< 18 July 20 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Windows Embedded Compact. The article was redirected for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Windows CE

[edit]
Windows CE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains only very few and vague information; there is only one reference. The subject can be better covered under the main artcle Windows CE. There are similar discussions w.r.t. Windows CE 1.0 and Windows CE 2.0. VictorVautier (talk) 15:11, 19 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 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Cuomo

[edit]
Ralph Cuomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIME, Huffington Post reference largely speaks to the notability of his business but not of the individual. I suggest the article either be deleted or perhaps merged into Ray's Pizza. No reliable, independent references found on the individual in question. --IShadowed 23:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 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 01:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Vito Perna

[edit]
Ralph Vito Perna (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)

Perna does not pass WP:CRIME or WP:GNG. Vic49 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:07, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Santorelli

[edit]
Anthony Santorelli (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)

Santorelli does not pass WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:01, 19 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 01:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gepp & Sons Solicitors

[edit]
Gepp & Sons Solicitors (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)

Originally created in 2009, to this date it still doesn't have one reference, and is tagged WP:Orphan. Soon after creation this article was tagged Speedy, but cotested by the creator who has only ever editted this article and one other to add a singular link into this article. Having checked via various online and offline sources for suitable WP:REFERENCES, the answer is simple: there aren't any, except directory listing to confirm that the firm exists! Hence it fails WP:NOTAB, and ends up and as unreferencerable WP:ADVERT Trident13 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 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 deletion by User:Jimfbleak -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbourn Biochemical Model

[edit]
Lightbourn Biochemical Model (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 to an almost ridiculous extent. Google Books, News, News archives, and Scholar searches for "Lightbourn Biochemical Model" turn up nothing at all. A general Google search for it only retrieves two pages on LinkedIn and a conference schedule. Spanish sources don't appear available either; Books, News, News archives, and Scholar searches for "Modelo Bioquimico Lightbourn" turn up nothing as well. CtP (t • c) 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We’ll take into account all your views, give us some time, as soon as possible we will be doing an article neutral with greater quality. We are part of the communication team of Lightbourn Research and are responsible to make known the research of Dr. Lightbourn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the duties of your job at Lightbourn Research, Wikipedia is not to be be used as a means of advertising your original ideas. It is meant only to spread information already noted by others. CtP (t • c) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We ... are responsible to make known the research of Dr. Lightbourn" is a declaration that the article is intended as promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Lightbourn (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)

Doesn't appear notable per the notability guideline for biographies. Googling with the term luis alberto lightbourn rojas retrieves three Google Books hits, two of which are false positives, the other of which does not give significant coverage (it's in snippet view, so it's a bit hard to tell, but I think it may have something to do with a conference). The search term retrieves no hits on Google News but two on Google News archives, neither of which appear to give significant coverage (the term "Lightbourn" is found only once in each). Perhaps my searches are a bit too restrictive, but notability seems dubious at best. Dramatized claims of importance present in the article are based off of the "revolutionary" Lightbourn Biochemical Model Lightbourn Biochemical Model®, which is itself completely non-notable. CtP (t • c) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • You may find in a general google search, books about Dr. Lightbourn and biochemical model Lightbourn, school works, presentations and news, which can also find the references of these articles, many of them are independent sources. We believe that this is not "ridiculous"

We changed phrases that appear to have a preference and subjective meaning such as "hyper-productivity," "revolutionary" and "paradigm" and all links towards private interests.

The biochemical model Lightbourn is a worldwide patent converted to agricultural products. By 2010 it had more than 12 000 customers in Mexico, Peru, Chile, Argentina and Germany. I do not know how you to value this as a fringe theory, but references are found in the biography of Dr. Lightbourn, its patents and scientific collaboration groups are national and international scientific communities.

The phrase "make known" is a reference to "share" and "communicate" this is our small contribution to the scientific community and with our free encyclopedia Wikipedia.

We will continue taking comments and try to correct any errors in our article, we appreciate your patience and your observations, that keep making of Wikipedia the largest encyclopedia in the world.

