< 30 November	2 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDBX[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account Which appears also to be the author[1]. Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet WP:V. Even if it did, nothing in the article indicates that the product featured in this meets Wikipedia:Notability (software). Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about this software. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:40, 8 December 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Luke[edit]

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

This person isn't notable, all sources are primary. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article asserts that this person is notable for being one of the 100 most influential Chinese-Canadians in British Columbia. This does not meet WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is just a lawyer, as his profile concludes, but has done nothing and has held no position of note. Additionally, the article is almost a complete copy of his profile on that page, raising fair COI concerns. Side tangent: I think Brad Matetsky is more notable than Mr. Luke... --Lord Roem (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a very able lawyer, but without significant coverage in reliable sources, inclusion criteria are not met. I can confirm that he was named as one of the 100 Influential Chinese-Canadians in B.C.. But that coverage is not that significant. I also found him mentioned int his Financial Post article. But that's all I was able to find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of significant coverage on reliable sources showcasing his notability is the main concern here. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:39, 8 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Awakes Movie[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL. Only blogs, facebook. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Agreed, Google News provided nothing relevant and my own searches provide blogs and other insufficient and unreliable links. However, this blog suggests it is a Pakistani superhero film in production so it's possible sources may not be English but rather Urdu or Punjabi. Although less likely, it is also possible neighboring countries to Pakistan may talk about it. Regardless, however, 2013 (it seems this is the correct date, not 2014) is too soon. I found another link here mentioning a Pakistani singer will perform in the film and another link here noting the third month of production. At best, it is too soon. However, if non-English sources are provided, I'm willing to reconsider. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find anything even remotely reliable about this. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Even if some material can be found it's greatly unlikely that the production itself is notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:39, 8 December 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. Safiel (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (CVN-80)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined speedy, reasoning at previous AfD no longer applies. However, ship is years away from even having its keel laid. Probably should be redirected pending the laying of the keel in several years. Safiel (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ship is notable and existing, albeit under construction, similiar to its sisters CVN-78 and CVN-79 which have also been deemed notable in their own right for existing articles. Name no longer speculative after the events of 1 December, 2012 at the decommissioning of CVN-65 which was the primary reason previous articles had been deleted. Article is now well referenced from multiple sources unlike before. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One point I would make. The ship does not "exist" yet, in the physical sense. It will start to "exist" at the time its keel is laid. Until then, a redirect should be sufficient. CVN-78 is substantially under construction and CVN-79 has begun construction, having passed the "first steel cut" milestone and justify having articles. CVN-80 won't start construction for several years. Just won't be much here to put in the article for quite some time. Until the laying of the keel or at least the first steel cut ceremony, there won't be much available here. Better to just have a blurb at the Ford class carrier article and redirect this, rather than having what will amount to little more than a stub for several years. Safiel (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd point out that the keel hasn't been laid for CVN-79 yet either. However that article has been allowed to remain and grow and has been expanded quite a bit as a result. Also I'd additionally point out that other articles have existed on this site previously for ships not in the post keel laying phase of construction. The keel being laid has never been used as benchmark for ship article notability previously. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article will actually start accruing substantial content, that would be fine and keeping it would not be a problem. Safiel (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gateman1997. This topic is notable in the way that multiple sources can verify it is planned to be constructed. Right now it is still a an idea instead of a real entity but that should not preclude the subject matter from being written about. Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There were plenty of fictional Enterprise ships that were technically never built. Sounds silly, but one of the issues here is that there is a lot of history behind the name (Star Trek chose it for a reason, not the other way around), and therefore, I think it's reasonable in this case to assume that this ship will be built, and an official announcement goes a long way towards solidifying that. I would also say that any potential CRYSTAL, NOTYET, or TOOSOON issues are mitigated by the official announcement, as I would interpret the event "to have begun" even though there are the aforementioned special rules for ships under construction. MSJapan (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is official. From the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs, News Release No. 937-12, 1 December 2012, "Navy’s Next Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier to be Named Enterprise". Reference: http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15708 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisTPuig (talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While in a sense this is like a movie that isn't yet in production, there will be notable events associated with it over a period of several years even prior to construction. In addition to the public interest generated by the name itself, this is a ship that will almost certainly be built and as built will be one of the largest military ships in the world and as deployed one of the most important due to the position of the US as a superpower. --Dhartung | Talk 13:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page should not be deleted because on 1 December 2012 the U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus officially announced that CVN-80 will indeed be named USS Enterprise, the article thus handles a real ship and is properly sourced. It's no different then CVN-78 or CVN-79. -- fdewaele, 2 December 2012.

Withdrawal by nominator Obviously this is going to be WP:SNOW so I will withdraw this. Safiel (talk) 17:48, 2 December 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 prevailing opinion seems to be that this is a content fork, that is, it unnecessarily duplicates information in other articles or the topic of other articles. The "keep" opinions don't address this problem. If there is content here that needs to be merged to the other article(s), the history can be restored for that purpose. Sandstein 09:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style phenomenon[edit]

