List of Alabama state prisons, and Alabama has a population less than that of Ningxia. I agree with aforementioned reference to WP:NOTESAL, too. Location (talk) 01:05, 9 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setjetting[edit]

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

Though the term does seem to have been used a few times, this has the feel of a neologism that never caught on beyond scattered use here and there. In particular, I can't see the difference between this and "pop culture tourism" (which has its own page and which really more or less covers the phenomenon sufficiently on its own), suggesting that this page is more or less redundant. Tyrenon (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was ready to recommend deleting this as a non notable neologism, but my search shows that it has been discussed enough in reliable sources that I conclude it passes the threshold into notability. Here are examples: 'Set-jetters' boost tourism, Set Jetting, Set jetting 2008 — fabulous film locations, Set jetting around New Zealand locations, Elsewhere: Frightseeing, Palidays and Set-Jetting, and SET-JETTING TO THE ISLANDS OF THE BAHAMAS. The topic is narrower than Pop-culture tourism as a tour of Beatles-related sites in Liverpool would not be considered setjetting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess a better way to express my feeling is that while the information may be worthy of inclusion, having it as a subheading of the Pop Culture Tourism article with a redirect makes more sense (especially since that article is fairly short). If they were both long articles, I'd agree that separate pages made sense; however, since it's a stub and a not-quite-a-stub article, consolidation with a redirect would make sense.Tyrenon (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Academics have been documenting examples for over a decade ... set-jetting is an established tourist phenomenon." Warden (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If kept rename to Set-jetting, but we seem to have little more than a definition. Possibly tansfer to dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and sources identified by Cullen328 and Colonel Warden. The term appears to me to be more notable than pop-culture tourism, which is unreferenced. -- Trevj (talk) 10:15, 13 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 falls, article dies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of family offices in Australia[edit]

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

Non-notable list which will normally have non-notable entries. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also think that the list will inherently have non-notable entries. But the list was created by a very new user, who may have some good stuff and just did not realize that you are supposed to submit actual content when you create an article. I am willing to give them some time to add what they've got. I think it would have been an excellent candidate for PROD, but an IP added the word "reasoning" to WP:REFUND and here we are. hajat vrc @ 08:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST, non-notable listees. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST, 2 entries doesn't make an article. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTDIR. This is just a short listing of two family offices in Australia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 7 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} 04:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahaghili.com[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion e-tailer. Only refs appear to be resellers and a small number of blogs. Seaching in google turns up lots of items for sale and a few mentions in blogs, but no indepth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject may be notable based on the content of the article, but I too performed a Google search and came up with squat. If someone could provide some independent sources that discuss the subject in sufficient detail, I will support a keep. hajat vrc @ 08:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:43, 5 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kakato de Ai o Uchinarase[edit]

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

Stub about a non-notable musical release. One reference, which appears to be a forum post (changed from a link to a music sale site when teh PROD was removed). Song appears not to have charted. No claim of notability. Lots of database entries and music sales sites in google, along with a few forum-type sites. Nothing that looks like indepth coverage in independent third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. Note: I don't speak Japanese and all the sources appear to be in Japanese. No inter-wiki link to steal refs from. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find both the Japanese Wikipedia entry and a reference from Oricon that proves it reached number 8 on the charts. That is likely sufficient to satisfy WP:NSONG. Michitaro (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as per foriegn-language evidence dug up by Michitaro. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed AbuBakr Abdullah Badhib[edit]

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

Non-notable and the PROD BLP tag was removed multiple times by the author sans addressing the issues. I haven't found any evidence to confirm this subject is notable, there is a possible relevant or irrelevant "Abu Bakr al-Badhib" here. This article claims he is the editor of The Encyclopedia of Mecca and Medina, which may be notable but there are no sources to confirm this. Aside from that link, the only links I found are either Wikipedia mirrors or "no results found" websites. I must also note that I found zero results with Google News. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched in three languages, and cannot find evidence of his own notability or that of his claimed publications. Mirror sites clearly don't count.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found yet. Probably too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 6 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 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teleport Station (band)[edit]

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

Unremarkable band. No assertion of notability. No reliable third party references - all there is are a bunch of self-published links (twitter, youtube, etc.) which say "the band exists". Biker Biker (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete A7. The article does not even attempt to make a "credible claim of significance or importance". hajat vrc @ 07:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate sources beyond social networking profiles/sites; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 10:23, 12 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 merge to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narsil[edit]