Omar Hernandez ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of this is completely irrelevant if nobody else in the scientific community has acknowledged the model. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, requires that topics be noted by independent authors before inclusion. Again, look at the general notability guideline. My searches and the searches of many others seem to indicate that both the model and its creator fail this threshold, so for the article to be kept, you must prove otherwise. CtP (t • c) 21:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is not as fast, if you read the article, this is a recent discovery, and if you see the references, this works, and there are no lies in this article. I think gradually this article will have more references.

Omar Hernandez ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once more references exist and it becomes notable per Wiki standards, then an article on it would be appropriate. At this time, based on your own comments, it is not notable and should not be included in Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 26 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 02:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Starr

[edit]
Aiden Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 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 02:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PewDiePie

[edit]
PewDiePie (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)

YouTube personality. There are sources in the article, but all but one of them are either self-published, from unreliable sources, or are just trivial mentions. A search of google just turns up a load of social networky stuff (facebook, twitter etc.) and a few other sources making a passing mention, but there are no sources providing detailed 3rd party commentary. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which would be fine, if the GNG criteria included "is really popular on youtube and gets loads of hits". I agree with you that the first source is from a reliable publisher and is full coverage, but it's blatant promotion. Even if it weren't, one source isn't enough to confer notability. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. is in WP:ENT. I do believe that 1.1 million is a large fan base, however that argument can be made for others above 1.1 million as well. However, what can not be said for those YouTubers is a "cult" following which PewDie does. Almost all of his subscribers are/call themselves "bros" in the comments. Another thing that cannot be said about those with PewDie's subscriber total is that he has been getting (as previously mentioned) 10k-16k SUBSCRIBERS a day since Jul 2. Also it's not blatant advertising when you do a column on a popular YouTuber and then add a link to one of their videos. Soulboost (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the issue here is to remember that additional notability guidelines (such as WP:ENT) are not substitutes for the GNG. They simply outline a set of conditions which, if fulfilled, we assume denote notability. In this case, it would be fair to say he has a large fan base, and so we would assume that the subject passes GNG. However, after further research I discovered that he does not (not enough reliable sources). Ultimately, the GNG is paramount - if there aren't reliable sources, the subject isn't notable. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:11, 20 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) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. When I made this page he was the 81st most subscriber YouTuber. Now he is the 66th. Just because some have more subscribers than him does not mean that they are more popular per say, such as channels that are losing subscribers, or do not get over 10k subscribers a day.
2. I can assure you I am not PewDiePie. Also I'm not one of his "obsessed fans". Yeah, I'm a fan, but I just believe he deserves an article so I made one for him and added references. You gave two options for the sources:either unrelated to him or vaguely related to him. Expressen ref is completely about him. The dreamhack, YouTube, and Desura are also mostly about him. The Eitb ref, to a lesser extent, is also about him. Also the EITB ref was written on June 12, 2012 and in that it mentions he had over 700k subscribers at the time. A month and a few days later he has 1.157 million subscribers. That is an extremely rapid growth if you ask me. Soulboost (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop arguing about how popular he is on YouTube; it makes no difference whatsoever how many subscribers he has. The sources don't confer notability either - 1) the dreamhack source is just a brief promotion of an event, it's not in-depth coverage, 2) YouTube isn't a reliable source by which to judge notability, 3) the desura source is just a re-post of one of his YouTube videos, and 4) how you can say the EITB source is "about him" is beyond me, seeing as it only mentions him once. None of these sources constitutes significant coverage; this is not sufficient for the GNG. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said the EITB is to a lesser extent about him because one of the paragraphs is about him. Soulboost (talk) 00:50, 22 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Rössler

[edit]
Otto Rössler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, citations needed, Scholarpedia bio is self-authored Cgwaldman (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 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 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. As the article originally was. The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon "Ghost" Riley