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

Content fork of Gangnam Style#Cultural impact and Gangnam Style in popular culture. There's an active merge proposal dealing with those two already; what purpose does a third article on the subject serve? And while the popularity of "Gangnam Style" has indeed been referred to as a phenomenon by media, the meaning there is just that its popularity is phenomenal. It's not an actual phenomenon. The article's lede can barely describe the "Gangnam Style phenomenon" as a discreet concept, which is telling. BDD (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the "Pop Culture" article. That's...pretty much what it is now anyways - all allusions to it in pop culture. The info is detailed, sourced, and relevent, so it should be kept, just not at this article/name. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, I'd like to point out that the Merger discussion between the original article and the pop culture article, was closed as a "don't merge", so there's no worries about merging into an article that doesn't exist or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update Article redirected to Gangnam Style-A1candidate (talk)
Note: another article on the topic has been created, which I have nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style by country. dci | TALK 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NORUSH. Once the "charm" has worn off, and people move on to the next flavor-of-the-week, these articles will all be merged together or deleted anyway. This "phenomenon" will end up in the dustbin right next to the "Macarena Phenomenon" and all of the other "Phenomenons". This happens all the time and is predictable.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is clear from this version of the page before it was prematurely redirected during ongoing AFD discussion, that it is noteworthy, educational, encyclopedic, and covered in numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sue Rangel and WP:RECENTISM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test: Its the first time a video approaches one billion views, its has topped more national music charts than Macarena (or any other comparable phenomenon) ever did, its success is something that the South Korean music industry has worked on for twenty years and the song will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market. I split up Gangnam Style phenomenon into two articles, therefore the original should be Deleted, but Gangnam Style by country and Effects of Gangnam Style should be Kept -A1candidate (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why the "Effects" and "By Country" articles need to be separate though, especially considering a large section of the "Effects" one is about flash mobs by country. The rest of it, largely focused on Korean culture, would fit just fine at the original GS article, or in the "By Country" one under "Korea". I don't see the need for three articles here. An article about the song, and the article about the impact, whatever you want to name it, seems plenty sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep:136 fucking References and you want to delete this,shame one you.74.163.16.121 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the actual nomination, and some of my comments. The issue isn't just "deletion", its where the information belongs and what it should be called. A big concern is the use of the word "phenomenon" and why this information couldn't be placed in an already existing similar article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And each of those references is essentially for a piece of trivia about "Gangnam Style," not describing a nonexistent phenomenon. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having 136 refs doesn't mean anything at all. I dont see the point of merging "Effects" and "By country" because they're clearly separate topics. Gangnam Style's main article is about a song, its okay to summarize its effects but anything more would be out of scope. I agree that "phenomenon" may not be an appropriate word and should be Deleted, but Gangnam Style by country and Effects of Gangnam Style should be Kept and expanded. -A1candidate (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are redundant of each other though. All the "by country" article does is outline the song's "effects". If you want to outline information "by country", that's fine, but that really seems more like a way to organize the "effects" article, not two separate articles. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sense in having two articles covering largely the same topic. However, I would propose that Gangnam Style in popular culture be merged into this article, or merging "phenomenon" into "popular culture," but then changing the title to "Gangnam Style phenomenon." I don't hold strongly to this, but I do hold strongly (80-100%) that the articles should be Merged, not deleted. Oppa Gangnam Regards, Jeremy -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 20:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are something like 5-7 articles about this now, all saying essentially the same thing in different ways. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/proposal: There needs to be some sort of effort to cut down on the number of articles on this subject. I understand the concerns about "too many references", but there is absolutely no need for this many near-duplicates. Two articles should suffice, one on the song/music video itself and one on the phenomenon. dci | TALK 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge all 3 pages?~Tailsman67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to content duplication, I see no need for an outright merger. If deleting the unnecessary reiterations isn't accepted here, redirecting would seem the best course of action. dci | TALK 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As silly as this ridiculous video is, it has sparked a phenomenon. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 13:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously unnecessary fork. Essentially a duplicate. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 8 December 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Everton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Morefoolhim 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a local radio DJ, rock FM, which I listen to is'nt exactly a famous station outside of the north west of England. Seasider91 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this page for deletion in the past. No editor disagreed. But no other editor commented, and the AfD was closed as no consensus. The person is non-notable, and deletion is therefore appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Willis[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails tennis notability guidelines, but possibly meets WP:GNG. Peter James (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no main draw appearances, and no wins. Easily fails tennis notability guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 November 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) 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails all inclusion policies --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 1 December 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Option by Derek Gunn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article about a short story - fails WP:Notability (books). I apologise for what may seem like a process-wonking waste of time, but the article has been cut back so that the previous deletion reasons no longer apply, nor does G4, and (though greatly tempted) I do not want to do an IAR speedy. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~SPEEDY~~ Delete as deleted material. no notability...and this was just deleted! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the previous deletion was for copyvio and promotion, and this version is neither. It's conspicuously non-notable, but that's not a speedy reason. It's a bore to go through this, but if we're trying to to teach this newbie the rules we ought to play by them. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and trout the article creator - he/she needs to stop wasting our time with these articles or will end up blocked. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained notability and copyright and pointed them to WP:BK, WP:YFA and WP:WAF. Let's hope we don't get any more like this. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per Sue Rangell --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete but I am revising my reasoning. Fails; WP:GNG, WP:NRVE --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to find anything that would show that this work has any notability outside of the author. I would suggest a link to the author's page, but that doesn't seem to exist at this point in time. As far as the original editor goes, I don't think that we should necessarily block him/her just yet. Give them one last chance to play by the rules. Some of the content they're adding does have some notability, as in the case of The Myth of the Latin Woman, although this short clearly doesn't. If they add any more articles that are deleted for being blatantly non-notable even after looking for sources, then banhammer them then.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeating my view from yesterday's AfD: "No evidence that the story meets the notability criteria, nor does its author". AllyD (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the very first time ever, I am wondering if we finally found a WP:IGNOREALLRULES situation. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IAR speedies are a slippery slope on which I am very reluctant to set foot. If I had IAR-speedied this, I would at the same time have speedied The Myth of the Latin Woman from the same user, which looked equally unpromising but has been saved (see AfD) by Heymann Standard research from Tokyogirl79). JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Poets[edit]

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

Article consists mainly of a collection of notes about famous poets who ostensibly came from the region. The tone of the article is highly unencyclopedic and so is its content: Google Books gives no proof whatsoever that the subject is a notable term in the first place; what we have here is someone celebrating local history and synthesizing an honorary term for it. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without reliable sources to verify that this is a commonly-used descriptor of the area in question, the subject would seem to be either WP:NFT or WP:OR or a combination of the two. Stalwart111 01:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 20:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sourcing --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:39, 1 December 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 12:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shihab Uddin Khan[edit]

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

Associate professor. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Travelbird (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article creator/author has actually blanked the whole article page (see [2]) possibly indicating that it can be deleted as per WP:CSD#G7. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:36, 1 December 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 userfied to User:Mekalbach16/Fall Fest. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Fest[edit]

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

NN student event Travelbird (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am writing this article for a class project and have not yet finished it. I "published" it so that my partner would also be able to work on it. We will add citations and our bibliography as we continue. I am only in the very beginning stages of writing it, so please do not delete it!! Thanks, Mekalbach16 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of whether all citations are added, but rather whether or not this fest is notable. Student parties are very rarely notable enough to be covered by an encylopaedia, so unless you have some referenced information that proves that this one is extraordinarily notable beyond your campus, the is likely to get deleted. Travelbird (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mekalbach16, as Travelbird states, you need reliable sources outside of campus that show notability. Personal interviews and emails like the ones cited on the article now are not really acceptable, not proper referencing and do not show anything more than possible on-campus notability. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability for this single-campus student event.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to agree that it is not notable. Information is not properly cited with any reliable sources. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be part of the student orientation activity that happens at every university in the fall. I see no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Mekalbach16. Mekalbach, what that means is that it would be removed from the main public encyclopedia, but it would be put into an area where you can access it, work on it, and make it available to other people if you wish. While you are doing that, no-one will hassle you about WP:Notability. See Wikipedia:Userfication. You can ask later to have it moved back to the main encyclopedia, if you think it's ready; however, chances are it would just get deleted again unless you find some significant coverage from non-university sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 8 December 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. (also withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Latin Woman[edit]

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

Contested PROD (article recreated after PROD deletion). ~~No independent references. The PROD reasons still apply: not a published book - available as a pdf download. Fails WP:Notability (books).~~ JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn with a bouquet to Tokyogirl79 for a magnificent WP:HEY save. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G11 and G12 - tagged as such. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G12 especially. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whoa there. Despite the original state of the article, I'm finding multiple sources that discuss this book and multiple, multiple sources that relist the story. It's not as easy as saying that it's just some random story and that its availability as a download negates any potential notability. I've added some sources to the article and am finding more. One or two of the sources are trivial, but so far I'm finding plenty to suggest that it would pass WP:NBOOK via the first and fourth criteria.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I not only found several book sources (all of which appear to be academic texts, I will note), I found several instances where the story was re-published in various academic textbooks in general, as well as various links that show that the story is used in many classrooms. ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) Removing this from Wikipedia would be a great disservice, I think, especially since sourcing does appear to exist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources added by TG. A single cursory search of Google Books shows a ton of sources. ~~I don't understand how 3 people Speedily jumped to Delete without apparent research.~~ This is a widely anthologized story used for teaching easily passing NBOOK #4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now understand the rush to delete after seeing other activity around article creator. Still, this one notable enough to Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources that have now been found; apologies for not looking myself! (I've struck my earlier vote). Lukeno94 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lukeno94 above. This is a good example of how a delete tag can save an article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 3 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun Energy drink[edit]

