The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources have been presented, which establishes notability. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Absolutely no reliable sources. Image on article has no source either. In order to get a Wikipedia article for itself a topic must get substantive, nontrivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. This has nothing. A web search shows mirrors of this article and the notoriously unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica. From reading the article it sounds like it deserves nothing more than a footnote on the main Lamia article or on something like Melusina or even Siren as a variant tale, but even there you would need a reliable source before you could do even that. DreamGuy (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose most of these mythology articles are really badly ref'd, I agree, but lamias are as common in Basque mythology as dwarves are in German mythology. Deletion is way over the top. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bona fide ref for the first line, it's not that the topic is hard to ref, I just don't have the time and the other editors don't seem that bothered about refs, sadly. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Google Books shows some refs, including these in full text[1][2] and more snippets. I'm not entirely sure how distinct the Basque lamia is, which influences whether it merits a separate page rather than a merge, but it clearly has some coverage in independent sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong speedy keep. French version is a GA with 48 refs, including some in English. I've added one. Article needs a bit of work but not a candidate for deletion. Mcewan (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per Mcewan — extensive refs in fr.wiki show Lamia merits an article.—A bit iffy (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY - it is being improved enough to keep. 17:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of having met WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 00:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Cassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A Lawyer, businessperson and founder of a blog, The FCPA Blog. Blog post were published in two books. The blog and other properties are under the umbrella company Ethics 360 Media. It is a company based in Singapore. Cassin is the chairman of the company. Company owns other properties such as ethiXbase, China Compliance Digest and FCPA Database. I'm unable to find any reliable, independent references that talk anything about him. I can find references that contain quotes from him and some of these are used as references in the article. Nothing meets the requirements of GNG. Prod was contested on unknown grounds. An Hcassin is the editor of this page. Hcassin, RLcassin and an IP are the editors of the The FCPA Blog page. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think this page adds much to the sum of human understanding. If there is notability here, it's for his blog and books, not him. Squareanimal (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately. Amazon, LinkedIn and Blogs are not WP:RS The Washington Post link just refers to Richard L. Cassin as a lawyer who writes for a blog--which doesn't really confer much notability on him since the subject of the Post story was on Rupert Murdoch. There really is no need for a wikipedia article on this individual. --Artene50 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG....William 00:53, 12 July 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. Only strong keep argument is based on inherited notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable, could not find any sources that go into details. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Current article would need to be fundamentally re-written to be encyclopedic: it presents fringe views with little reference to the mainstream, contrary to WP:VALID throughout it's short content. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references to Peake are mostly his own web site or third hand mentions of him. They are not coverage from WP:RS and don't prove his WP:N. --Artene50 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —HueSatLum 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There's enough here to suggest possible notability. I advocate keep for now. Squareanimal (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Keep Notable according to Bruce Greyson and Ervin László, both of whom wrote forewords for him. He has a media profile here that could yield more references. K2709 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having people (especially people who have dubious notability themselves), write forewords to books doesn't indicate notability. What we have is a complete lack of reliable sources giving significant coverage to this topic (I had a look at his media profile and couldn't spot any reliable sources), thus failing WP:GNG, and failing WP:AUTHOR too. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a biography of a living person and I can't find any evidence of any independent sources that pass WP:RS.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was definitely created prematurely. The reliable sources available only indicate that Christy Hui is working on something related to Xiaolin Showdown and Tara Strong is involved. The video that was leaked was a work in progress and is noted as such. Anything that happened in it, including the title, is subject to change. I have no idea where anyone has been getting the Spring 2013 date. Even if that's the unconfirmed target date by the production team, no network has said it will be part of the schedule. Xiaolin Showdown already fully details everything we know, so merging is pointless, and since the title hasn't actually been confirmed a redirect would be inappropriate. Jay32183 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, it might be in production but being in production doesn't mean a whole lot if nobody picks it up. Basically it can be determined as a pilot with links to an existing show which isn't really proof of notability. tutterMouse (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, probably was made prematurely, not well sourced, and kind of per WP:CRYSTAL--Chip123456 (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This website doesn't seem to meet our notability guidelines for web content. The sources in the article are either written by Pappzd, or only contain passing mentions of the magazine itself, and I couldn't find any good sources online. I note that the site was nominated for a couple of awards, but I'm not sure that these awards are "well-known and independent" per the guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Notoriety based on the web site's release of a sex tape resulting in cease and desist orders does not establish significant independent coverage or recognition. Per WP:NRVE, that is only short-term interest. Being mentioned in articles about other topics does not establish Wikipedia notability. The tone of the article fails WP:PROMOTION. Author of this article is WP:SPA; only contributions are to this article. Likely WP:COI. DocTree (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failure of GNG. The references are not enough to establish notability (as mentioned, they are either first party, or only passing mentions in relation only to the sex tape scandal), and I can find nothing to indicate that the awards they won are notable themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of having met WP:GNG, no claims of notability via WP:PROF. (Note that most Who's Whos, also, are not considered reliable sources, although that depends on which publisher is being discussed.) j⚛e decker^talk 00:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable professor; I can't turn up any sources which show that he passes WP:PROF. Almost all references are to primary sources, the only exception being a Who's Who entry for his father. Psychonaut (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- can't find enough sources to assert notability on any of the WP:PROF guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google search indicates he doesn't pass WP:PROF with no references to his work and no strong WP:RS unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. I had converted a Speedy deletion nomination into a Proposal for deletion, which was contested by the article creator with the reasoning "I think that this article demonstrates the notability of CA". I feel that the business notability criteria are not met, nor are the general criteria.

The references provided, whilst verifying the information in the article, are not sufficient to show the company's notability:

1. The first one is the company's own website - not independent;
2. Bloomsberg BusinessWeek: provides the company's own information, along with "standard announcements"
3. Crain's Chicago Business: confirms that the company is apparently the third most innovative in Chicago. This fails to meet the criteria for 2 reasons - firstly, it is a niche publication - it has a circulation of about 45,000 in the Chicago area, so is strictly local coverage; secondly, this would be more of a claim of notability (just...) if they were recognised in a national publication as being the 3rd most innovative company in the US or the World - but the 3rd most innovative in Chicago? Sorry, I do not feel that this shows the notability required for an entry in Wikipedia.

I also could not find suitable reliable sources which are independent of the company - they are basically either minor coverage, "standard announcements" or press releases.