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

Fictional artefact, does not have enough real world significance to require it's own article. Article should be deleted and any information that needs saving can go in List of Middle-earth weapons and armour GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes an improper form of merger which would violate our licensing - see WP:MAD. The title of the article is a distinctive search term and so should not be a red link. Warden (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You know, we don't always have to go with the nom's proposal. A Speedy Keep here may be a little too hasty. There's always the standard merger, or the article could end up being kept. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considered keep. It's always hard to tell what is important from works of fiction, and in practice the "discussed in mainstream sources" rule is totally ignored. Lest you suspect that I'm one of those users who votes to keep anything related to stuff I like, there was an AFD less than a year ago when I voted a strong delete for another Middle-Earth weapon or two, but this seems fairly important as an object related to Tolkien's development of the king plot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where this "mainstream sources" come from (at least for me, academic research is not "mainstream"), but anyway, the actual pratice, detailed in WP:GNG, is that if it is not significantly covered in multiple independent secondary and reliable sources, a stand-alone article is not appropriate. Claims of a topic being "important" don't go beyond the user's subjective POV without sources to show this "importance", and and that's not enough to build an article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seattle Times coverage of replica, Mentioned in NYT coverage of online game, coverage of its appearance in upcoming Hobbit film. That's not including at all the half-a-dozen pay-per-view sources in English that I see via Google News. GNG is met, as this particular fictional element has received non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle Times: just a listing with price and description of a movie replica, it's not about the fictional world and not even proper coverage. NYT: not coverage, just a half-sentence trivial mention. Geeksofdoom: no coverage, just a 4 words trivial mention. PPV articles are unlikely to be different from all that. With these sources, GNG is not met and I see no non-trivial coverage. Jclemens, please stop presenting each hit you get with google as "non trivial", this is misleading as it's obvious you've not even read any of the articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. Despite for a few quick mentions of an Arthurian parallel, it seems Narsil has never been proheminently featured in Tolkenian research, contrary to other objects or notions. This is a case where no more an a paragraph could be written besides plot summary, thus a merge is appropriate (WP:WHYN). Besides that, I note that the book/film comparison is entirely unsourced. As said earlier, the "sources" provided by Jclemens don't fit the WP:GNG criteria and are thus unconclusive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. I agree with Folken de Fanel, but I think I've found two or three reliable publications that reference Narsil: Weapons of Fantasy And Folklore, Bits of Organization, and a German article that analyses the film scene where Boromir cuts his finger on the shards of Narsil [16]; notably this analysis is done from a queer theory point of view. De728631 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour per Folken de Fanel. There really isn't very much here that can be talked about that isn't just plot summary, at least not that have proper sources. Even the sections of the article that are labled as things other than plot (such as the Adaptations section) is still just mostly more plot information coupled with some OR. The sources that seem to be available that talk about this are either extremely trivial, such as the sources found by Jclemens, or talk about the sword only in terms of plot, such as the first two found by DE728631. The thid link found by DE728631 has potential, but going by what he says it is about (as I do not speak German and thus must take his word for it), it seems like a very narrow, somewhat fringe analysis, and thus wouldn't really be enough to support much content. Merging the information to the appropriate article, and then keeping this page as a redirect seems to be the best solution, as any actual sourced information would be preserved in the target article, and the concerns about preserving the article history and red-linking the search term, as brought up by Warden, would both be solved. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the weapon / armor list. I think deletion would be more appropriate, considering that this article is more or less just a plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. To the extent that there isn't plot information, it's a miniscule fact stretched into a long padded quote, which isn't the WP:SIGCOV required in the general notability guideline. But I've never felt too stubborn to compromise with other editors if it will help reach a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 7 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 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Price (Footballer Born 1996)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't appeared in a fully professional league or made a senior international apperance Seasider91 (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I can't find even a slight indication that this guy is notable, and most of the article is unsourced. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is barely sourced and the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. – Pee Jay 23:03, 9 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GloZell Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Glozell Green