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

This topic about an energy drink brand appears to fail WP:N. Source searches in Google News archive and Books have not yielded any coverage in reliable sources for this product. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that I'm finding is this July 2012 posting, which falls short of notable coverage. AllyD (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff Piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I'm inclined to vote delete as too soon as I found a copy of the source provided by AllyD here (though my link seems to have been submitted first) and I also found a short press piece here. A search to see if the parent company Cotswold Beverage was notable provided nothing and this appears to be an irrelevant but similar company. I continued my search but the next results were unreliable and useless. Honestly, I believe this beverage may have only started receiving significant attention this year, considering all these July 2012 links. SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely agree with SwisterTwister rationale. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:42, 8 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Gea Organics[edit]

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

This topic about a food distribution company based in Central Florida appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic for a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any independent sources by which this firm could be demonstrated to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:44, 8 December 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. The creator and sole content editor requested deletion in the discussion below, but userfication seems to fit better, there being more than one way to "take it down" in this instance. I've removed the AFD notices, categories, and whatnot. I encourage all editors reading this to remember that they, too, can occasionally be logged out, that logging in isn't necessarily important to people who just want to write, and that not logging in is not automatically acting in bad faith. I remind M. Hamacher to remember your password and ensure that you have a disaster recovery plan. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duane W. Hamacher[edit]

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

Clearly fails all aspects of WP:ACADEMIC. Article is an autobiography and all substantial content has been added by the subject and by an IP address that is obviously the subject. PROD declined by the IP without explanation. Subject just received his Ph.D. this year and holds an entry level, non-tenured, academic rank. He has been quoted several times by Australian press, but that would not grant notability under WP:ACADEMIC. Safiel (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability in the wiki sense. Springnuts (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I posted the original ((prod)), and I stand by my assertion that the article fails WP:PROFESSOR. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt due to the blatant sockpuppetry. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in the third person is not sockpuppetry. It does not meet the definitions as stated by Wiki. Take it down. Duane Hamacher. 2 December 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.179.205 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Contributing to the same page from multiple accounts, or from both an account and an IP, is sockpuppetry, and it does appear that the edits to Duane W. Hamacher by Duane W. Hamacher and 122.149.179.205 were made by the same person. There is also the remarkable fact that both Duane W. Hamacher and DuaneHamacher have contributed to Australian Aboriginal Astronomy Project (an article which could do with ((COI)) and ((Primary sources)) tags) when neither is flagged as a legitimate alternative account of the other. The situation is so obvious that I don't think filing a Checkuser request at WP:SPI is even warranted. And is "Take it down" intended as a legal threat? It does seem to me that the best course of action is for the article creator to admit here that he made a mistake, agree that the article under discussion should be deleted, and undertake to abide by Wikipedia's policies in the future. Philip Trueman (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the article posts and edits are by the same person (Duane W. Hamacher). I do not usually log-in to make edits as I make them very infrequently. I haven't used my previous account in a long time and forgot my login details, which is why I made a new one with my new email. Not all edits are actions of conspiracy or sock-puppetry and not all comments are threats. I meant that *the page in question* does not meet the requirements as given by Wiki, not the term sockpuppetry. It was a mistake on my part, as I was not aware of the WP:ACADEMIC rules. I fully agree that the page should be removed, which is also why I removed a huge chunk of the text except the first line, since it cannot be "blanked". Duane W. Hamacher.
    - Fair enough. For future use you might want to research WP:FAQ/Technical#How do I recover a password I have forgotten? and the use of the ((db-g7)) tag. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 2 December 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of India[edit]

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

I believe that this article is about a bogus "organisation" (so-called Pirate Party of India).

The organisation is NOT NOTABLE, fails WP:GNG and has no sources beyond its website.
The organisation exists only in cyberspace.
The article as it exists is a HOAX or makes exaggerated claims.
The organisation is not constituted/formed and is certainly not a minor political party as claimed in the article.
The organisation does not have the bare number of 100 members to constitute themselves in law.
The organisation is not registered with the Election Commission of India
The organisation is not recognised with the Election Commission of India
The organisation has not contested even a single election
The organisation has not won even a single election
The organisation has not received even a single vote.
There is off-wiki sock-puppeting going on [10] with WP:COI editors.
The organisation's graphics are copyvios of the Pirate Party and the Pirate Bay.TheSmuttyProfessor (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Considering that the Pirate Party OPPOSES copyright, I don't really think they will care about someone using their graphics. Sfgiants1995 (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the Swedish version in Commons states they expect acknowledgement of the source, and the Trademark rights are retained. Pirate Party stands for reform of copyright not its "abolition". TheSmuttyProfessor (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The logo was derived from work of PP-Belgium which is under public domain.

- Blaisemcrowly (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Blaisemcrowly had also created another page on Us (music band) which was speedied. Indiankela1953 (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. fails GNG. No independent RS coverage. Maybe in 6 months time. Protozoan (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- REMOVE The only coverage is in blogs. Entry makes the exceptional claim it is a political party in India. Such exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Even minor parties like Professionals Party of India are registered with Election Commission of India. Until party is registered with Election Commission it cannot claim to be a political party. After registration the next step is recognition by the Election Commission which can be refused. Pirate Party of India is not registered, so it has no legal existence. The entry is evasive on where or when it was founded. The entries on other Pirate Party websites is by courtesy. Indiankela1953 (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - SPEEDY DELETE Section 2(f) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, available online here [11] defines a political party in India to mean "an association or body of individual citizens registered with the Election Commission as a political party under section 29A." AlphaTomato (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications serbian pirate party founder aleksander have blogged about them, the political atmosphere in India is an adverse one for pirate party and can hence fail much coverage by mainstream media. |

aleksander have blogged about them : https://blaeks.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/incredible-pirates-of-india/
Pirate party Uk (irc) have listed them as unregistered party : http://pirateirc.net/parties
Listed in Pirate Party International's website : http://www.pp-international.net/

>The organisation exists only in cyberspace. ::: Is an unregistered organisation offline.

>The organisation is not constituted/formed and is certainly not a minor political party as claimed in the article. ::: Organisation can exist before being officially registered with the Election Commision as per indian law. And formation process does not mean they don't exist.

>The organisation does not have the bare number of 100 members to constitute themselves in law ::: This is only required at the time of registration, during formation state it is not necessary.

>The organisation is not registered with the Election Commission of India ::: Organisation is allowed to exist during formation state and 30 days after full formation by EC.

The following points are irrelavent to the validity of the article as these are not factors that define a political party even under law in India

The organisation has not contested even a single election
The organisation has not won even a single election
The organisation has not received even a single vote.

Blaisemcrowly (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd be interested to know if the party is registered in any sense in India at the national or state level. As a corporation, something. Otherwise, I view this as a WP:TOOSOON at best.
- Comment It is not a party. It is not constituted. It is not registered in any sense in India either at the state or national level. In fact they could not even apply for registration because they don't have even 20 people to form the "party". All it is a tiny handful of people running a ragtag website and squabbling among themselves. TheSmuttyProfessor (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to sign my previous comment. Anyway given that my vote is Delete with an encouragement to the article's editor to come on back once the party is duly registered. Faustus37 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bogus party which exists only in its website. Salih (talk) 04:59, 5 December 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. Delete G7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agatik[edit]