[edit]
Simon "Ghost" Riley (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 fictional character; gregarious copyright violations abound  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 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) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are everyone ignoring me or what? [3] And also once again, WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT DELETING ANYTHING and not just redirecting. --Niemti (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AFD, that is why we are discussing deletion. Even if the deletion is done, a redirect can be created afterwards. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But WHY are you talking about deletion? WHY would anyone want to DELETE this article? I just don't get it. Everyone else has been always redirecting such articles, and me too (like this recent redirect spree of mine on unreferenced James Bond characters[4], isn't it normal? By deleting, you're deleting the content. You're making it so much harder to recreate the article if someone (like me) would attempt it later. --Niemti (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the original editor who opened the AFD felt it was warranted? The whole point for the AFD is for other editors to weight in and create a consensus. If they agree with the AFD, then the page is deleted. If they don't, then it's not. You have made clear your view that the page should be kept or redirected. The AFD was opened on two fronts: Notability and copyvio. The copyvio reasoning has been shot down. Notability so far appears to be lacking, with two editors not seeing enough and calling for deletion, one calling for a redirect (Myself), and one editor (yourself) calling for keep. The second keep, from Presidentman, is invalid, as it argued to keep based on a non-existent policy. Arguing with everyone on why an AFD even exists is not helpful. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing "why an AFD even exists", but why would anyone want to delete this article. Or support it. --Niemti (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be pretty clearly stated above: Non-notable fictional character. You can certainly disagree with that, but that is the reason. -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An that's all? Then it's first time I've seen people wanting to DELETE all the content for a trivial reason, instead of just redirecting for a time being, as usual (I've redirected a plenty of much worse articles, but no content was pernamently really lost in the process), and so I still wonder. --Niemti (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem much reason to continue discussing this if you view notability as trivial to Wikipedia, so I'll simply wait for other editors to throw in their views. -- ferret (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a trivial reason for deleting, instead of merging or just redirecting. I've tagged this article for copyvio in one section, but that was just for a simple removal of the copied content and writing it properly, and even if the whole article was copied and it was a problem (turned out that not really) I'd have it either just redirected or rewritten (or redirected and rewritten later). --Niemti (talk) 18:13, 19 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, -Scottywong| squeal _ 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the "real reason" to delete and not to merge/redirect? --Niemti (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well fair enough, redirect is a more suitable approach but the article itself isn't needed. Peace be with you :)--RedBullWarrior (talk) 00:54, 25 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. (Non-admin closure). The nominator has requested withdrawal and every comment was for Keep. Ritchie333 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Streisand effect (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 number of editors deem the content to be unencyclopaedic, the quality of the references is disputed, and the actual use of the term in the wild is also disputed. See talk for further details. Star-one (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples within the article

The principle problem is there is no evidence of real people in the wild actually using the term as a real, common-use term, without doing anything other than linking to this article as a definition of the term, or linking to the original article in which the original individual coined the term - so arguments that it is a real term used in common discourse amount to argument by repeated assertion, entirely self-referential.

The examples of the so-called 'effect in action' quoted within the article are just a list of examples of censorship backfiring; on that basis, the phenomenon - if there is one - could just as easily be called the AACS Effect, or the Project Chanology Effect, the Virgin Killer Effect, or the SuperInjunction Effect, or whatever; any journalist could write an article in a reputable news source about censorship and quote any of these examples, and describe it as an example of the (Whatever) Effect, and that would make an article about the (Whatever) Effect no more or less notable than this one. Star-one (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Wesha (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream media article cited has clearly just come to this Wikipedia article and cribbed the first few examples off it, so it's basically just propagating the self-referential nature of the term rather than providing evidence of it being a real term adopted in the wild. Star-one (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is pretty poor, the section full of trivial mentions should go. Let's not pretend it has no issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not defending the article as a whole, I was defending the article against the charges made - which simply does not hold water. --haha169 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everybody agrees that the overwhelming majority of those 34 references are quite weak.Star-one (talk) 11:17, 23 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 02:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of criticism and critique articles

[edit]
List of criticism and critique articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a list of Wikipedia articles by purpose. It doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic, and I feel that it violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:SELFREF W. D. Graham 14:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Most of these index pages, when they are brought here, seem to be kept — but there's really no doctrinal grounds for that..." That such indexes are usually kept is a doctrinal ground, as it represents WP:CONSENSUS on the issue. Requiring a preexisting, codified rule to support the community's express and repeated consensus is getting things backwards, as WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY explains. Also, it should be obvious that whether an index of Wikipedia content is useful should be one of the key factors in deciding whether or not to keep it, as the whole point of an index is its utility in organizing and locating content, just as it always has been with any traditional print encyclopedia or other reference work. But even if you still want codified doctrine, WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN do codify the validity of WP indexes as navigational tools for readers and editors. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 13 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, -Scottywong| express _ 16:00, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Zindabad