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Having a lot of hits on YouTube does not constitute notability. I see nothing in the article or from doing a Google search that suggests Green has significant coverage (most of the sources are original research). Tiptoety ^talk 05:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete does not seem to be notable from the sources. The'ChampionMan1234 05:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but notability is determined on the sources available, not on the sources that are "in" the article at the time of its nomination. Till 12:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GloZell is extremely significant on the internet: http://www.kansan.com/news/2011/mar/10/q-glozell-green/, http://live.drjays.com/index.php/2011/03/23/who-is-glozell/, http://popcrush.com/nicki-minaj-stupid-hoe-parody-glozell/. Sources in article are significant and reliable (implying that Perez Hilton isn't reliable...hmmm...) People looking up "Glozell wikipedia" highly suggests that they are looking for a Wikipedia article, one that has been created. No reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargaretThatcher123 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should go with speedy not AfD for this type of deletion The'ChampionMan1234 05:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cinnamon_challenge references her, but the link to her is not there. Why? Because no one will let her have a Wikipedia article. MargaretThatcher123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TheChampionMan1234, you declined deletion for Kumbar, which if you look up on Google receives 664,000 search results. When you look up GloZell, an article you did nominate for deletion, you get 2,660,000 results! MargaretThatcher123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Also note that GloZell has t-shirts made after her http://www.rodeoarcade.com/collections/glozell. Sounds pretty significant to me. MargaretThatcher123 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 2,660,000 results does not count when they are all either from YouTube fans or minuscule references from others. The YouTube personalities for which we have articles (e.g. Natalie Tran) are notable because independent, reputable, published sources have discussed them in sufficient detail. Unless you can provide these, Glozell does not make the cut. One small reference from Perez Hilton does not make the subject notable. hajat vrc @ 07:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been fixed with multiple reliable sources, she thus passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Till 12:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I still feel the same way I did in the article's first nomination. The article is well-referenced and Glozell appears to have enough notably to warrant her own Wikipedia article. I don't see the problem. Statυs (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article itself seems fine. Sources are reputable and it just proves you have to do a little digging. The article is well referenced and it seems that Glozell has made a large enough impact to warrant an article. Roseycheeksatemysandwich (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep after new contributions from Till and Roseycheeksatemysandwich. Good job! hajat vrc @ 16:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ms. Green is notable for inclusion. This was more or less discovered during the previous AFD and DRV when it was located at "GloZell Green", but a lack of consensus at the DRV resulted in the AFD result being kept the same.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No violations of NPV or NOTE. Seems fine. Close the discussion. Supercharger12821 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This comedian has received considerable press, and her YouTube channel has over 225 million views. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 12 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Youvan[edit]