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

Contested prod - no indication that the book passes notability guidelines Travelbird (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there are sources in another language, there simply seems to be nothing out there to show that this book passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and it is such a poor article that should not be anywhere near article namespace (it can hardly becalled an article). Also, it was created by an WP:SPA that appears to be favouring a non-notable author. I tried a speedy deletion to no avail. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan. I cannot believe this survived a Speedy Delete. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins always take a very cautious approach to speedies. This is wrong in my opinion. We then have to waste time at AfD etc. While it goes thru AfD WP suffers from the crap dumped in it, the article is picked up by search engine spiders, and it also gets put in sites that use a WP database dump. Sigh.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that CSD does not apply to books. I just proded Eka Lagnachi Dusri Goshta, which is also very unlikely to pass in the end. But the prod will in all likelihood be contested, and we'll go through an AfD for that one too. In my opinion A7 should be expanded to include clearly nn products and books/articles as well, as - in those cases especially - the background of article creation is often fancruft/promotional. Unless the wording is overly promotional as well, they can't be tagged with G11 so they all end up here. Travelbird (talk) 10:21, 2 December 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. Deleted G7 - Page blanked by author, and explicit request for deletion made on talk page Monty ₈₄₅ 16:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai(Regular Show)[edit]

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

Very minor character of fictional show, unlikely redirect Travelbird (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB that editor has no blanked above page and cfreated a new one at Mordecai (Regular Show) Travelbird (talk) 16:05, 1 December 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. Michig (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Ball[edit]

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

Article claims all kinds of notability, however both a Google search for "James A. Hall producer" and all of the given references except the list at allmusic.com don't turn up anything. Possibly a hoax or simply NN Travelbird (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and other than the links in the article, there is simply no mention of this guy to back up what the article says. That means that just as Travelbird says, this guy is either non-notable or he doesn't exist. It doesn't help that the article is also fairly promotionally written with phrases such as "accomplished music professional who participated in the making of some of the most memorable music of our time". I just find it hard to believe that a person who has won gold and platinum records has received no in-depth or reliable coverage for himself, so I'm leaning towards this being a hoax or at least one person fudging their impact in the music scene.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable based on lack of reliable, independent sources. Two of the sources in the article are other wikis and the other two are insufficient for the claims made in the article. - Mr X 15:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete Probably a WP:HOAX, or at the very least some out of control puffery. Not to mention that fake citations are not tolerated on Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Branders.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was named as one of the reasons why someone else's article was deleted (they've got one, we should too), but I can't really see much reason for this one. The referencing is poor, company site, venture capital finance profiles, crunchbase, dead links etc. There is little information about the company, and in particular what it actually does. Is it notable? Peridon (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep - There are ~~plenty of independent~~ sources. For example, I found 20 ~~(non-PR-related)~~ sources on HighBeam: Entrepreneur, Washington Post, Oakland Tribune, etc. - Mr X 15:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Entrepreneur article is just a press release and does not seem to be on Entrepreneur at all, the other two articles do not appear to be about the subject. One is about a political race. Are they linked correctly? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, I think you are right. These are mostly press releases, advertorials and trivial mentions. I have revised my !vote. - Mr X 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyanasundaram[edit]

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

in this article about the biography of a living person there is no substantial reference provided for any of the information which seems to originate in social networking posts, additionally the details provided in the article are not credible particularly relating to the various apparently non-existant awards mentioned. The articles mentioned as sources show no evidence of fact checking other than reproducing details from a unknown source. The dubious information has been disputed several times and keeps reappearing without appropriate references (as the story is being heavily shared on facebook, without sources) so this is likely to be a controversial delete, but I feel keeping this article undermines wikipedia, and I suspect the existence of the article is being used to substantiate the facts for which there is no reliable sources elsewhere 4letheia (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "Paalam Kalyanasundaram" (I'm not sure if Paalam is a nick name, or his first name). I see several sources, including an article in The Hindu. - MrX 15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly? does such an award as 'man of the millenium' from the US government and 'United Nations Organisation' [sic] 'outstanding people of the 20th century' really exist? I would suggest that if they did there would certainly be more authoritative sources. I sense there is a lot about this article, combined with the social networking campaign, which leads me to be very suspicious. --4letheia (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know, but "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" would seem to apply. - MrX 21:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only comment I can add to that is, if we really used that criteria, then we might as well copy all of the urban myths from snopes and add them to the wikipedia as 'verified fact' - there are plenty of dodgy sources out there that have reproduced them. Have I missed something or isn't the present situation exactly the same? --4letheia (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've missed the fact that Snopes doesn't assert that every urban myth is true, for starters. If you want to address the reliability of the source, cite it and explain why The Hindu is unreliable in this instance. Don't descend into fallacy. It's "criterion", by the way. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your contribution to this debate. My point is that there are urban myths which are asserted in many apparently reliable sources (NOT snopes) to be true, and as such would prima facie seem to achieve some level of verifiability - such prima facie verifiability is to my mind necessary but in some cases insufficient without good consideration of the reliability of the source information. As I pointed out above, I've researched the question of the awards mentioned, viz 'man of the millenium', and 'United Nations Organization outstanding people of the 20th century' and these do not seem to be supported by any sources you would expect to see in such a case. It is only my opinion, which is why I raised this debate, but it seems to me that the inclusion of these awards in the original source articles seems to me to undermine the credibility of the various extraordinary claims made in those sources. I understand that a short film may have been made about the subject of the article and it would be fantastic to have some input from someone that may have seen this or can provide more local sources for the facts therein. Incidentally, my use of criteria was intended to be plural, but thanks for the thought anyway. --4letheia (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and now someone has deleted the entire content of the article including all the tags about disputed content and lack of references (none of which were added by me) and replaced it all with copy and pasted text that has no references whatsoever. I give up. --4letheia (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 4letheia (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable and there are reliable references to confirm notability. If you feel that some of the facts are misrepresented, correct them. Don't nominate for afd.--Anbu121 (talk me) 18:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the claims in the article which weren't supported by any of the references and removed some of the references which were not pertain to the content of the article or were inappropriate sources - what is left to me looks a bit thin, and I would argue not notable. To paraphrase - he is a social worker, he works with kids, he donated some of his earnings - what's notable? --4letheia (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article is notable by seeing at the kind of references. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines require "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - I just don't see how an article or two in the Hindu which doesn't even provide enough details to know who gave the awards can count as notable. Other sources just seem to be word for word reposts of the social networking promotion campaign. Where are these multiple pubilshed sources? --4letheia (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this page was previously deleted - how do I find the details of the previous deletion discussion and the reasons why it was recreated? --4letheia (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log is here: [12]. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several more references and information, and deleted the nonsense "man of the millenium" award. I think he is notable and the article now demonstrates it. I also found him referred to as P. Kalayana Sundaram, and his organization as Palam, Paalam, or Anbu Palam. Presumably these are transliteration differences. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possible problem with verifiability after all: he is repeatedly referred to as the founder of Anbu Palam in Chennai - after his retirement per one source - but this says Anbu Palam was founded in 1953. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 9 December 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. This probably could have been speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temples of Hajo(Documentry 2012)[edit]

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

Unremarkable short film, unsourced, no lead section, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Mediran ^{Season's greetings!} 11:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't pass notability guidelines because there are no sources out there to show it passes notability guidelines in general. I was able to find that it was a student film, which doesn't always mean non-notable, but it does mean that it's highly unlikely to gain notability at this point in time. Other than someone stating that the filmmaker stole their footage in the YouTube video, the film has not received any real attention in general.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin. This is a pretty blatant promotional attempt by the original editor, given that his user page not only says that he's the editor but also seems to have been written as a personal resume/promotional page. (User:Abhijitroy66) I know userpages are sort of separate, but I'm not sure if the userpage passes the "too promotional" bar or not.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 5-minute student film. No evidence it was released other than to YouTube, where it's racked up 58 total views. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:04, 8 December 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. Michig (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProCog[edit]