[edit]
Pakistan Zindabad (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)

Pakistan Zindabad is a slogan (meaning "Long Live Pakistan") (eg Pakistan Murdabad ) per WP:DICDEF,WP:COATRACK, WP:NEO. The WP:DICDEF article was wrongly created and then expanded by adding instances of any event available online whenever these slogans were chanted in public. This article is now serving as WP:COATRACK for editors pushing Kashmir related POV [8] see Talk:Pakistan Zindabad . This AfD is in agreement with this RFC comment DBigXray 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC

Past consensus on a similar article : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pak Watan --DBigXray 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a national slogan nor national anthem. and the so called WP:RS only mention the occasion when the phrase was used, and do not discuss them in detail as is expected from the subject of an article.--DBigXray 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far only the WP:COI editors have commented, lets wait what neutral editors have to say about it.--DBigXray 18:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know I gave you a chance to get out of this COI thing with dignity: but it appears you really wanna go down this road. Accusing fellow editors of WP:COI editing is a serious charge. I assume you have evidence of these violations and will be making a report at WP:COIN. If you do not have evidence that Mar4d, lTopGunl and Justice007 are engaged in COI editing, I will have to report you for making personal attacks. – Lionel (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that the same editor tried to oppose almost all statements at the DYK and nominated this article for deletion after it was promoted for the DYK. This AFD is disrupting that promotion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont go by the count of WP:BOMBARDed ref, you will not find even a single ref that has discussed the phrase.--DBigXray 19:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To that all I have to say is Pakistan Zindabad!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)
As you can see from the article history the editors are ready to edit war to maintain the article as a COATRACK and have summarily reverted efforts of countering it.--DBigXray 13:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If necessary, the article can be protected. We don't delete vandalism-prone articles to prevent them from being vandalized, and we don't need to delete controversial articles to prevent edit warring. --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test Being a slogan it is expected to be chanted at occasions and these Google hits are only stating this.--DBigXray 13:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. There are around 93,700 books hits for the phrase "stuff and nonsense". Doesn't mean we need an article on it. :)) --Stfg (talk) 13:59, 23 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Zindabad

[edit]
Hindustan Zindabad (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)

Hindustan Zindabad is a slogan per WP:DICDEF, were wrongly created and then expanded by adding instances of any events available online whenever these slogan was chanted. This AfD is in agreement with this RFC comment DBigXray 15:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok per your suggestion I have renominated it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad and removed the old Afd--DBigXray 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Its alleged use in the Kashmir valley by the Kashmiris (94% Muslim) sounds like Indian propaganda. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PPS As for contemporary use, the word "Hindustan," ironically, is no longer much used in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:15, 25 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 Windows CE. T. Canens (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows CE 3.0

[edit]
Windows CE 3.0 (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 provides only few and vague information; there is only one refrence. The topic itself can be better addressed under the main article Windows CE. Similar discussions are ongoing w.r.t. Windows CE 1.0 and Windows CE 2.0. VictorVautier (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. VictorVautier (talk) 14:53, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Castell-Jacomin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Didier Castell-Jacomin (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 person. Checked for ghits in English and French, nothing reliable found. The one source in the article is to a blog. Bihco (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 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. If a location/district can be determined, no prejudice against recreation as a redirect. The Bushranger One ping only 02:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Charter School

[edit]
Barack Obama Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria for School Notability and there is no claim of notability within the article. Simply a collection of information about an elementary school. Morning277 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's actually part of that district. I couldn't find mention of the district on the BOCS site, and the district site only returned a Barack Obama Global Preparation Academy at a different address in a name search. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 19 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 - numerous claims that the article has problems with original research and/or synthesis are not supplied with any supporting evidence, and appear to be largely or entirely baseless. Similarly, the case that it's an attack page is not well argued or supported. Conversely, it's not well demonstrated that the term is independently notable, and thus a merge may be in order (but it's not well shown that it's not, either). Numbers are pretty evenly split. WilyD 07:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Murdabad