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

I think this article needs to stand for an AFD test. This article struck me as being a BLP with literally no verifiable information in its current state other than that he has written some books. Since BLP's are held to a higher standard, I think that, in its current state, the article should be either improved or deleted. Regarding improvement, I tried, and have not been able to find any sources that I would consider "good sources" per WP guidelines. My specific concern is Wikipedia's Professor Test for notability. Perhaps someone out there has better access to sources in this particular field than I do, because I'm not seeing anything article worthy on my end. Ditch ∝ 04:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: I just skimmed through the news and books sources; Youvan's name comes up here and there, but specialized knowledge is required to estimate the value. I've added an expert-subject template to the article. -- BenTels (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 for high citations in Google scholar and external attention such as this to his research. I am troubled by the creationist external links in the article, though, because that aspect of his life doesn't seem to have attracted enough attention for us to give it the mainstream-point-of-view coverage demanded by WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. I'm also a bit troubled by the contentious edit history of the article, per WP:BLP. Maybe the best solution is to remove the links and stick to only material that can be verified from reliable third party sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Researching this article has been an interesting experience. On the one hand he has co-authored quite a large number of papers (more than 50, possibly as many as 100) and seems to have done some good work as a bioscientist. He is even mentioned on the NASA spinoff website (link). On the other hand the ~~website~~ URL of the company he set up (KAIROS Scientific, Inc) has been hijacked by a Japanese push-up bra company. He is a creationist and has self-published a couple of ebooks, which may be considered WP:FRINGE: "As Velocity Approaches Light Speed, P Becomes Equivalent to NP for Computations Using Zero-Mass Particles"; and "Questions of a Christian Biophysicist", which has the quote 'Doug feels called ... to “extinguish Darwinism” and spread the word that “an intelligent man can believe in literal Creation”. He is credited with finding a pattern in the genetic code which is inexplicable by any Earthly process.' There is also a pattern of sockpuppetry and legal threats surrounding this article, with at least three users being blocked including User:Doug_youvan (see Nukeh). There are similar legal and other issues on Wikimedia Commons, which I'm not going to link to (but will say that they are very strange). Despite all this he might still satisfy WP:PROF#C1. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the spinoff.nasa site to the article, if nothing else, at least to reference his time at MIT. But I also used it to include a snippet that the he was part of developing spectral analysis technology used by NASA. The source looks good, but not sure I got the "jargon" right, as I'm certainly not an expert in the field, so someone may want to double check my wording. Still don't think it's enough for WP:NOTE but at least it's something! Thanks CodeTheorist! Anything else you can provide? Ditch ∝ 22:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For D C Youvan GS gives an h-index of 32 with 6 papers with over 100 cites. This is a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 for his scientific activities. His religious activities do not seem to be notable. This should be reflected in the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Is it possible to add the h-index info to the article with a ref? Ditch ∝ 00:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is not to do this as the h-index frequently changes (it always increases with time). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 30 July 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) 04:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First someone removes vast amounts of sourced, verifiable material from the article then someone nominates it for deletion for having "literally no verifiable information in its current state". That is fucking awesome. Note that Youvan's views of the origins of life etc is an entirely separate issue from his achievements within mainstream science. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this pertinent observation. The material removed is the very material that establishes his notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, notability (and in such cases proof of importance of someone's work) needs to be established by citing reviews and citations of the work, not work by the subject himself. Note claims such as "This work correctly predicted..." without a reference to back it up, or "This observation can be compared with Frances Crick's declaration of the genetic code as being a frozen accident," tagged as possibly synthesis (the article, as far as I can tell, does not name Youvan). Going over that edit, there is one statement that I should have let stand: "International collaborative work was funded by a Human Frontier Science Program Award", with a citation (((cite web | url = http://www.hfsp.org/awardees/AwardsRGM1991.htm | title = AWARD YEAR 1991 – "Molecular" Research Grants))). A list of work the subject has done without secondary references proving its importance is just a resume in prose and such a list in itself does not establish notability, it establishes that a person has published (with a bunch of co-authors). Drmies (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that "Human Frontier Science Program Award" can't be verified. The supplied link is dead, there are no search results on the organization's website for his name at all, their archive goes back only to 2004, and the search function on their website lists nothing like a "program award". It is possible that what is referred to is a "Program Grant", as they call it. Searching elsewhere delivers this paper, supported "by National Institutes of Health Grant GM42645, Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-90ER20019, and by the Human Frontiers Science Program", which begs the question of how notable this grant was--whether it was a major award or not. Not all grants are of encyclopedic notability, though they are of great importance to a person's resume. Note that I have no interest in defending this person's notability or the lack thereof. As for "that is fucking awesome"--well, that's just hot air. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

when the appropriate removal of bad content and sourcing starkly reveals an actual lack of notability, bringing it to the appropriate process IS TOTALLY fucking awsome!!1!!1! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red, you're TOTALLY FUCKING correct! :-D Concerning the Human Frontiers "award", that's not an award but a grant. Not easy to get, but that goes for all grants. All scientists in this kind of field have at least one such grant at any given time, often several concurrently, so this is not really anything out of the ordinary. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and I believe it's a bad faith nomination: removing relevant information from the article before putting up for AfD does not show a neutral view on the subject. If any cites for the creationist views or essays are found then the links should be retained, because it is a biographical article in addition to being a research article and not every aspect of a person's biography needs to pass GNG or WP:PROF to be included as long as the biographical subject as a whole passes GNG or a more specialized guideline, but I agree that there needs to be at least one citation to let us know that this is a significant part of his life or research (more important than say cat pictures, etc.). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ditch Fisher nominated this 2 days after Drmies made the edits you refer to. As explained above, they did not contribute one iota to notability. I don't see why this then amounts to bad faith on the part of Ditch. And, in any case, regardless for what ultimate reason an article has been taken to AfD, what counts here is notability and notability alone. In that respect, would you care to tell us on what policy your keep !vote is based? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't see any reason given for keeping the article. And cat pictures? Drmies (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be this all as it may. There is a clear-cut pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I agree with Xxanthippe that PROF is met - some of his papers are cited several hundred times and there are also mentions of him in New Scientist as well as being cited by many text books. Finding good sources for living scientists tends to be difficult, but Youvan appears to have made a significant contribution to our understanding of photosynthesis. SmartSE (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure we should be having articles on living scientists we can't find good sources for. It's very clearly a BLP issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you click on the scholar link at the top of the page you will find hundreds of good sources. See WP:Prof policy guideline. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

scholar is likely to give hits by the subject, but not content about the subject. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Pete's sake, look at the citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