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

Previous Prod with rationale "No evidence that this new search engine has attained notability; only offered source is a lukewarm review." was removed by the article creator with the comment "Removed notice on notability. The site is continuing to gain traction and is unique in the search engine market - providing detailed algorithmic results for each query". Subsequent 2nd Prod was also removed (rightly in terms of process). I'm bringing this to AfD on a similar rationale to the original Prod notice: that there is insufficient reliable evidence that this start-up Beta has yet attained the WP:NSOFT notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This newly launched search engine does not meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard 21:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a few businesses/products with this name, but the search engine doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable independent sources - just some blogs of dubious independence. Hence, not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This new website has been up for less than six weeks and, as I write this, it appears to be down. Article cites a blog and a non-reliable source of what may be a paid placement (I can't tell, one way or the other). If and when it does sufficiently "gain traction" to be notable, then let's have this article back. But for now, WP is not a PR outlet for startups. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:19, 8 December 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 already Speedy Deleted as WP:CSD#G11 (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead in Dixon Indie Horror Film Festival[edit]

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

Unremarkable film festival, unsourced except for the link targeted to the subject's website, fails WP:GNG, most events will occur next year that implies that it violates WP:CRYSTAL, the org was created recently... Mediran ^{Season's greetings!} 10:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, maybe speedy, as an WP:ADVERT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Aye, delets, as per reasons above.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:39, 1 December 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_harry_potter_spells#Stupefy. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (speak) @ 10:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupefy(spell)[edit]

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

Single spell from a Harry Potter book. Not sufficiently notable on its own. Travelbird (talk) 10:04, 1 December 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. Any redirect is an editorial decision. If anyone wants to merge this, here is the article in its unsourced entirety, written by Nopetro (talk · contribs): "A full-size bus (also called a plenibus) is a classification of buses which are identified as longer than midibuses, this is, more than 11 metres (36 ft 1 in)." Sandstein 09:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full-size bus[edit]

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

Bit silly to have a stub article about this. Maybe it could be redirected or merged to bus, but pointless stub about nothing, really. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well redirect to the main article on buses, this is a pointless stub Seasider91 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does this even warrant a redirect? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that this is even true. The article cites zero sources, and I can find zero sources (outwith hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors on the WWW and some unrelated Latin) that even use the word "plenibus" let alone define what one is. This is completely unverifiable and appears to be simply not the case at all. There's stuff to be written about the National Transit Database no doubt, but this made up hokum isn't it, nor would it be written up in this way. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might actually qualify for a G5, even though it has been around for quite some time. Delete regardless, per the usual GNG/V standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast, deletionists. The term seems to carry some weight: I found a couple of reports from the UK that discuss handicap accessibility on buses, including this category: this is legit, and the term is used loosely in this report. Full-size bus registrations for 1975-2005 are listed here, and US use of the term is found here and here. This mentions the full-size bus in Latin America, though loosely. The first full-size bus was apparently made by Büssing in 1923. A full-size bus may set you back a quarter of a million bucks, and it can cost twice as much per kilometer as a mini-bus. Should I go on? Oh, "plenibus" isn't much, but "Planibus" has some currency. I happily await my ARS barnstar. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "plenus" and "planus" have very different meanings, of course. Note that two of your Google pages are the National Transit Database stuff that I was talking about, which would be wildly lop-sided to the point of ridicule to divide up in this way as you can see from the books; and another three are inaccessible in my part of the world. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article on buses. Does not qualify for its own article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BMK, it's on. Next time you're crossing the street, be wary of that minibus with the tainted windows. Hey, can I drop a note on the ARS page, or is that canvassing these days? Should a note be left by someone who votes "delete"? Should I ask Scotty Wong to act as go-between? Shall I leave a tearful message on Jimbo's talk page? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, I gotta know what the windows are "tainted" with before I know how quickly I should run away! (Also wondering if you could recommend a good tear-server - whenever I try to leave a tearful message over the Internet my keyboard shorts out.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DUE and the sources presented by Drmies. A merge to bus would suggest that the same be done for other bus classifications, and that would give undue weight there. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it shouldn't be retained in its own article. Are bus specialists more likely to improve on the encyclopedic coverage of this topic if it's just merged? If not, then a merge wouldn't achieve anything in terms of improving the encyclopedia AFAICS. -- Trevj (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. You've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. An unfortunately not tearful note has been duly left at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 121#Sockpuppets on buses. Uncle G (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. I'll take a closer look. -- Trevj (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I stand by my !vote. We're discussing the notability of the subject of the article, and I don't think it's especially relevant to suggest a term should be effectively discounted on the identity of the creator.
  a full-size bus requires a roundabout of 26 m outside diameter and 14 m inside diameter, whilst a small bus can negotiate a normal mini-roundabout.^[1]
  
  The Continentals are coming to terms with minibuses and midibuses ... carrying only half or even quarter the number of passengers normally accomodated in a full-size bus.^[2]
  
  Non-preferred alternative term for standard bus (according to the Public Works and Government Services Canada)^[3]
  
  where a full-sized single deck bus was not needed or not suitable (maybe Lincoln City Transport)^[4]
  
  Plenty of obvious notability on the sizing of vehicles in general (which may help to put the use of this term by sources which specifically use it into context), e.g. MBTC FR 1054-1 w.r.t "large school bus"^[5]
  
  Generic sizes for many different classes of vehicle are used in software for swept path analysis: engineers need to demonstrate that various design vehciles can be accommodated by their road layouts --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 December 2012
Delete (possibly after some merging). The question of what is full-size will potentially vary from country to country according to national legislation on vehical lengths. This is probably about a European standard maximum. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Essex Design Guide 1997
^ The Commercial Motor. Temple Press Limited. 1977. Retrieved 8 December 2012.
^ Sustainable Mobility Glossary
^ Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society
^ MBTC FR 1054-1

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all except for Rindo and Nakamura, on which there is no consensus. Apart from anything else, as pointed out the remainder are effectively unsourced BLPs - a bare URL which claims such a person exists is not enough. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Jose Reis Boccardo[edit]

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

No proof he ever played for any of the clubs listed in a professional league, can't find anything on Google that says he did either. I am also nominating the following related pages because they all seem to fail in the same way:

I may add more later, if I find any. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Makoto Rindo, Hayato Nakamura - This article meets Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football - 2. --Japan Football (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Neither has played in a fully professional league, only in a cup. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football shows Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league ... or cup, will generally be regarded as notable." --Japan Football (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't site WP:NFOOTY, because that only mentions leagues, not cups. And general consensus has been to delete players that have only made 1 cup appearance. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nakamura as he has played in a cup fixture between to clubs from fully pro leagues, Delete Rindo, his cup appearance was against a lower division league and the otherwise fails WP:NSPORT, neutral on the rest for now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes there is a long-standing consensus that playing a cup-match between two teams from fully pro league confers notability, but that is no excuse to create a whole bunch of substubs with no real claim for notability. If I bumped into one of these article, I would probably have requested a speedy deletion per A7. In a similar AfD I researched and added info into the article, but I'm not going to do that on all of these articles. I suggest that the creator of these article takes his time to write sourced info on why these individuals are notable before we can close this discussion. If not, I think we should delete all. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through a whole host of this user's stuff and improved a lot of the ones that I could find some evidence that they'd played professional matches (well, I improved the infoboxes and the tables). Due to not having any knowledge of the Japanese language, I can't look for any more than that. To be honest, there were so many, I got bored and went off to do something else... A lot of these nominated articles had previously been prodded and de-prodded for the reason that there was a reference. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all especially the emerson article as I think it may even be a hoax as below the wiki page the other results are about a footballer who has played in Indonesia, something the player in the article up for deletion doesn't appear to have done. Seasider91 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 December 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 , as there are no delete arguments aside from nominator, and nominator has withdrawn the AfD. More sources about this person are appreciated, however. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Kasahara (born 1988)[edit]