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pakistan Murdabad (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)

Mainly on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article documents a phrase that is occasionally used in India but then attempts to string together disparate uses of the phrase into a something meaningful (I'm looking at this version). That stringing together is best left to competent reliable sources, preferably ones that have been subject to peer review. There is also the possibility that the article was created in retaliation to another article (see this comment from the article creator). However, that is only a minor reason for deletion. regentspark (comment) 14:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making ludicrous arguments. How many academic sources can you find that attest to Hindustan Murdabad, America Murdabad? Please see the new version of the page I'm working on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than there are for this one ofcourse, but that is for another day. This sets a battle ground precedent without adding any encyclopedic value. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hilarious to read topGun's skewed arguments across the article he is into. The article sounds neutral and sourced but not enough content to make an independent page. Anu Raj (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You too. Read the new version of the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, I'm amazed that someone like you of all people is being so touchy. Wikipedia has a long tradition of such pages. See for example: Lists_of_disparaging_terms. Sure, they may have been originally created by mischief makers, but the best way to combat it is to source them right. What do you find wrong with the current version as edited by me? Give me specifics, not generalities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, the current version is mainly about the Sikh reaction to direct action day. The slogan itself is tangential to the article (as written). Remove the reference to the slogan and the remaining text would be an independent article on the Sikh action (whatever it is called). --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, It may appear that way as I've just begun, but the slogan is an inextricable (if ugly) part of the history of the partition. I've answered you in more detail on my talk page. As the Wikipedia page Slogan says, "a chanted slogan may serve more as social expression of unified purpose, than as communication to an intended audience." It is that purpose that I'm attempting to delineate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The article, as written, would make a nice section in an article titled Sikhs and the partition of India but has little to do with the phrase itself. The entire article can be succinctly expressed by the single sentence "Pakistan Murdabad was an anti-Pakistan slogan used by the Sikhs at the time of the partition of India". --regentspark (comment) 11:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree (something I very rarely do with the cogent arguments of RegentsPark). It wasn't just an anti-Pakistani slogan, but the slogan which sparked off major waves of ethnic rioting and killing in 1947. The quotes of Stanley Wolpert and Penderel Moon make that amply clear. The quotes of partition expert Ian Talbot says that even more clearly. An article about a phrase, especially one made notable in a specific historical or political context, does not have to be about the phrase only (i.e. a linguistic analysis of the phrase). Examples abound: Read my lips: No new taxes, Just watch me, Jai Jawan Jai Kisan, Garibi Hatao, India Shining, The lady's not for turning, etc. The reliable sources (and there are many) regard it as notable, not just another routine feature of the violence that accompanied the partition. In that regard, the phrase is much more notable than "Pakistan Zindabad," for which you will be hard pressed to find any reliable sources, especially historical ones, attesting to anything more than perfunctory use. (I have just taken a look at that page, and I shall shortly run my red pen through that too.) I want to make it clear again that I haven't paraphrased this page properly yet, because I want the evidence to be easily available. Many sources (Wolpert, Anita Inder Singh, Talbot) are not available on Google books (at least not in anything more than a snippet view). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, I agree that your sources show that the phrase was used by Sikhs during the partition riots, but the reality is that it was not central to the riots. Your text is about the Sikhs, partition, and partition violence rather than about the slogan. At best, this would be a one sentence addition to an article on the Sikhs and Partition ("Sikh leader Master Tara Singh used the slogan "Pakistan Murdabad" to rally Sikhs behind the cause of an independent Sikh nation and the slogan was chanted by Sikhs rioting against muslims" or something like that), and, perhaps, a one sentencer about how the slogan was an anti-Pakistan slogan raised during the time of India's partition (in Anti-Pakistan sentiments. The rest has nothing to do with the slogan itself. By writing this as an independent article you're raising the slogan