When I was looking for the Crick article I found that Youvan has a ton of articles in the Journal of Molecular Biology which is a pretty clear indication that he means something. I can't do the h-indices and all that, but the man is obviously well-published. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not good sources. Citations don't even establish that he's not another Nicolas Bourbaki. They certainly don't establish birth name, place, date or gender, all of which self-reporting has been known to lie about, and all of which are standard for a biography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prosfilaes, I've been around the block here a couple of times; you don't have to state the obvious. But you're not even correct. Lying about gender is pretty rare, for instance, and it is perfectly possible to write a decent article, at least a decent stub, without that biographical information. For notability purposes it doesn't matter one little bit whether someone is proven to be born somewhere, sometime, with a certain type of plumbing. Just look at this, Category:Year of birth missing (living people). WP:PROF gets along quite well without the things we usually take for granted in biographies, because notability is judged on the appraisal of the work a person has done or, in some cases, their position. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to this [17] to see what his role in the advocacy of helping the broader public understand scientific issues? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is available via Nexis, which, I believe, most university libraries in Anglophone countries subscribe to. It doesn't say anything about Youvan's work in the public understanding of science, but describes his work as one of a six-person team at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory who chopped up some bacterial DNA in order to identify the genes associated with photosynthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was very misled by the headline! Thanks for checking. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Kamanda[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO -- lack of significant third-party coverage of him, most notable event seems to be founding a redlinked magazine, and unclear if association with Clinton is significant. Possible to rescue if anyone can dig up sources. BennyHillbilly (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to be notable at this time based on available sources. And working for someone who is notable does not confer notability, so... -- BenTels (talk) 18:49, 29 July 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) 04:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Recently edited, found more third-party coverage. AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AuthorAuthor's new contribution to the article. hajat vrc @ 07:51, 5 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} 04:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Kamali[edit]

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

Resume-like, can't find independent sources of notability other than being involved in a large number of projects. Seems like a successful career, but not yet meeting WP:BIO. BennyHillbilly (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 29 July 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) 04:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is promoting Steven Kamali Hospitality business. --BMWcomputer (talk) 17:36, 5 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:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation when he meets WP:NFOOTY. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Mitrović (footballer)[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. He his only appearances for Partizan to date has been in Champions League qualifying, which does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as no apperance in FPL. Seasider91 (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only claim for notability is the match against Valetta, which is not a team from a fully pro league, and consensus per WP:FOOTYN is that footballers need to play in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues to be notable. Recreate when he meet the criteria. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - He played yesterday in a shamefull CL qualifiying match vs AEL Limassol - Link... He is "pushed" by the "baby selling" Partizan administrators into the first-team and if not this opening league weekend, he will debut in the league soon. FkpCascais (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When he does debut in the league, recreate. – Kosm1 fent 07:38, 12 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 Userfy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolit[edit]

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

non notable and promotional. AfC submission that should not have been accepted. References are either not independent or insubstantial. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one reference provided that is even possibly reliable; I found none of any substance in my own brief search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was rather confused some months ago when avs accepted this submission. mabdul 11:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: this submission covers a year-old online charity that managed to receive notice in local newspaper and on some obscure TV channel (or whatever EbruNews is). Though Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about one's noble cause, I would give this article benefit of doubt and allow its author to improve and re-submit it for WP:AFC review once/if ready. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for future development - article has merit and may be GNG notable in a year or so. Does need more independent reliable sources indicating its impact on the (virtual and real) community. I'm against deletion, because it reasonably may become GNG notable. --Lexein (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy article should be improved, not deleted. Limemine (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject may be notable, but the Article reads like an infomercial. If indeed the subject is notable, it would be just as easy to write a new Article from the very start, rather than try to improve this commercial. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note, that I don't see unambiguously inappropriate tone. In fact, I don't see any need in rewriting the article once the reliable sources are there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's easy to see any article written about a business or non-profit as promotional. It's a challenge to find independent RS which do research, rather than merely parrot PR. Some government studies, public interest groups, consumer advocacy groups, can help. See also WP:List of free online resources and WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange --Lexein (talk) 10:52, 13 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 merge to Criticism of Coca-Cola. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola ban in Bolivia[edit]