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

Various Japanese football player which (have) only play(ed) in a non-fully professional league. Therefore not sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article meets Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football - 2. --Japan Football (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I'm withdrawing this AfD. Travelbird (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --Japan Football (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize he has never appeared in a fully-professional league, but only a cup, based on the article? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing cup match between to clubs from fully pro leagues is generally regarded as being sufficient for WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject played for Mito HollyHock against Oita Trinita in a cup-match, and since both teams are playing in J. League Division 2 which is listed as a fully pro league, there is a long-standing consensus that this player is notable. The article however made no claim for notability, and I've added my research to the article, but it still needs improvement to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galen (singer)[edit]

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

When the first responses to google are the users social media and there is nothing on google news except their facebook, its a good indicator that they are not notable. When the article is created by a user with PR in their name its almost guaranteed that this isn't an article we want to host. Fails BIO because there are not reliable sources that are detailed secondary independent sources. Its clearly COI too although that last one isn't a reason to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. The award is not sufficiently important. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of attained WP:MUSICBIO notability; the award mentioned is clearly a student-level award. I also removed a chunk from the article that was a straight WP:COPYVIO of this article, but even that is about a band featuring the subject rather than the subject himself, so fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:35, 4 December 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) —Theo polisme 23:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cavern Creatures[edit]

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

Only a single, short reference was found in the past 6 years for the game. Author contested PROD. Delete per WP:GNG as the game does not appear to be notable for any reason. Odie5533 (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As Odie5533 pointed out, the game appears to have fallen into virtually complete obscurity, but it also appears to have been a somewhat significant (albeit not an "exceptional" or "above average") boxed release for the Apple II gaming market in its day. However, I understand the potential counterargument that the Apple II gaming market was much smaller than that associated with modern gaming consoles, so a "significant release" in the context of a historical niche market may not necessarily suffice for inclusion on Wikipedia unless its notability extends beyond a handful of short reviews in old gaming magazines. I was able to locate two relatively brief reviews published in gaming magazines back in the day and I suspect that at least a couple more could potentially be found. Admittedly though, I'm still relatively new at this, so I have no idea whether this is sufficient to satisfy the "significant coverage" criterion in WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So that's why my "keep" is "weak", but regardless, here's what I've found:

Tetro Jr., Frank (February 1985). "Cavern Creatures". Electronic Games. 3 (2): 32. (five paragraph review)
"Taking a Peek: Cavern Creatures". Computer Gaming World (14): 8. January–February 1984. (one paragraph review)

--Mike Agricola (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mike Agricola's sources. I see multiple RSes with significant coverage so the Notability threshold is met. The article may not ever make it to FA status, but it does belong on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the Notability threshold is met. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:37, 7 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese and Chinese responses to imperialism[edit]

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

Vague topic; Orphan; no sources (only a general text); no Talk Page activity ch (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay. Why are we linking Japan and China for starters? Are we talking about radical responses to their own national imperialisms, or national responses to the imperialism of outsiders? And what constitutes a response? Etc. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The text here is a rather simplistic view of a complex (and in this article not well defined) topic. The one and only reference is to a generic world history textbook that has had mixed reviews [13] of its coverage of recent history. The scope of the article would need to be clarified (starting with the title) and all statements need to be referenced with reliable sources. The article doesn't even state which era of history that it refers to. --mikeu ^talk 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. --Make cat 13:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being an essay full of original research. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:11, 8 December 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#G12 - article stated the story was copyrighted - also WP:CSD#G11 promotion. JohnCD (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Option by Derek Gunn[edit]

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

Short story in what appears to be a self-published ebook. It doesn't meet the notability criteria. maclean (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete (possibly CSD G11) No evidence that the story meets the notability criteria, nor does its author. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - it either fails G11 (which I tagged it with), or, if it's not pure promo, G12 (after all, it does mention that this short story was copyrighted...) Lukeno94 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 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 Dirty War#Children of the Disappeared. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Eugenia Sampallo[edit]

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

This woman is only notable for being the victim of a crime. Per WP:ONEEVENT, we should write about the event, not the person. There is a bit more info at es:Apropiación de menores en el Proceso de Reorganización Nacional. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Dirty War#Children of the Disappeared. While this does not meet WP:VICTIM, especially in the BLP sense, it is of historical significance. I am willing to do the work once the AfD closes. §FreeRangeFrog 19:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:20, 24 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A classic example of BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge away, Free Range Frog, I agree with your comment. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the widespread national and international coverage, the trial appears independently notable to me. I'm also not persuaded Sampallo is low-profile enough to call for BLP1E protection--she appears to have crusaded publicly regarding this case, and even if she hadn't, "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". It does seem to me preferable to rename this article "Kidnapping of Maria Eugenia Sampallo" or "Maria Eugenia Sampallo kidnapping trial", but as an internationally noted trial that was the first of its kind, I'd say it merits its own article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Adell[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who had minor roles in mostly non-notable German films/TV shows. Article fails WP:NOTPROMOTION, using IMDB, Adell's own website, and other actor promotional websites as references, without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:N and WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The references are poor but if the claims in the article are correct, her credits and awards ought to satisfy WP:CREATIVE/WP:NACTOR. Pburka (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the individual has not been a subject of multiple, reliable and independent sources and hence does not pass the muster of notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:48, 29 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would say she just about meets meets the notability guidelines. Morefoolhim 19:57, 1 December 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim chief ministers of india[edit]

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

I don't think it is necessary to have a classification on the basis of one's religion. It can be highly biased and may be sensitive as well. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam_in_India#Prominent_Muslims_in_India seems to cover this well enough already. Morwen (Talk) 14:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should be labeled as a "List of..." As such it's a pretty close call, actually, I thought it would be a pretty obvious delete. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment- there are two problems here-

1)This is not well-sourced, in fact, I found no source. 2)It can be merged to List of Muslim leaders and politicians. Thank You.--Skashifakram (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list.May be expanded to include Muslim governors, central ministers and renamed as Muslim political office holders in India. Shyamsunder (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The focus of the position is public service not religion or language. Perhaps religious categorization of public positions like chief ministers is not desirable. Arunram (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article include as an Uttar Pradesh (i.e United Provinces) Chief Minister from 1937. If British India is to be included, then there are a lot of others from Sindh, Punjab, Bengal, etc.. --Soman (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:16, 7 December 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) —Theo polisme 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Nations (Medieval Tournament)[edit]

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

This is not a notable tournament--one could consider it spam (look at the links), or part of a walled garden. Either way, it doesn't pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I put this article up, and it certainly isn't spam, I have nothing to do with the tournament. To say it is not notable I think is curious - it is the only medieval tournament event that has an international attendance from this many countries. The Sacremento Bee article says that *25* Nations had representative teams there...which IMHO would make it the medieval combat sports tournament with the most amount of countries represented (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/22/5004375/battle-of-the-nations-world-historical.html). In fact, I am not sure there is even a close second.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to have been noted by the international news agency Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/idUS108406+22-Nov-2012+PRN20121122). I have the dim impression I should have put my 'vote' in here in some other way than 'editing' the page but I only edit on occasion so have never really figure out 'Talk' pages and user IDs.173.79.136.228 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what you did is fine. If you want to add info to the article and thereby improve it, that's fine as well, but there is no requirement to do so; your comments here and the information you linked to will be judged for what they're worth by others, including the closing administrator. By weighing in here, in this discussion, you've met your obligations, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably think it is the only *international* medieval combat tournament. There are other events like Pennsic, that get people from all around the world going, but they are large medieval history *festivals*, rather than tournaments. I have added the Reuters references into the article, thanks (I was a medieval combatant, and armourer, so have an interest in this stuff).Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference actually isn't a reference: note where it says "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." It's a press release re-printed by Reuters. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a notable tournament per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:58, 6 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BodogFight (TV series)[edit]