In summary - while I appreciate the work put into this article by the creator, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion on this Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found nothing in the way of reliable sources that demonstrate notability and I agree with the nominator about the regional nature of what has been provided. What I found was pretty much press releases and very local mentions. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being ranked the third most innovative company in Chicago certainly seems like it should make a company notable to me; however, I understand that the publication is somewhat small. I have added a reference to the Wall Street Journal referring to CA as "the leading innovator and provider of coin and currency handling solutions." There's no doubt about the reliability of that publication. Dtm1234 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That WSJ article is just routine coverage of their press release and unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing better. Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Company has been in existence since 1887, employs hundreds in the United States, mostly in suburban Chicago but a few in their numerous regional offices. Hard to get information on the company from Google since they're kind of a niche business, and a privately-held company, but there is some news coverage, mostly of intellectual property cases. Thunderbunny (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How long the company has existed is not a criteria for notability, nor how many people they employ (although I would assume that if that were hypothetically to be a criteria, the number required would be in the hundreds of thousands at last, not the hundreds!). The news coverage I found was routine announcements, nothing indepth about the company itself. Some niche subjects can be notable (they generate significant coverage at reliable independent sources because of their perceived importance or significance to the source) - but unfortunately this is not one of them, from what I can see. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company meets the GNG and WP:ORG is therefore notable as shown by this 1978 article from Computer World, this 1997 article from the Daily Herald, this 1995 article form the Boston Globe, this 1979 article form the Chicago Tribune, this 2003 interview in Manufacturing & Technology News, this 2009 article from Vending Times, this 1992 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and on and on and on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Computer World one looks to me to be based on a press release from the company; Unfortunately I can't see the Daily Herald/Boston Globe/Chicago Tribune ones as they are behind a paywall, so I can't verify their content (hopefully others will have a paid-for subscription so can look at them); the Manufacturing & Technology News one is an interview with Bill Jones, the company's CEO - so not independent; the Vending Times one is based on a press release and/or quotes from a company representative; and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is behind a paywall. What I can see of these sources do not appear to show independent ones - not all coverage in reliable sources is necessarily independent. I am open for persuasion though. Some good research though - I had found the M&TN one, but missed the Vending Times one. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:20, 13 July 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 Return to House on Haunted Hill. NAC. Cliff Smith 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It appears to have made a splash when it was announced and used in Return to House on Haunted Hill. See [3] as an example of coverage. However, beyond that one blip, I have seen no coverage since. I don't see the enduring coverage to establish notability, and in fact, I cannot even find another film that uses Navigational Cinema. Whpq (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Return to House on Haunted Hill#Production where this process is already mentioned and sourced. Being a one-of for the last 5 years does not give notability enough for a separate article, but as a production process sourcable as being used in the aforementioned film, we can at least send readers to the one place where it is reasonable that it be spoken of in context to the film in which it was used. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How many years must a stub remain a stub / Before we conclude that it's not going anywhere? —Tamfang (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as it takes. We have lots of notable stubs that simply await attention, and sometimes it does take a while. Personally, I do not go seeking them out, and only improve those with potential that get sent to AFD due to impatience (See WP:DEADLINE, WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT)... and I have over 50 DYKs resulting from expansion of stubby articles. However, this should have been boldly redirected and sent to AFD only if such was contested. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawn - Jiminey Crickets! How did this one drop off my watchlist? I agree with MQS's recommendation of a redirect and am withdrawing the nomination. My apologies for not spotting this earlier and causing the AFD to get relisted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"Landmark" is a vague term, leading to a potentially infinitely long list. This article is really just a collection of random places. It is a mess, and I don't think it could be improved unless a rigorous definition of "landmark" is given, and I doubt if this can be done properly. I don't see how something of such a wide, yet vague, scope benefits Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It shouldn't be on wikipedia, makes little to no sense. JMK (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly un-maintable - or would amount to multi-Mbyte page without heavy subjective editing. Category:Landmarks and subcats, and more specific regional lists should be replacements. Just too big in scope.Oranjblud (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect Duplicate of Lists of tourist attractions which is subcategorised. (I don't know if anyone can really be bothered merging it to all the sublists of tourist attractions, so I'd also support a redirect without merge.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Many landmarks are not tourist attractions and many tourist attractions are not landmarks. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article (which I trust you have read) says "In American English it (landmark) is the main term used to designate places that might be of interest to tourists due to notable physical features or historical significance". I agree that many tourist attractions are not landmarks, but landmarks in this sense are tourist attractions. This is plainly a list of landmarks in the sense of things appealing to tourists, not in the sense of things used to navigate. The first entry is the Ross Ice Shelf - is it used to navigate? No. Is it visited by cruise ships? Yes[4]. The list of man-made landmarks is even more obviously a list of tourist atractions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose content was merged from this edit history into landmark in 2009. Our copyright licenses require that the prior edit history not be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncle G, what do you mean. Wikipedia doesn't have a "copyright licence" because it uses Creative Commons. And where does this requirement to retain all prior edit history come from? In any case, no history is ever properly deleted - I think it will still be accessible to admins. Bazonka (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Creative Commons (or, more particularly, CC-BY-SA) is a copyright licence, and it requires that authors be identified publicly, not only to English Wikipedia admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand where you're coming from now, although I feel that that particular requirement of the licence is unenforceable and so does not warrant this level of concern. Anyway, a redirect rather than a full deletion should be adequate, and would retain the page history (not that anyone is likely to ever look at it). Bazonka (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about this issue at WT:DEL#Creative Commons licence prevents deletion of certain articles? Bazonka (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a larger issue on this point on attribution, but specifically here, the solution is simple: maintain this as a redirect to landmark. "List of landmarks" is by all means a searchable term, so maintaining it as a redirect retains the edit history. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The license does not require the original edit history to be preserved, it only requires a list of contributors to be given. This is why, for example, we do not need to include the edit history in a generated PDF. I have added the list of contributors to the talk page of Landmark, which seems to be the usual place for it. That resolves any copyright issue with the copied text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and then split to new articles by continent – This would solve the matter of the article's lengthiness per WP:SIZE, and would WP:PRESERVE the verifiable information in the encyclopedia. I've added some information in the article's lead about landmarks to clarify inclusion criteria for the list. The article was created in June 2004 and actually appears to be well-maintained. Also, the information is verifiable and the article currently has 238 inline citations from reliable sources such as the Unesco World Heritage Centre. Blanket deletion of this article and all of the work that has gone into it would be quite drastic, and would be a detriment to the encyclopedia, rather than an improvement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and turn into a disambiguation of some kind... - then split by country or continent or something like that.. I'm not fussy. This article is a total mess though.. that should be attended to as well. Have we even decided what a landmark is yet?--Coin945 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any policy based reason for keeping? Secret ^account 02:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saying, if we can define "landmark", then the article should be able to kept - cos there will only be a finite amount of entries in this and any split-off article. Staying the vague term it is (as it is used in the article atm), then I'd vote delete. It depends on how competent we are at finding a concrete definition for this term. But I have faith, so that's why I voted keep.--Coin945 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is too broad to be a useful list. It is not a list of landmarks in a specific place or a specific type of landmark. If all the landmarks in the world are listed, it would not meet the purposes of a list by providing information or aiding navigation, but would be so long and disorganized that no one would bother to look. Dew Kane (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A global or continental list of landmarks would have near-infinite length. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do not split or disambiguation. Landmark is such a vague term it violates our policies in original research, and neutral point of view. Secret ^account 02:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. I saw some user generated websites mentioning that she got a nomination for the 2012 AVN Awards (and again it's just one nomination). But according to the official list I couldn't find her name. I'll be happy to revoke the AfD if some other information is found on the issue. — westeros91 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Lacks notable awards or nominations to pass WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gene93k. Fails GNG and PORNBIO (even in its old form). Cavarrone (talk) 17:30, 14 July 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - The following WP:CRUFTy articles are nominated for deletion because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a diary, Wikipedia does not synthesise material to advance a position, Wikipedia is not a blog for television fanatics and (perhaps most importantly) Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. As with bus timetables and weather reports, TV schedules do not belong on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and Lists of United States network television schedules. SplashScreen (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NOT, "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. These are "historically important programming lists and schedules." They are notable as shown by having multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, or at least the prime time schedules are easily found to have significant coverage in books, magazines. They are a useful organizational tool with respect to the articles about the individual programs. No synthesis is needed to produce them. They are historic information, and not an "electronic program guide" someone will use to decide what to watch tonight. It is not realistic to compare a national prime time TV schedule with a weather report for one day, or with a bus schedule. I do not see how they are a "blog" as the nominator asserts, nor are they a "diary." They are not "indiscriminate." The nominator's complaint that they are "crufty" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Edison (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Those "historically important programming lists and schedules" are things like Animation Domination, not these indiscriminate lists. "It is not realistic to compare a national prime time TV schedule with a weather report for one day, or with a bus schedule" - why? How is one more notable or important than the other? SplashScreen (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears the article creators have not been notified. Ill see if i can.