to a level of independent existence which it simply does not have. "Read my lips" is a very different thing since it is well ensconced in popular culture as are the other examples that you give. Pakistan Murdabad just doesn't have the same presence (the anti-Pakistani phrase of choice used in India today is quite different). I have no comment on Pakistan Zindabad (which should probably go as well, but that's another story). --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this. Well, we may have to agree to disagree. While I wouldn't say that the slogan was central to the partition riots in the Punjab, I believe it was an important feature of the riots. See the Time Magazine article from March 1947 titled "Foreign Notes: Zindabad & Murdabad." The article specifically speaks to the Sikhs not accepting the founding slogan of Pakistan and countering it with ones of their own. I don't know what is the current anti-Pakistan slogan in India, but why does a slogan have to be current? It can be a historical (and historically notable) slogan, and indeed the lead begins with " ... was an incendiary Hindi-Urdu slogan ...." I have now added a short etymology section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would great appreciate if you can control your sentiments. You are most free to create any one of the above articles if you feel that they meet the inclusion criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reply is heated, as for the obviously contentious topic, but I don't think you got his point. He has essentially backed up my point about battle ground editing. Even if we put that aside for a moment so as not to get into an argument, he's right that creating such articles will result in counter parts being created while none of them (including this are really notable independently). The all belong to anti cultural sentiment articles. The article has apparently no benefits and alot of reasons to incite disruption, that's a fairly big concern for the article's existence. I'll also note that the closer should consider the valid arguments from the previous AFD which was closed due to the contentious debate in closing statement. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, you are neither correct nor consistent. Stanley Wolpert says very clearly, "Master Tara Singh who set Punjab ablaze with his cry of 'Pakistan Murdabad!'" Partition expert Ian Talbot says that this episode is conventionally thought to have set off the carnage of the next four months. The Time magazine article, after all, is titled, "Foreign News: Zindabad & Murdabad." That is not passing mention. You are not being consistent because you have voted "keep" for a pathetically sourced sickly article "Pakistan Zindabad." The sources here are impeccable. I'm afraid Pakistani editors, who apparently regard this slogan as an insult to their national ethos, have to stop being so touchy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Suppressing my views about the editor by ignoring ad hominem comment above) Wolpert is actually talking about the pre-partition events and while doing that mentions what you quoted above, the subject of the para quoted in the article is not the slogan. Ian never mentions about the slogan (as far as the quoted text in article is concerned). Lastly about the Time magazine article quote, it again talks mainly about the riots. --SMS Talk 11:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a slogan that set off (i.e. was the catalyst for) the worst violence in modern South Asian history. Well, let's see ... (italics mine)
  • Stanley Wolpert says, "ignited the powder keg of repressed violence that set the Punjab ablaze with his cry of "Pakistan Murdabad" ("Death to Pakistan")
  • Penderel Moon say, "The Sikh leader, Master Tara Singh, raised the slogan 'Pakistan Murdabad"1 and brandishing a sword shouted 'Raj Karega Khalsa'. This foolhardy bravado brought at once its own nemesis. It touched off violent communal rioting throughout the province in which Hindus and Sikhs were far the worst sufferers. The first outbreak took place in Lahore on March 4th immediately after Master Tara Singh's ill-timed vauntings.
  • Ian Talbot says, "This action is conventionally regarded as the catalyst for the violent demonstrations and riots that engulfed the Punjab.
  • Lawrence James says, "The Sikhs rejected Muslim domination and answered Jinnah's newly-coined slogan Pakistan Zindabad! (Long Live Pakistan) with Pakistan Murdabad! (Death to Pakistan). By late spring, the Punjab was wracked by massacres, counter-massacres, looting and arson.
  • Eric Pullin says, "Meanwhile, having boxed himself in politically, Tara Singh resorted to demagoguery. On March 11, he sought to mobilize Sikhs to "fight" for a homeland of "pure Sikhs" with the blood-chilling cry "Pakistan Murdabad" ("death to Pakistan"). In March, Muslim gangs turned Tara Singh's words against him and massacred thousands of Sikhs in the Rawalpindi region.
  • The Time magazine article, "Foreign News: Zindabad & Murdabad" says, "The bearded, sword-carrying Sikhs sided with the Hindus, eventually exceeded them in uncompromising denunciation of the Moslem cry for Pakistan (a separate Moslem state). ... The issue was purely and simply Pakistan. The Moslems shouted "Pakistan Zindabad!" (Up with Pakistan!). The Hindus and Sikhs answered back: "Pakistan Murdabad!" (Death to Pakistan!). Then the knives began to flash."