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

This was a contested PROD with no reason given or attempt to address the issues which were Notability in question - no attempt to provide references Peter Rehse (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Morefoolhim 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article about a TV series that aired 3 episodes on a satellite TV channel that lasted 1 year. The series was simply televising some fight cards from Costa Rica with no indication that these were notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. If the article is substantially improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page on notability grounds.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and fails WP:V. — ^Wylie_Coyote 00:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with also deleting the unsourced bodogFight article. Papaursa (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cocks[edit]

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

PROD contested by creator; this is an unnecessary disambiguation page. It lists a non-notable musician and a non-notable footballer; neither are seen as appropriate for future creation, and the footballer is definitely not. It also lists a "see also" but this page could easily be a redirect to that "see also." Giant Snowman 17:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (from creator) The musician is a founding member of a notable band and the footballer is a professional sportsman - I see nothing to support the assertion that they are non-notable. However, you don't need to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines to be a valid dab entry, you need to meet MOS:DABMENTION or MOS:DABRL. Both the musician and the footballer meet these guidelines. There is also a very valid see also. It also clearly meets WP:USEFUL. I don't see what could be gained from deleting this page, but I can see clearly what can be gained from keeping it - someone looking up the musician, footballer or those of a similar name can find an article which has information on them. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The musician (assuming he's real and I'd like to see some reliable evidence that there was a Matthew Cocks in the band because he wasn't part of the classic line-up) isn't independently notable as he doesn't seem to have done anything other than briefly play in a notable band; the footballer is real[14] but isn't notable because as far as I can see he's never played in a fully professional league or for his country or done anything else to meet WP:NFOOTY. It could redirect to Josef K if he really played for them. I don't see how the footballer meets WP:DABMENTION or WP:DABRL. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, whether they meet WP:NOTABILITY as individuals isn't relevant to whether they have dab entries. Footballer clear ly meets MOS:DABMENTION, quote: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. To see how he meets MOS:DABRL, click on the link Matthew Cocks (footballer) and it will show if any articles contain that red link - footballer's does. Again, the arguments aren't being made based on guidelines for disambiguation pages, but on guidelines for articles. Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Matthew Cocks in the squad list (also one in Żurrieq F.C., but possibly the same person), but a name in a list is not enough to be a topic. There's no reliable source to verify that there was a Matthew Cocks in Josef K (band) - the only thing I could find was http://www.kinemagigz.com/%27j%27.htm, in a section written after the name was added to the Wikipedia article; according to that maybe he was in an earlier band with some of the same members. Peter James (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the information should be removed from the article Josef K (band). (First, before deleting the disambiguation of the Wikipedia ambiguity.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Ambiguity exists on Wikipedia (assuming the bassist isn't playing football), neither of the topics for the ambiguous title are primary, a disambiguation page is needed. QED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Matthew Cocks" is in the squad for two different teams, and although it's possible that he transferred to Żurrieq F.C. the information available online isn't enough to confirm whether they are the same person. Whether names of players should redirect to club articles was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 66#Player articles redirecting to club articles and the same should apply to disambiguation page entries. Peter James (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which means what? Does you think that discussion supports deleting or keeping this disambiguation page, or deleting or keeping those disambiguation page entries? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DABMENTION. If these Cockses shouldn't be mentioned in the articles linked then the thing to do is to gain consensus for their removal on the respective talk pages. Only if their removal is agreed should we consider deleting the disambiguation page, which directs readers to the page(s) that they may be looking for. Notability is irrelevant to a disambiguation page, just as it is for a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the footballer is 1000% non-notable and will never have a Wikipedia article. At most, we should redirect this page to the band. Giant Snowman 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is no requirement for a subject to be individually notable to be listed in a disambiguation page, per WP:DABMENTION. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Cocks still plays for any football team - he's not listed on their squad at Soccerway - so why does he merit a mention on a disambiguation? Giant Snowman 10:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he merits a mention in an article then he merits a mention on a disambiguation page. The place to discuss whether he merits a mention in the article is the article talk page, not an AfD discussion for the disambiguation page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't merit a mention on the article in question, so I have been bold and removed the section as unreferenced and out-dated. Giant Snowman 10:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the footballer has, rightly or wrongly, been removed from the club's article, I've changed the disambiguation link to another club Matthew Cocks (footballer) is redlinked in. The suggestion that this page be redirected to the band ignores the fact that 'Mattherw Cocks' and 'Matthew Cox' are pronounced almost the same, which can cause ambiguity. Redirecting to the band's article would confuse many people looking for the footballer or someone with the very similar name Matthew Cox. As it stands, it doesn't confuse anyone. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't play for them either - and so I've also removed him from that list. You're also wanting to keep a disambiguation page when hatnotes could and should suffice. Giant Snowman 17:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 references and added them. I think hatnotes in this case would cause confusion; do you mean a redirect to the band's article with a {For|those of a similar name|Matthew Cox (disambiguation)}? Most looking at the article would be confused by this, as Matthew Cocks wouldn't have been what the majority of people would have typed. Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest using ((redirect)). Giant Snowman 17:10, 26 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I look at it now, it doesn't link to any page called Matthew Cocks. Thus, this disambig page is pointless. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for the targets of a disambiguation page to have the same title, per WP:DABMENTION. If these people didn't share a name we would have redirects for them, but the job of these redirects has to be done by a disambifuation page when there is ambiguity. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the footballer is never going to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL, from above, rendering this disambig page pointless. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is no requirement for entries in disambiguation pages to be individually notable, but merely to be mentioned in an article. You seem to be reluctunt to actually read the guideline that I linked, so I'll quote from it here: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The MOS:DABRL stipulation "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written" takes precedence. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The guideline is at MOS:DABMENTION, as well as WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me rephrase this. The guidelines discourage creating a dab page for two entries even if they have standalone articles. Yet we're supposed to keep a weaker example whose entries have no prospect of getting their own articles? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per common sense a nonsensical disambiguation page that contains no one notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the dab guideline. Usefulness to the reader is their principal goal. It seems to me that this page is far better than any alternative, such as a non-existent article, a redirect to Matthew Cox, or a redirect to the band. Why you wish to remove a cheap page that actually discourages re-creation, I can't imagine. The Steve 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Benefits: it will help a reader or editor who wants to find something about either of these, or another, Brian Cocks; Disbenefits: ummm, can't see any. What's the point of suggesting deletion? PamD 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were two valid targets here I would say Keep, but there seem to be no reliable sources that confirm that Matthew Cocks was ever a member of Josef K, so that one needs to go. For the footballer, I don't see a link to a team as a good target. --Michig (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might not see a link to the team article as a good target, but the guidelines do, and they are the result of consensus. Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention there of players pointing to a club of which they were a squad member - it's a weaker case I think than other individuals who are part of a notable collective. I have removed mention of the other Matthew Cocks from the Josef K article, by the way, as unsourced and failing WP:V (I have several sources on the band, none of which mention him), so there is now only one target. If anyone feels a redirect to a football club is appropriate I have no objection. --Michig (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how can anybody justify a disambiguation page with one, exceedingly non-notable listing?! Giant Snowman 11:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't understand - there are 3 listings. I've restored the mentions, seems to have only been removed to prove a point and delete this. Both have references. Can you answer PamD's point? Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the Josef K one, that does not look like a reliable source, and it only states that Cocks was a member of the pre-Josef K band TV Art. --Michig (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from squad member to team should be discouraged, because they will frequently need retargeting, deletion and undeletion, and at the level where players are not separately notable it's likely that they will not be maintained properly, sometimes because the information is not available - the footballer was in the squad for two different clubs (if it's the same person), but I couldn't find anything about a transfer, only that references to appearances for Matthew Cocks at one club stopped just before the first mentions of appearances for the other. Peter James (talk) 11:57, 8 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Padova[edit]