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely notifying article creators to an AfD of this scale violates WP:CANVASS as it'd swing the result in an extremely disproportionate way? It is, after all, not necessary and only recommended. I'd suggest (for example) only notifying editors who have created 10 or more of these articles. Potentially notifying 100+ editors could seriously distort the outcome of the AfD. SplashScreen (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Id say not notifying them when nominating on this scale could be seen as disruptive to prove a point especially when the nomination is sketchy, I'm sure you don't mean it like that. If you feel that way then i would of suggested you only nominated a small amount to test the water but you didn't. Your nominating on an extremely large scale so not notifying them isn't good i suggest you do that at least as a common courtesy.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The nomination is sketchy" is personal opinion. Why do all of these creators need to be nominated - surely the Wikipedia community can decide whether to keep/delete these articles for themselves without the (most probably) biased influence of the tens of people who created the articles. Why should I have nominated just a few when I feel they ALL foul foul of the policies? Whilst nominating one creator is constructive, nominating loads of them is not and skews the AfD in one direction. SplashScreen (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is sketchy other than you having a personal distaste of these articles. I don't care for them eithier but i fully agree with the comments above. They should be notified as even a basic common courtesy. There is a thing of testing the water you will have seen there has already been a discussion previously equally would you have even let one editor know if i hadn't brought this up. Oh and stop posting to my talk page no need to do so as replying here.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assuming bad faith does not mean that you can WP:CANVASS. SplashScreen (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read that as well as your other polices above which you haven't. Advising creators that you nominated there article for Deletion is not canvasing. You haven't told any of them. Im not Campaigning or anything I'm not telling them what to do posting in a non neutral manor campaigning for votes or anything the like. Im using the standard notification template which you should of done. Lets cover that Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. Nope they all have a connection and a reason to be notified now given most are created by the same few that is not an excessive amount either. Campaigning posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. No not doing that. Vote-stacking no. and finally Stealth canvassing no. Now there is no bad faith on my part either you advise them as the common courtesy that you should have or someone else can if you had nominated a sample at a time then there would be hardly anyone to advise.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be common courtesy, the same as done for most other articles up for deletion, to notify the creator of an article by a neutrally worded templated message. I would expect such a notification for an article I had created, and so would most active editors. It is clearly not a violation of WP:CANVASS. A stealthy process of AFD'ing these article without any such notifications would likely end up at Deletion Review, if they were in fact deleted, since the article creator might have wished to search for and add reliable sources to answer complaints about a lack of references, or to otherwise improve the article. The encyclopedia benefits when article creators are given that opportunity. Edison (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Essentially for the exact same reason as Edison. Mass nomination and reasoning isn't clear so does feel like it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Articles are sourced and don't seem to fully meet his points if at all. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "reasoning isn't clear" - I'm sorry to be rude, but can't you read? SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to reply to you anymore. You are being rude and not following good practice in anyway shape or form. Read Edisons reply and mine other than you don't like it don't really meet those points adequately. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if the articles are so wonderfully sourced, how come some of them have been tagged for 5 years? SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather than the rest of us having to click through the 246 or so articles you mass-nominated, please identify the ones "tagged for 5 years" that you are referring to. Then it would be an interesting exercise to look for reliable sources with significant coverage. I do not view simple TV Guide listings of what happens or who guest stars on a particular night as sufficient, and I look for commentary about the schedule as such. In similar deletion discussions in the past, I have found books, magazine articles, and columns by New York Times TV critics and major news magazines discussing the choices made in setting up schedules (Up against "Ed Sullivan" in its prime? Why didn't the schedulers leave "program x" on Thursday night where it was doing ok against the other networks?) Choices as to what programs are on what night are strategic moves which have greatly influenced viewership, and the schedules, particularly prime time and late night, have gotten multiple instances of significant coverage in years I have investigated. Edison (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons well-articulated by Edison. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleting the network schedule is not a good idea. Everyone here had good reasons why? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per historical value and, Splash, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not a guideline nor a policy, so you cannot nominate articles using that text as your support, since they have no weight on discussions or actions. Cheers. —Hahc21 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY. SplashScreen (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomica (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and snowball close. all the comments listed above. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edison put it alot better (and with a much cooler head) than I could to this textbook example of a "I don't like it" nomination. The fancruft essay is not policy, and certainly doesn't involve basic industry information like a television schedule in the least, and a proper notice to frequent contributors to these articles is certainly not canvassing at all. Finally, no sense WP:BEFORE was followed at all by the nominator. Nate • (chatter) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The television industry is a big part of American pop cultural history. Looking back at these schedules is helpful in learning about shows, networks, and the industry. Sure some sources could provide analysis, but the history aspect is what makes this a useful part of Wikipedia. Some people actually like to read about this topic. It's quite informative! --Mtjaws (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison's well-thought reasons. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As all of these network series are notable, these are indexes of article topics organized by a defining characteristic—the seasons and programming blocks in which they aired. Further, these network schedules are highly notable topics in their own right. Broadcast programming decisions, such as on which day to air a program, what shows lead in and out from a series on the same network, and against which series are a show competing, are a core part of the history of network television and are analyzed extensively in media criticism as a topic in and of itself. Often the very success or failure of a show will hinge upon its time slot; see Friday night death slot, for example, or look at the extensive commentary regarding NBC's decision to replace its traditional 10 pm drama block with the The Jay Leno Show every weeknight. I can't help but read such a nomination as arising from mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or perhaps simple ignorance of the topic. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Not only have the creators of the articles not been notified but it seems that some of the articles haven't been tagged, e.g. 1953–54 United States network television schedule. I was contemplating closing this myself per WP:SNOW but the logistics of unpicking this mess are beyond my experience. Warden (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of six were advised and that was by me. Apparently that is canvasing!. Some articles were still being tagged over 24 hours after the nomination.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: These are notable topics, with wide usage throughout Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 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 G3, Hoax -- Selket ^Talk 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hoax article created by XClapham (talk · contribs). Google search demonstrates that this subject is not real. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per possible hoax. If this person is a football player, why are there no WP:RS for him? --Artene50 (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of fictional extraterrestrials.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammalian alien species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Mammalianess is a non-verifiable trait. At best this article could be renamed List of mammal-like aliens or List of alien species that appear to be mammals. Even so, none of the listed items (apart from a few with suggestive names like the Canids from Penny Arcade or Simians from Thundercats) have any indication of what mammal they're supposed to be and many (maybe most) of these species are so indistinct even within their own source material, that it barely mentions them in passing, let alone going into detail into their gestational cycle, ability to produce milk or the number of inner ear bones they've got all of which are characteristics of terrestrial mammals. The only thing, as far as I can tell, that most of these share is fur and/or an appearance resembling a mammal. Like previously stated, appearance isn't enough to justify the list as it is and it is impossible to prove any number of these are actually mammals with any sources. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to quote the actual wikipolicy of WP:LISTN "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... " So the article fails a sub-category of WP:N. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I came here thinking, if alien means extraterrestrial life, this should be a null list. Unfortunately (for me) it is not and clearly the aliens must be creatures described as such in fictional works. Even if the topic were notable (and no evidence is provided that it is) there should be references for each entry confirming the author intended it to be mammalian. Without verification, the class being Mammalia woiuld likely be contentious. I shall look back here and gladly change my view if references are provided or a merge target is suggested. Oh dear, I've just seen this was split off from Lists of fictional extraterrestrials. I give up at this stage and strike my vote. Thincat (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: Yes, I had originally split the article from List of fictional extraterrestrials, you can see the version before I even began to edit it here. As you can see it was an extremely long (≈60K), difficult to navigate and followed no logical layout style. I decided to remedy both issues by creating the following articles as basic splits:

Then redirected List of fictional extraterrestrials to Lists of fictional extraterrestrials and added the following (related) articles which are similar but are lists of characters:

I also added List of fictional extraterrestrials by name (A-Z), and I've been slowly going through it, which is apparently a list of /all/ extraterrestrials, characters or species, and I've been adding them to the appropriate (more-specific) articles. I've only just began this quest. It wasn't until I started doing this that I realized how ludicrous the mammalian articles actually are, and attempted PROD, which was removed. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong, hot-blooded delete as just plain wrong. The definitions in Mammal state that members share a common ancestor. The less stringent mammal-like would be WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to something like "List of fictional mammal-like alien species". I think that most people would understand what mammal-like means, namely anything that is similar in appearance to an existing mammalian species. The main problem is that it doesn't say anywhere in the names of all these articles that they are about fictional creatures. Each and every page listed needs to be renamed to add the word "fictional" or "in fiction". CodeTheorist (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As pointed out by Clarityfiend, renaming it mammal-like would violate WP:OR. As to the naming conventions, I was going by a discussion (I believe it was in reference to a category, possibly.) that happened and the-then-consensus was something along the lines of Adding fictional to the title of an alien species/character/category is redundant due to the fact that there are no currently known alien species. (I've seen similar opinions about things like fictional werewolves)I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it, I have no qualms about adding fictional to the titles but that's besides the point; The issue is that the article (even if it were merged back into a section of another article) still fails WP:N;WP:LISTN and WP:OR. I'm not extremely well-versed with wikipolicies, but from what I do know it currently fails all three and, as far as I can tell, there's really no way to make it pass any of them. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of fictional extraterrestrials (per Thibbs) would be a better course of action, as you are right that the identification with mammals is somewhat problematic. The word "fictional" is essential as "alien species" can also mean Invasive species. I'd be in favour of merging all of these lists back. Then the article can be decrufted - only notable species, or species that play a significant role in notable films, books, TV series etc need to be kept. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of fictional extraterrestrials. As Thincat and Ncboy2010 suggested, there is no suggestion that the topic "mammalian alien species" is notable and we should be clear that according to WP:SAL this guideline applies equally to list articles as it does to non-list articles. I can't think of any reason to waive the guideline in this case. I applaud Ncboy2010's attempts to clean up "List of fictional extraterrestrials", but in this case I think the best approach is to impose a stricter inclusion criterion on the parent list in order to render it actually usable. WP:LSC suggests that "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" would bring it in line with "most of the best lists on Wikipedia" - a worthy goal in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: It might be best just to revert the article back to the way it was before I began editing, establish notability criteron, reorganization, etc. Although I doubt that mammalian species will ever be able to stand alone. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 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. WP:NOTDICT is the main argument being used for deletion/transwiki, but the argument is not convincing, mainly because (as many have pointed out) the article contains a lot of sourced content that would not be appropriate for a dictionary (like the "History" and "Examples of use in Australian culture" sections, for example). -Scottywong| speak _ 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is some disagreement at Talk:Bloke#Bloke is broke. about whether Bloke (word) violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have created this procedural nomination to determine whether Bloke (word) should be transwikied to Wiktionary (at wikt:bloke) or kept as a Wikipedia article. A previous AfD discussion occurred in April 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is clearly not just a dictionary definition, but goes into much detail about origins and cultural issues, as do other Wikipedia articles on other words such as dude or whilst. The article appears to have met the expectation expressed in the prior AFD that this article be expanded, and it has. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (Speedy?) Keep - There are an origin, changes, and an impact. That's it. It's not like Celebrity X on Twitter or Woody Interruptus. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would oppose a "speedy keep". I don't think there's any harm in having a full discussion about the article to settle the dispute. Cunard (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: plenty of content beyond what would be appropriate in a dictionary, especially the Australian culture section. PamD 19:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment for those saying "plenty of content" - please check the references to find out whether the sources actually support the claims they are making. I have not reviewed them all, but the three places I checked earlier were all original research where the references had the word "bloke" in them but the analysis and commentary in the article was all the creation of the Wikipedia editor and non-existant in the source. I dont have time to do a thorough review right now.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did go through them and share your impressions -- see my comments bellow. Snow (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally had time to go through all the references currently in the article and in the previous incarnation of this page. All do include the word "bloke" and document its existence and meaning. Excluding the dictionaries, not one of the sources were actually about the word either as a word or as a cultural concept. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki although there is a lot of concept content it is, as it says in the very first sentence, "a slang term". And Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says (again, helpfully, the first sentence) "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide". There is a lot of content but that all follows on from the definition of the word and its usage as a word. I.e. it's all content suitable for a slang dictionary or usage guide, not an encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't the same be said for any other Wikipedia article about a word? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, which is why it is almost never allowed. There are exceptions where the meaning of an extremely important term can be highly variable in context, but note that this only happens if the word already has a (non-disambiguation) page which deals with the core subject matter. For example America/American and American (word). Snow (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft-redirect to Wiktionary using ((wi)). The page is a very thorough and well-written dictionary definition. It contains definition, etymology and examples of usage, all content that one would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. It does not, however, contain anything beyond that. The word "bloke" is used in culture but contrary to the claim above has had no significant impact on culture. There are no sources provided either in the article or Talk that identify any significant cultural impact (though the sources do confirm that the word is used). The definition is in paragraph format but that alone does not distinguish a dicdef from an encyclopedia article. The page retains only lexical content despite several attempts and more than enough time for improvement and expansion. (I can't argue to transwiki in this case because almost all the content is already on the Wiktionary page. What detail is not already there should be added by cut-and-paste with attribution. Transwiki works better for titles that Wiktionary doesn't already have.) Note that while the earlier verion of this page was kept, it was not kept as is. By consensus of the editors working on the page, the earlier dictionary definition was eventually turned into the disambiguation page now at bloke. This version was separately created but resolves none of the issues that led to the removal of the earlier dicdef content. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami, can you point to where the rules discuss impact on culture? Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe he is referencing WP:GNG. Like any other Wikipedia article, the subject must have analytical coverage in its sources to prove its impact and establish notability, though in this case it must also pass other more specific bars than GNG, as per discussions elsewhere on this AfD. I think -- and I don't want to put words into his mouth here but he seems to be on the same page as me -- that he is attempting to stress that the mere fact that the word exists and is used (even prominently) is not sufficient to warrant an article. This, of course, is a common issue explored in AfD and is not restricted to lexical entries. Snow (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing that says an encyclopedia article must have a discussion of an impact on culture. That is merely an example of the kind of content that would be encyclopedic as opposed to merely lexical. The section noting that examples of usage of a word in culture are merely lexical can be found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Not size. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the article:

        [The] verse collection "The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke" was published in 1915, "revealing as it did to Australians their own slang and culture of the common people."

      • Is that not an impact on culture? It's the kind of quote you would want to have in an encyclopedia article, but not in a dictionary. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That verse collection is evidence that the word "bloke" was in use in 1915 and that's all. The phrase that you appended at the end refers to the book, not to the word. The source is quite clear, reading in full "it [the book] was a roaring success (selling 66,000 copies in its first eighteen months), revealing as it did...". Words do not sell "66,000 copies". The book is notable. That does mean that each individual word used in the title is therefore encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Beyond evidence of use, the book helped "reveal" (make popular) slang in general in Australian culture, according to this quote. The word bloke, by way of the book title, is evidently included in this idea, it couldn't be otherwise without being nonsensical (or redundant if made explicit). Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • the subject of the article, the word "bloke" did NONE of this. the series of poems did. this is yet another example of original research of applying your own personal interpretation that far exceeds the analysis or commentary in the actual sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I'm not convinced by your argument, it is unsupported. The quote is about the verse collection's influence on Australian culture, specifically mentioning introduced/revealed "slang" contained in the collection, which obviously includes bloke, in the title of the book and the subject of this article. It's not my interpretation, there is no other way to read it. Unless you can provide an alternate reading (you mentioned it was just about the verse collection, but that ignores the part about slang). Green Cardamom (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The source says nothing about 'bloke' (except for in its mention of the name of the poetry collection). The poetry collection obviously uses 'bloke', at least in its title but I'd assume inside, but it's not a reliable source for anything.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then what does the quote say? I'm really at a loss. It can't mean anything but that bloke (and other slang) had an influence on Australian culture through the verse collection "The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke". If there is some other way to read it please tell me because I can't see it. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The obvious interpretation of that whole sentence in its original context is that the book had an influence on Australian culture through its descriptions of slang generally (of which, "bloke" is merely one example) and its description of the "culture of the common people". Rossami (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Forgive me if I come off brusque here - I'm not intending to be, just trying to clarify this point as cleanly as possible -- but notice what you just said: "the word bloke". Not the book "Bloke" or the person "Alfred Bloke", bur rather the word. Wikipedia does not have articles for words, except in extremely rare cases where the word is of global importance and has many conflicting definitions that require delineation. Think of it like this: would "art (word)" or "finance (word)" or "earthquake (word)" have any fewer sources or any less cultural or practical relevance than "bloke (word)"? Clearly not, and yet we'd disallow these entries as well, because we are not in the business on this project of defining words or tracing their history; we concern ourselves with the real entities, phenomena and subjects that words refer to, not individual words. That is why we have millions and millions of redirects and disambig pages -- because we realize that one word may refer to multiple subjects or one subject may be referred to by multiple names, but it is not our mandate here (and indeed it counter-intuitive and impractical for an encyclopedia) to define and treat every synonym for every real world subject or concept. Wikipedia would quickly devolve into an unusable mess where no one could find the information they are looking for if we did that. Snow (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for the thoughts. Not out to make an article for every word, believe the word is encyclopedic. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • But why would be my next question then. It's a slang term with an obvious and more or less uniform meaning that has had no greater impact than any one of thousands of similar slang terms (in English alone, not even factoring in other languages). Why "bloke" and not "buddy," "pal," "dude," "bro," "bud," and "mate"? And surely you can see if we let this bar be the standard, then virtually any word would qualify and we might as well not even have a "not a dictionary" policy. Snow (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • See slippery slope, logical fallacy, one doesn't lead to another, just working on bloke, sources determine articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So does policy: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And yes, one actually does lead to the other here, since without consistent policies based on community consensus there is no way to proscribe any form of article. Snow (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Re: "sources determine articles" - That is the fundamental problem. Despite years of trying, no one has been able to find any sources to substantiate more than a mere dictionary definition. All the sources in the article confirm the existence of the word. But that has never been in question. What sources go beyond mere lexical content and casual references? Rossami (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki/redirect to the Wiktionary entry Clearly a lexical entry and in violation of WP:NOTDICT; bloke is simply a contextual colloquialism for "man" and we have an entry for that, obviously. Note this was also the finding of an RfC on the issue before the article was even created, but that a draft was made and inappropriately promoted to article space over the consensus. The entry has been inflated by nonsensically separating "Etymology," "Origin" and "History" into three sections, and all of the sources are either A) etymological in nature, or B) do not even address the subject matter and its relevance but rather just use the word in passing (Archetypal Aussie Still a Likable Bloke in "Dundee" or Actor the quintessential Aussie bloke). One source examines the social meaning of the word but is hardly sufficient to meet the extremely stringent standards for allowing purely lexical entries on Wikipedia; we allow this only for words like American that are of massive importance and have many highly variable and contextual meanings. Please note the distinction that I am making here between a general-purpose word and a specific non-lexical subject matter -- I would not, for example, oppose the creation of the article First Bloke, assuming a few more sources were found demonstrating its cultural relevance, as this would refer to a concrete independent subject. But the current entry is clearly lexical and belongs at Wiktionary. Etymological, semantic, or grammatical content (and sources) should be merged into the entry on that project, to the extent they are appropriate. Snow (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Australia's First Bloke already appears in an appropriate article: First_Lady#First_Gentleman, while the post is discussed here and the current occupant here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bloke (word) is also an appropriate place to discuss first bloke, assuming the article is kept, since it has to do with the word bloke. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, good catch. And, not to beat the dead horse, that all seems like appropriate content as it describes specific individuals and positions, which are appropriate to an encyclopedia, as opposed to common-usage definition of a word, which is why we have dictionaries. Snow (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be an appropriate place to discuss it, if there are sources that actually discuss or analyse the usage/impact of the phrase, and not simply sources that refer to him as "First Bloke". -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dictionary definition, (despite handwaving unsubstantiated claims it isn't), or perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary. Edison (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bloke is a cultural expression rather than a word. There are many similar expressions in Wikipedia, such as homie, mate (colloquialism) and geezer. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geezer is a disambig page and the other two are arguably candidates for deletion themselves. Regardless, this article clearly violates WP:NOTDICT and labeling it a "cultural expression" and suggesting that this somehow makes it not a word (and thus not lexical entry) is a non-sequitur based on an arbitrary and artificial distinction. Snow (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's irrelevant what other articles exist, given that there's no barrier to creating articles on anything. There are examples and counterexamples for both outcomes (e.g. many such pages have previously been deleted). Which is why we instead use the rules and guidelines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The content is for the most part dictionary content, though I appreciate the thoroughness of the coverage and do think that there is a place for some articles on words on Wikipedia. The section "Influences in Australian culture" seems strongest in this regard, but even it is a bit too much like original research from primary sources. That is, the sources use the word to describe Australian men rather than analyzing the word as an aspect of Australian culture. I don't regard this as an insuperable argument for deletion, but neither do I think I can really argue to keep the article. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 13 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable civil servant, title appears to be below that of "city councillor" and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. Wikilink for title does not even go to correct country (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN although I must say I'm surprised at the number of different contributors to this article given its brevity. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. INeverCry 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:19, 16 July 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. Notability has been established. Move requested at WP:RM/TR. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Indian TV actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. (Has lacks-notability tag since 2010.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Take that erant "H" out of her first name in searches and she become sourcable in relationship to her carreer and the series Bhagyavidhaata.WP:GNG looks to be met: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and many others that simply need to be gleaned for information from which to build this BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This topic passes WP:BASIC per the sources posted above by User:MichaelQSchmidt. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per multiple significant secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the identified sources in national newspapers. Should be moved to 'Smita singh' --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the closer doesn't move it, I sure will. Poor Englifcations of Indian names almost always creates issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 16 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable game; in addition, Wikipedia is not a place for posting game guides. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The computer game section of NOTHOWTO is a list of game mechanics inexplicably, almost arbitrarily, censored at Wikipedia. To my mind, the article's current content fails in that it does NOT discuss game mechanics, and they can only be inferred from the summary of gameplay. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Like all games, it has a website. Like all games, the article is about the game, not the website. Inapplicable rule. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WEB gives the notability guidelines for web content, including browser games. I've seen many such games deleted for failing WP:WEB. The ((db-web)) template even specifically includes browser games as web content deletion candidates. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article. This is actually a fast-growing game featured on the major game portal Kongregate. It is developing a cult following and more players are playing this game and would like a basic overview of what it's about before playing it. The article was not meant to be a guide, but more of an overview of the game. The information posted is brief and not sufficient enough to be called a guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.215.10 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — 182.54.215.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  "Fast growing" or "developing a cult following" are not notability criteria. For a game to merit an article on Wikipedia, it can't be up-and-coming, it must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that the article is a game guide could be fixed by rewriting it completely, but I can't find any reliable sources supporting any claim to notability. (THere is no such claim in the article at present, either.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 - article about online content with no assertion of importance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yeah, I was thinking "video game", which isn't one of the A7s, but a browser game would fall under online content. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an "assertion (sic)" of importance: "This game features on the major game platform Kongregate and has over 40,000 players worldwide". The assessment of browser games as "online content" with respect to A7 is peremptory and lacks good rationale, even in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; there are people there who believe that MMOs should be treated the same as other "online content". Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is a prominent game on the major game platform Kongregate with over 40,000 players. The feedback has been positive on the article, saying how popular the article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Dungeon_Inquisitor&ref=cta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sksksthisk (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)— Sksksthisk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• *sigh* anyone care to fire up an SPI? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirianth. Could be meatpuppets of course, but worth checking. --bonadea contributions talk 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of coverage from reliable, third party sources. Fails the WP:GNG. As others have said, Wikipedia is not a gameguide either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No coverage, no article. Delete slowly, not speedily, however, since "assertion of importance" is a stupid unencyclopedic thing to require to be in an article, CSD A7 is archaic pre-GNG nonsense, and the whole criterion should itself be speedily deleted. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wholly agree. Rules with subjective parameters that rely on the discretion and WP:COMPETENCE of editors make no provision for editor failure. Evidence:

Amatulic's use of "assertion" (the rule states "indication of importance")

While there is no requirement to openly state importance, it must be inferred by those testing the rule. More room for failure, and sure enough, that editor believes that there is no evidence of importance. My evidence to the contrary is above; the article also states that the game "incorporates advanced technology". It leaves out the most important part, though, that the game uses natural language processing technology, as this source shows.