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

I originally PROD'ed this under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the original author expanded the article. Still two issues: (1) the first (and most recent) news article linked to [18] says that officials aren't banning Coke; and (2) this seems like it would fit better in the main article on Coca-Cola (which already mentions the discussion of a possible ban.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article should merge and redirect to the main Coca-Cola article if it better suits the purpose of a "possible" ban in Bolivia. GVnayR (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criticism of Coca-Cola might be a better merge/redirect target. It already has a section on the Bolivian proposal. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Coca-Cola seems reasonable to me. Zappa O Mati 23:21, 6 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. Jenks24 (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Netball in Brunei[edit]

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

Article has barely any content, and the governing body of the sport does not even recognize the country. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Virtually little content. What else do we know about netball in Brunei other than the fact that it's available to girls PE classes? And what the heck does badminton have to do with netball? Zappa O Mati 03:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – possibly merge with Netball. No valid rationale for deletion has been presented in the nomination, per WP:DEL-REASON. This topic meets WP:GNG per [19], [20], [21], [22]. Also, an article having little content is not a valid reason to delete it in entirety. If this were the case, then all stub articles would be removed, which wouldn't be functional whatsoever. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic clearly meets WP:GNG. Being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely limited information, true, but no reason is presented to remove the little information we have. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:37, 8 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 List of Wheel of Time characters. Whether and what to merge, and who will be considered a "minor" character, is at editorial discretion as always. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bayle Domon[edit]

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

None of the supporting characters in The Wheel of Time are notable or have reliable, substantial third party sources to support them. This is a followup to my AfD for Aviendha. All these articles are a better fit for Wikia, and in fact are already there. Exeva (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, per the reasons above. Exeva (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Wheel of Time characters or Minor Wheel of Time characters, trimming and sourcing as appropriate. This really doesn't need to be at AfD, does it? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All to the appropriate lists per Jclemens. Pretty much all of these articles consist only of plot summary, and I'm not really finding anything that would indicate that any of these characters have the notability or sourcing required to have seperate articles. Rorshacma (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all and permit articles to be re-split out pending proper sources. I don't typically like these big nominations with tons of articles, but I'm okay with this nomination because merges are relatively easy to revert. And overall, the lack of sourcing means that these articles don't WP:verify notability, which is a reason for deletion in many cases. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 13 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. As always, arguments with a solid basis in Wikpedia policy were given more weight. A single deletion discussion cannot overturn one of the core principles of this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Helpers[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the applicable notability guideline at WP:ORG. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine that an organization counting more than 10,000 volunteers around the world should have no entry in Wikipedia. All the independently registered volunteers on elderhelpers.org are outside sources. Wikipedia has a duty of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source verifies the claim about Intellicorp: http://www.4-traders.com/VERISK-ANALYTICS-INC-5628469/news/Verisk-Analytics-Inc-Intertek-Forms-Strategic-Alliance-with-IntelliCorp-to-Offer-Pre-Employment-14389625/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (1) According to WP:ORG size of membership is a relevant factor. However, there are no guidelines about what constitutes a large size. 10K members does seem large to me. (2) International in scope is also a relevant factor under WP:ORG. --Lquilter (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the size requirement of WP:ORG We can't expect all independently registered volunteer organizations to have large media coverage. --Artene50 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only place that size is mentioned in WP:ORG is the following: "Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." What coverage in independent sources have you located? VQuakr (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't expect all independently registered volunteer organizations to have large media coverage— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk • contribs)