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

Unreferenced sports team article that does not seem to meet WP:NSPORTS notability requirements. - Mr X 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Team in a non-notable minor league. §FreeRangeFrog 02:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with the nominator; this team fails WP:NSPORTS. It also fails the lower threshold of WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From 1986 to 1991 played in the top league of Italian American football championship (Serie A AIFA 1986, Serie A AIFA 1987, Serie A1 FIAF 1988, Serie A1 FIAF 1989, Serie A1 FIAF 1990, Serie A1 FIAF 1991). --WikiMatt (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to WP:NSPORTS, cited above, WP:NSPORTS is not the applicable specific notability guideline for sports teams; WP:ORG is. Per WP:ORG, no team or other organization is inherently notable, and it proceeds to describe the various notability requirements for organizations which, collectively, are remarkably similar to the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Bottom line: I don't see any depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources that would satisfy either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Maybe in-depth coverage exists in Italian language reliable sources; if so, I would be willing to reconsider my vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd need to see some sources before I changed my position on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 4 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese in Brunei[edit]

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

no refs, and no indications of notability. The Determinator p t c 01:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This very short, unreferenced article about a non-notable subject seems like it might be a coat rack for advertising a vacation/tour company. - Mr X 02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough for an entire article. Fails WP:GNG. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, not notable enough for an entire article, too small a minority group.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:SNOW The Determinator p t c 04:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of Vietnamese in Brunei is too small to merit an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:18, 8 December 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 under WP:CSD#G8 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrog 10:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WFT Cloud[edit]

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

No indication of significance or notability. The only references are from the company's own web site and press releases. - Mr X 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage not originating from the company itself. JFHJr (㊟) 03:37, 1 December 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 The Hamsters#Videos. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Band of Gerbils[edit]

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

Not a notable music video. Stowonthewolder (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any news articles. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. - Mr X 02:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Hamsters#Videos - After detailed searches, I only found this and this (fifth result from the top). Although it was only a recorded live concert, I would have expected some more coverage especially in connection to Jimi Hendrix. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos where it is logical to inform readers by sending them to where they might learn about the group, even if the video itself lacks coverage for an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hamsters as a plausible search term. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 8 December 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 The Hamsters#Videos. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burnin' Vermin[edit]

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

Not a notable music video. Stowonthewolder (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any news articles. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. - Mr X 02:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines. Rotten regard 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos where it is logical to inform readers by sending them to where they might learn about the group, even if the video itself lacks coverage for an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hamsters as a plausible search term. --Michig (talk) 20:32, 8 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between James Bond novels and films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago and the result was to merge the content into the relevant film articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between James Bond novels and films. Further to that another discussion took place at Talk:Differences between James Bond novels and films#Moonraker / Die Another Day where it's been noted that there is nothing cited/notable in this article that isn't already covered in the relevant film articles. A redirect isn't really appropriate since the content is spread out over different film articles; not many articles link here so I'm proposing deletion as the most appropriate course of action. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The contents should appear in particular articles on movies and/or books. The topic is interesting, but I don't think it's notable in and of itself because the differences are usually treated in reliable sources according to each production, not topically as a single subject. Any generalities best belong at James Bond in film. JFHJr (㊟) 03:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:GNG. It's too unsupported and too full of WP:OR to stay. - SchroCat (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic appears to fail WP:GNG. No significant coverage has been found using Google, or reliable sources at all for that matter. While the subject itself is relatively interesting, it certainly is not a notable article for a site like Wikipedia. In addition, the article is seemingly written as fan trivia, and looks like an essay. TBr and ley 05:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's kind of sad to lose such a wonderful piece of fan cruft. Strikes me as an original essay though. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This closed as Merge in August 2010. Why is this still here??? Carrite (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins don't do merges, someone has to volunteer to do it, the backlog for these things can be indefinite. This one is so large and complex probably no one wanted to get into it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment This kind of material will be impossible to keep out of Wikipedia. Even if it's delete now, fans will just add it back, but in the actual movie articles, which would be unfortunate for a number of reasons. The better solution is to take WP:TNT to this article and keep what few bits are reliably sourced. Every year or so re-visit and delete the unsourced cruft. It will keep cruft out of the main movie articles, and give space for fans to work on creating an article of this type using the best practices of reliable secondary sourcing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is already in the film articles already, but in a measured way (looking at how the screenwriters adapted the source novels for the films) and in the novel articles (identifying aspects of the novels that went into films) and in the James Bond in film production history article. And you should note that all the films and all the books are GA rated. However, it's been done in the correct way, all backed up with reliable, independent secondary sources and all fitting the right context. If we delete the unsourced cruft from this article, we'll end up with a pointless stub like this. You should note that the "supporting refs" for this version are 50% made up of fansites and IMDB. I could remove those too, but we'd have only half the amount shown above. Is there really any point having an article for people to play with, when they can just use their sandboxes instead? - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Adaptation from source material it is legitmate (and encouraged) to list differences that are noted in secondary sources and accompanied by commentary. It is pretty normal for that type of detail to be covered by film articles because it is integral to the film's development, and the net effect is that it makes this article redundant. A consensus from the previous AfD already exists to transfer the material out (which turns out to be unnecessary since it is already covered by the film articles), but the problem is that the suggested redirect target is not appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat & Betty Logan, thanks that is information I was not aware of. The fact the movie/novel articles are all GA and this type of info should be in the main articles clearly supports deleting this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above Comment thread. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails the GNG, and it also has too much original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of Wikipedia policies, I personally found the article very useful. However, if it is ultimately deleted, I hope the information contained within will be relocated to the film articles they refer to. -Fogelmatrix (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it is already in other articles. The problem with the article as a whole is pretty well summed up by your recent addition: no supporting sources have been used and there is no context for the information at all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the fact that the information is listed in the film's articles is not the point. The point is that the list violates the Wikipedia's Adaptation from Source Material policy, as Betty Logan noted earlier. Wikipedia is rife with lists and articles that repeat data that occurs in other articles. In fact, I daresay that most of the "List of" information on Wikipedia is located somewhere else. The lists exist to consolidate certain aspects of these broader topics. We certainly wouldn't expect a person to go to every country's individual article if they wanted to figure out how many sovereign nations there were. I suppose it comes down to whether or not the information is presented in a way that a person would be reasonably likely to want or need, and if it makes access to the data easier and more accessible. With that in mind, I vote for deletion, despite the fact that I am a contributor to this article. My own personal experience aside, the differences between films and books is not information that most people would generally want grouped together, as opposed to say a list of James Bond villains or allies. It's more likely that people would want this information on a film-by-film or book-by-book basis. -Fogelmatrix (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SchroCat and Betty Logan above. It's fascinating fancruft and so belongs on a fansite, not wikipedia. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:44, 6 December 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.