These errors are compounded by replication, as shown by Writ Keeper's ditto of the "online content" miscategorization and your own good faith belief that Amatulic was correct to use "assertion". Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see if you look at the article's history, the first paragraph was added after Amatulić's !vote here so there was neither an assertion nor an indication of importance at that point. That being said, now there is a (very weak) claim to importance which means that A7 probably isn't applicable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why we're talking about A7 here, but regardless, linking to the WP:Competence is required essay is not as who should say a classy thing to do. That essay is for a very different context. Finally, a browser game does qualify for A7. Look at the text of the template: it specifically names browser games. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's reasons. No clear assertion of notability. --Artene50 (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep due to innovation in the browser game field with its use of natural language processing,(source) or failing that, Redirect to Kongregate. Do not support delete, do not support merge without sources. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• bbgsite.com has been found to be an unreliable source at WP:VG/S. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find any reliable sources that mention the game at all, much less any that support the claim that its use of NLP is particularly significant. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 16 July 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. Redirect afterwards. The non-formatted keep !votes did not provide a policy-based reason.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The notability of the person is not met. His death is notable and his murder case are notable, but not him. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination and rename to murder of Daniel Faulkner or something similar. I see no rationale to delete, since the bulk of that article concerns the murder, which the nominator agrees is notable. I suggest that the nominator withdraw this deletion nomination, and just rename the article remove the biography paragraph. No need for AFD here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Amatulic's suggestion. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Absurd - please close frivolous AfD This does not really merit comment or discussion. Also renaming this to add excessive words to the article title is not useful in any way and violates article naming convention. There are quite a number of articles about people who were assassinated, murdered, involved in famous incidents, etc. which focus on the reason they are most notable. It's a slippery slope argument which can only lead to some conclusion like adding more words to the article title than are necessary to describe its topic. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Absurd - please close frivolous AfD In complete agreement with Obotlig above. CCS81 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Murder of Daniel Faulkner per Amatulic. This is no more absurd than lots of other deletion nominations. Many articles involving the death of an individual are named for the incident rather than the person if that is the main, or only, reason for notability so I don't see how it violates any naming conventions. Slippery slope arguments are almost always logical fallicies. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. There is no individual notability for Faulkner. There is nothing exceptional about his career that would establish that an standalone article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Absurd - please close frivolous AfD - nonsense Afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. Given that this article already exists and it was the trial more so than the murder itself that captured media attention, I think this is the better option rather than renaming to Murder of David Faulkner. Some cases are known for the victim (i.e. Matthew Shepard), but this case is better known for the perpetrator (i.e. Mumia Abu-Jamal). I don't think there is sufficient notability as a victim for an article to be named after the officer. Location (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Absurd - please close frivolous AfD Suggest to please leave article as is. -=vyruss=- (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambulance manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

List article that serves none of the four primary purposes outlined in WP:LIST. It is nothing more than a directory of external links in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The one internal link shows that all but one of these companies is not notable enough. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 17:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LINKFARM. Lugnuts (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lugnuts. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Noteworthy subject. Note that the contents of a list do not necessarily need to be notable on their own for inclusion for a list. It's true that the list is currently a WP:LINKFARM, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Debatable whether this is a noteworthy subject; your opinion is noted. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cleaning up to comply with that would result in a blank page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't mean a list of manufacturers of X cannot be included. See List of automobile manufacturers, for instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 15 July 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 University of Redlands.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable club with only 1 chapter nationwide. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG standards of notability. Insufficient third party sources to establish notability GrapedApe (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, reluctantly. I would really like to save this article about a 100-year-old fraternity, but I could not find any significant sourcing at Google News or Google Books, so it fails WP:ORG. If someone can find such sourcing I will change my !vote. As an alternative to deletion, the article could be redirected to University of Redlands#Greek life. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, There is some verifiable content, and what content that is supported by reliable sources should be kept somewhere, even if in a brief summary style is used; therefore I would support a merge of verified content and redirect as stated by MelanieN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This should be saved in one form or fashion. I would suggest that a page be created as a list of local fraternities or something similar. Otherwise, there would be no place for local fraternities in Wikipedia with the possible exception of secret societies like the Seven Society. While this particular fraternity "might" not meet the notability category on its own merit, collectively local fraternities (not chapters of major fraternities) are notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The consensus looks to be that some of this information should be retained but there is nowhere to keep it. So, it transpires that WP:N is not giving correct guidance for this particular article (it only claims to be a guide). Hence contentious unverfiable material should be removed and whatever is left should be kept. One day (there is no hurry) it might be merged into a suitable broader article. Thincat (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a perfectly good place at University of Redlands#Greek life, which s appropriate because that's the only location where this club exists.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent. If that is so, why are you seeking to have this article deleted rather than merging it there yourself? Thincat (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's not a notable topic for inclusion (see my nomination). Just because I suggested a merge-to location if a merge is the result of the AFD doesn't mean that I agree with a merger.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see some history here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of astronomy websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article seems to describe a fairly arbitrary collection of space/astronomy websites, with no stated inclusion or notability criteria. I can't see it being of encyclopaedic value, and Wikipedia is not a directory. W. D. Graham 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for now to let the other discussion play out. --W. D. Graham 16:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not withdraw the nomination. I would like this AfD to come to a conclusion, so the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination) will be aware of what his/her options are. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, correction. There is an inclusion criteria, which is that they have Wikipedia articles, so it is a self-reference as well. --W. D. Graham 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid states: "This guideline is about self-references and specifies which types of self-references should be avoided and which kinds are acceptable." I don't think this list is an unacceptable kind of self-reference; there is precedent for lists like this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid is inapplicable, WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE may prove fatal to this article. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination, that paid no heed to the edit summary of the creating edit, will only serve to confuse and mess things up. This article was created as a result of discussions of alternatives to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination), a discussion that is still active. Its fate is strongly linked to that discussion and should be decided there. Simply bring this article under the umbrella of the AFD discussion that it is already being discussed in. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's better to decide whether this list conforms to policy (or can be made to conform to policy) first before a final decision is reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies, I was not aware of the previous discussion. --W. D. Graham 16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination), I wrote:

  I created the list by relying on Lists of websites and failed to take into consideration whether it violated WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is meant to complement Category:Astronomy websites by including both notable astronomy websites and non-notable astronomy websites that have received tangential coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a good compromise position for this AfD: It dissuades users from bombarding the article with poor sources, trivia, and fluff to create a façade of notability. Instead, at List of astronomy websites, the non-encyclopedic information can be removed in favor of retaining only a short encyclopedic summary of the website. Please do not withdraw that nomination. List articles are not my area of expertise, so perhaps an AfD can attract experienced users to refine the inclusion criteria of List of astronomy websites so that it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if, at the end of seven days, the list cannot be improved to satisfy the WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies, then it can be deleted and the discussion at this AfD can focus solely on whether Universe Today can be kept or deleted.

  I request that this AfD be relisted by the reviewing administrator after seven days have elapsed, so that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites can come to a conclusion before a decision is made here.

  I would like this article to be kept so the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline-failing Universe Today can be merged into it. However, AfD positions should be motivated not by personal opinion but by policy-based arguments. Because I have little experience with regard to list articles, I will abstain from formally supporting retention but hope that more experienced editors can revise this article so it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm involved in policing List of open source Android applications which says "This is an incomplete list of notable applications (apps) that run on ..." Phrasing it in terms of notability rather than things which have wikipedia pages seems better to me. A number of the apps on List of open source Android applications have had articles created apparently just to get on the list. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with confining the list to notable websites is that Universe Today would be excluded from the list. The guideline at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of companies and organizations states:

  A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.