Weak delete While I still think this voluntary organization merits an article on wikipedia, the lack of reliable sources is a problem in establishing its notability. --Artene50 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an innovative question for what seems to be an innovative organization: Is social media considered media by wikipedia? the organization's page seems to be getting more than 30 new likes every day and that is indeed media coverage... social media that is: http://www.facebook.com/elderhelpers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Facebook likes would not qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. There is deeper discussion WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:SPS for the reasoning. WP:GNG covers the nature of the sources that are used to determine notability. VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than the existence of a facebook page for the organization I was pointing out the rapidly growing number of "likes" (more than 1,000/month at this rhythm). An empty search on elderhelpers.org will also return over 1,000 pages with ten unique profiles on each page. Why the media hasn't covered this organization is quite a mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 04:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The organization does have a media room for any media professional to use: http://www.elderhelpers.org/media/media.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER. Number of Youtube subscribers, number of Twitter followers, number of Facebook likes - none of these can be used at all to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 29 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good organization, but due diligence does require that we verify all claims, particularly for anyone or anything or any group dealing with, or purporting to deal with the elderly or with any vulnerable class of human beings. MaynardClark (talk)

I believe that they are in the process of editing the article including more information about the parent organization, i.e. the Campaign for Aging Research since it has some notable board members and such other information that might help the efforts that are being made to meet Wikipedia's requirements to see this article published and validated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this article previously had a lack of third party references (i.e. The Campaign for Aging Research and its partners had/has no affiliation with the references that state facts objectively) that have now been added by highly reputable sources and questionable claims in the history section have been deleted, I think that it is fair to come to a compromise to keep the page under the circumstances that we are in the process of having an article published to additionally support the facts and will build upon the page as we obtain more independent sources to back it up. We want to and will comply to your rules and respect the professionalism of the online encyclopedia, thus I believe that adherence to your policy should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.219 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Please review the policy on conflict of interest; this is not the place for promotion of your organization. Most the additions appeared to be inclusion of names of individuals involved with the organization; but notability is not inherited. Can you explain why you believe this organization is notable in the context of WP:ORG and WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mmm I haven't reviewed that policy and I understand the no "big number" policy but if Wikipedia doesn't get that an organization strong of more than 10,000 volunteers is "notable" I give up. Done, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 July 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) 02:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reliable sources that support this article and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause seems to cover the rest of the assertions made above. I'm sure the closing admin will be able to sort through the assertions of SPAs and interested parties and rely on policy-based arguments. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can sense the assertive bitterness of the professional critic. Unfortunately for you "Policy" changes has people of goodwill realize that it might be incomplete. Wikipedia is a great organization obviously looked after by people who care about informing the people about a "noble cause" as you rightly pointed out, with a public pull powerful enough to attract over 10,000 volunteers across the globe. Policies are adapted according to situations whenever possible so that the best outcome can be reached. This is not about advertising, this is about the worthiness of the information presented. We obviously have a team of people more than willing to bend over backwards to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements and reason its editors into seeing that our very noble cause is indeed worth of being featured and impartially presented in an informative format on Wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Ad hominem to your attention. As has been repeatedly pointed out here, policy-based arguments are the only ones that carry any weight; if you and your "team of people" want to contribute to Wikipedia within the boundaries of its established policies, and/or work to change them so that they will indeed include your noble cause, you'll be very welcome. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the conversation with "Ubelowne" is going very far. This user is ignoring the very valid point that I am making. Policies are written by people who allow their policies to evolve and improve over time as new situations occur. Common sense is the best policy as it allows guidelines to be challenged and occasionally benefit from a positive change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policies can be changed with consensus, but it is unlikely that the tenet that content should be verifiable will be changed much. This is the major reason for only having articles about notable topics - if secondary sources have not discussed the subject in depth, how can the information in the article be verified? VQuakr (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see the harm of allowing such an article to stay on Wikipeidia - it is not the only one relying solely on primary sources. This is a tax-exempt corporation which is (hopefully) closely watched by the tax authorities and Wikipedia should not stand in the way of providing it maximum public exposure. It is also an article that concerns one of the key demographics that is now very under represented on Wikipedia, namely seniors. We should be working diligently to improve this area of Wikipedia to draw more readership from older people instead of removing the little that already exists. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first suggestion is covered by a combination of WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFF.; (I agree, by the way, that no harm would be done; ~~it's just that there is a policy that covers this argument.~~) For the second -- I can't quite see how keeping this article about a non-profit translates into more usage by seniors, and I can't think of any policy aim that would be served by encouraging one group of users more than another. I'm also curious as to what facts or statistics might underlie your assertion that seniors are under-represented on Wikipedia; does this have a basis in research, or is it more of a feeling? Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded by VQuakr (for which thanks) that I have mistakenly cited WP:NOHARM/WP:OTHERSTUFF as policies. They are, in fact, parts of an essay called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays for a more complete explanation. My apologies for my error. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some demographic statistics I googled - I am sure there is more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Demographics