  Is it possible to refine the list's criteria to permit non-notable websites but not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is with no notability threshold, the list could and indeed should include literally every website about astronomy. A quick Google search returns about 34 million results... If this list is kept, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. --W. D. Graham 00:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The list could include only astronomy websites that have received coverage in reliable sources (though not necessarily nontrivial coverage that establishes notability). Cunard (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and then conform to WP:LIST. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – A potentially huge, huge list. It could be restricted a bit by limiting the content to professional organizations and astronomy association sites. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would this criteria include Universe Today? How would such a restructuring be accomplished? (Would a rename be necessary?) Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably a discussion for the article talk page. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - This list was created as a result of discussion at the Universe today AfD linked above, but it is not unreasonable to keep this list regardless of the outcome at that AfD. Common sense suggests that a list should only be deleted if the unlimited scope problem is unfixable, which is not the case here. All that is needed is a consensus on the article talk page about what the inclusion criteria should be, perhaps an Alexa ranking since it is a list of web sites. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but provide clear criteria which allow a page to be entered on here, and make it look more like a list. Do not write extremely long sections on each website listed; those belong in dedicated articles, not a list amalgamating all of them. The most that should be there are brief, verifiable comments. This is not Extremely detailed characterizations of astronomy websites containing information which makes it seem like ten articles combined into one.Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why is The Planetary Society listed in the list article? It's not a website, it's an NGO, hell it has its own interplanetary probes. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the correction. I've removed The Planetary Society from the list. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why is AuroraMAX listed? It's not a Wikipedia article about a website. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 17 July 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 Revolt (The Dreams album). Deleted before redirecting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No shown notability in article. ⇒TAP 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A9. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Revolt (The Dreams album), as was done with articles on the band's other songs, Under The Sun (The Dreams song) and The Optimist (The Dreams Song). A9 does not apply as the band's article exists.  Gongshow ^Talk 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recreated after a speedy delete, still no sources showing notability. I can find plenty of YouTube, Flickr, minor mentions, etc Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's another Samir Succar, a researcher at Princeton. There's some sources about him (NYtimes, NYtimes 2, NYtimes 3). But this Samir Succar? Can't find any sources about him, so I have to conclude that this entry fails WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:41, 18 July 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think the SPA who wrote this has not provided sufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked for reliable non-primary sources, I could not find any. Hence, delete. Roodog2k (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree; no reliable sources and no real notability. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, does not meet WP:FIRM. Google News Archive finds only press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 12 July 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable company. The sources in the article are: onlinebankingreport - just a short abstract of a paid-subscription article; finance.yahoo.com - press release; company's own website; netbanker - is a blog; Reuters - yet another press release. Thus, there's absolutely nothing to confirm this company's or its products' notability. Max Semenik (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NCORP. I was thinking that the "Best of Web" award was a credible claim to notability when I edited the article before, but looking more closely at the "award" it appears to be just a mention in a report which isn't available without a subscription, so not really an award at all. I haven't found any sources that confirm notability for the company. --bonadea contributions talk 14:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing to meet the standards of notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no indication of notability. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 18 July 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article's only grounds of notability is the dance group's appearance on America's Best Dance Crew, from which they were crowned the runner-up (WP:ONEEVENT). It seems there may be a couple of individual achievements between a few of the members (which, unfortunately, don't have any references to verify them), but collectively as a group, 8 Flavahz haven't done anything note-worthy besides ABDC. Most of the information on the page about their appearance on the show can already be found at America's Best Dance Crew (season 7). It is written from a fan's point of view (WP:FAN) and lacks sufficient third-party references (WP:THIRDPARTY). WANI ^♪♫♪ 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally took a look at the link to the 8 Flavahz website, but it is still under construction. I had assumed the author wrote the article's introductory paragraph based on information from the website, so it appears to be made entirely of original research (WP:OR). WANI ^♪♫♪ 22:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The crew is notable for more than just ABDC as the members have appeared in music videos, movies, and other television performances and the author has provided citations for almost all of these events. I guess references were added after this article was nominated for deletion. References are also provided for the "history" section which discusses how the group formed before appearing on America's Best Dance Crew. This happened namely through World of Dance which, from my understanding, is a fairly large scale street dance competition. After reviewing the references, I feel that they meet the grounds of establishing the crew's notability as outlined in WP:GNG. They are all secondary sources so they meet WP:THIRDPARTY as well. I just fact checked all the refs. The CollectiveUth ref wasn't working for me and the Hollywood Reporter ref doesn't prove that Charlize was in Rage Crew and/or present during that performance. However, the other 11 citations were working and they did validate the sentences that they supported. Aside from that, the article's tone is appropriate since it doesn't sound like an advertisement and it isn't unambiguously promotional. My only qualms are the "Flavah" column in the members' table as I view this as pure WP:FANCRUFT and the "dance competitions" category tag which is inappropriate since 8 Flavahs is not a competition but a dance crew that has participated in competitions. However, these are easily rememdied by simply removing them. For all these reasons, I vote "keep". 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, I nominated this article almost four weeks ago. Back then, it was little more then...well, what I explained up in my original description above. Now that the article has developed, and notability has been established beyond their appearance on America's Best Dance Crew, I am striking out my original comments and voting Keep as well. WANI ^♪♫♪ 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Chris Green was a technology journalist, but now works in PR. Page says he's still a journalist and links to a source that hasn't been updated for three years. This page no longer warrants its existence as the subject is of limited significance Inblogveritas (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• meh. Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Green. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chris's last article on IT PRO was written in October 2008 while the link for his articles for Computing is dead. So is his podcast for Online Publishers. I think he lacks notability to merit a wikipedia article. --Artene50 (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Handbags, reinstate. If the reason for deletion is broken links then surely it would be more use to remove the broken links than to delete the whole entry? May be worth noting that the AfD came from an account that was involved during previous arguments over this article -- Webgnu ^(talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources in this article are all either broken links or fail to prove notability. He doesn't seem to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Google is turning up very little, although having a common name doesn't help. If someone can provide some decent sources proving notability I'll happily change my !vote. Previous AfD didn't prove notability either, it was full of keep votes without any evidence. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frontis Archive Publishing System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The only claim to any notability is being shortlisted for an innovation challenge. There's no evidence I can see online of significant, reliable, independent coverage about the system. Does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, The first page of your own Google search lists only articles relating to Frontis. In addition, it wasn't just shortlisted, but then was a finalist in the innovation competition and has won four FFHS awards including three best sites. It certainly does not have as many citations as the large companies, but how many small companies do? As arguably the leading system of its type in the Genealogy domain as well as having published over 20 million records online, and used by the largest genealogy library outside the USA should count for some amount of notability surely? Johnkendall1 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 'notability' is not based on Google hits. In any case, if you look at the first page of Google search, the results are either to the Frontis website, or pointing to HTML code in the header of other websites. There are no 'articles'. From what I can see, the FFHS awards went to the websites, not to Frontis. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, The awarded web sites are 'powered by' Frontis - the functionality is provided by the system, it is only 'skinned' for each individual client. Online articles include
  • General Frontis article
  • Parish Register Transcription society article
  • Society of Genealogists article
  • About the pay per view site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkendall1 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More about the pay per view site Johnkendall1 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]