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/American_Wikipedia_reader_demographics Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this comment: "I can't quite see how keeping this article about a non-profit translates into more usage by seniors", it's quite simple, a lot of elders are Googling "Elder Helpers" or "elderhelpers.org" they seek to read about our organization and services therefor, elders would read Wikipedia more if they could find reliable information about organizations relating to them. Quite straightforward, let me know if I am missing a nuance in your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article does not establish notability of its subject, in fact it does not even say what country it operates in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about notable topics, not an advertising board for worthy causes, and I hope that this is not going to change. Maproom (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, an organization serving thousands of elders around the world IS notable regardless of the currently established and accepted editing policy. Wikipedia has a duty to inform, which is the goal of this article, not advertise. Furthermore, Wikipedia has the desire to increase its readership among elders and offering articles relating to the elderly is the best way to accomplish this goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question you have stated earlier that this organization attracts over 10,000 volunteers across the globe and now you say that it serves thousands of seniors. I wonder how you know that and why these facts not stated in the article itself, or at least on the organization's website? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I cannot find any reference to a Wikipedia policy stating that it has the "desire to increase its readership among elders" (or any other identifiable group). Can you point me to that, please? (By the way, thank you for indicating that the article doesn't meet currently established and accepted editing policy; that will make the closing administrator's job much easier.) Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:16, 13 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) 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Brannan[edit]

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

No inherent notability for a radio broadcaster; no reliable sources are given in the article and a Google News search turned up nothing at all. The webz only show resume-type information, nothing remotely reliable. The claimed nomination/awards (and participation in projects that got nominated/awarded) are unverified and hardly notable in the first place. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Sony Radio Academy Awards are, according to their article, "some of the most prestigious awards in the British radio industry" so the awards are notable but merely being nominated (as is true of the subject here) does not carry the same weight as winning the award. - Dravecky (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:00, 28 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 29 July 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) 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just aren't independent sources about Mr. Brannan, let alone reliable or in-depth ones to support a Wikipedia article. Exeva (talk) 02:22, 5 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleuze and Guattari[edit]

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

Not a real subject. We have articles about Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. We don't need this too. I'd say turn it into a redirect, but it's unclear whether it ought to redirect to the Deleuze article or the Guattari article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a long-running creative partnership of a sort almost unique in philosophy, the joint subject of multiple books[23][24][25], as important in continental philosophy as Lennon and McCartney or Simon and Garfunkel in music. The current article is stublike, but there is scope for coverage of their 20+ year partnership, their books, the distinctness of their joint work from that of either of their separate work, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that Deleuze and Guattari is a subject remotely comparable to Lennon and McCartney or Simon and Garfunkel. Philosophy is not music. It would be better to look at how Wikipedia covers philosophers. We have articles about Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but no Marx and Engels article, even though academic writing often refers to the two jointly as "Marx and Engels." I also think your sources don't fully support your point - Brian Massumi's book is specifically about Capitalism and Schizophrenia, consisting of Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. It's not about "Deleuze and Guattari" as a subject, despite featuring the words "Deleuze and Guattari" in the subtitle. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:44, 16 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems like part of the problem is that they aren't a recognizable "school" of philosophy. If they were known as the "Paris School" or some such, I have no doubt we'd all vote to keep. But the lack of a name makes it seem very ad-hoc. Perhaps a lesson about naming?BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:01, 23 July 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☽ 00:12, 29 July 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) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't discussion in reliable sources of their collaboration qua collaboration. This has nothing to do with philosophy and how it's covered in WP; if there were such sources, we should have an article. I think that, contrary to comment above, it would actually be possible to write a Marx and Engels article, since the nature and qualities of their collaborations have been discussed as a discrete topic by reliable sources. ~~That doesn't seem to be the case here.~~ The article is essentially original research. There's nothing worth merging anywhere either, and a redirect is a bad idea as the title is not a plausible search term.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sorry for switcheroo. Actually Colapeninsula's second source, the intersecting lives one, convinces me that this subject is covered in reliable sources. The first and third source not so much, but the second is enough for me. The article as it stands is not about what it ought to be about, but that's not a matter for AFD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and Marx and Engel should have an article, too. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 7 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.