  • If you're going to disingenuously nitpick here (suggesting that the sources casually mention the phrase as a part of the larger topic of the partition) and at the same time condone the state of the sickly article, Pakistan Zindabad, where not a single source is problem-free, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I say it again after reading the above smokescreen copied from the article (that everyone reads before commenting here) that most of the sources give a passing mention of the slogan and mainly talk about the riots and pre-partition events in Punjab. Besides please read WP:ADHOM and WP:OTHERSTUFF. --SMS Talk 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention? The source Civil Wars of the World, published by ABC-CLIO, and read widely in American colleges, even has the phrase in its glossary, see here. It says "Pakistan Murdabad: Death to Pakistan, a phrase used by Master Tara Singh and his followers." All the other terms in the glossary, by the way, already have Wikipedia pages: Azad Kashmir, goonda, gurudwara, hartal, jatha, Khalistan ... Significantly, it does not have "Pakistan Zindabad," which as I have already indicated is historically not as notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't know inclusion in glossary of such a widely read book means that the term is thoroughly discussed in the source and is eligible for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia, that is something new to me. Probably it will be helpful if you mention the same argument for deletion of Pakistan Zindabad at its AfD. --SMS Talk 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your transparent sarcasm seems to be flying in the face of all the holier-than-thou Wikilawering you were engaging in upstairs. The glossary quote was meant to indicate that in that source it was not just a passing mention, which you were keen to establish earlier, (but have now quickly forgotten, flitting conveniently to some other off-topic objection), but a notable term that they expect people to know about. You can keep droning on here, but this will be my last reply to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improved? It's a quote farm now! --lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the quotes in, as I've already indicated, so that facilely and vacuously opposing editors, such as you, don't keep asking me to supply the sources. Do you seriously think I can't paraphrase the relevant parts of those quotes? Be warned that gratuitous grandstanding here will only redouble my resolve to see this article through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the comments to edits instead of you accusing editors for wikilawyering and in my case "opposing?" Respond to valid comments on their own merits instead. The article does not nearly look like one from an encyclopedia. Whether or not the merits of this article suggest a "keep" (which I quite oppose that they do), the article was created on battle ground editing and this will only add fuel to the fire. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it will add fuel to the fire, is not my problem. I am working on an article about a term that is historically notable, and a wide variety of sources, from among the best known historians and writers of South Asia, attest to that notability. You know, now, why the quotes have been temporarily left in, so stop repeatedly adding the garbage about "quotes farm." It is the second time you've mentioned it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm not a part of the usual India-Pakistan sniping on Wikipedia. In case you don't know, I remain the biggest contributor to the History of Pakistan page. My version of that history (see here, for example) was gradually replaced by a history that emphasizes post partition developments (under pressure from POV warriors from India who couldn't countenance Pakistan going back any more than 1940 (Lahore resolution of the League)). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PPS And under pressure from some POV warriors from Pakistan too who couldn't countenance the history of Pakistan going back any further than Mohammad bin Qasim! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wiki dr mahmad was the largest contributor per my checks, staying clear off from the "credits".. whoever was the contributor, I don't think that's relevant. You don't have to justify your credentials as editors do not become reliable sources if they are regulars, your comments can talk for themselves. As for the content comment, I agree to disagree, I don't think the notability is justified by (as SMS puts it) synthesis. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if we agree to disagree then stop droning on repetitively about the "quotes farm" when you know why it is there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was for the other editor who possibly missed it. Meant to engage him in that discussion, not you. Your opinion is abundantly clear. I guess now his replies will already be addressed when/if he reads this. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should have also responded earlier to your "resolve" being in proportion with to the opposition you receive here, see WP:WIN. Take a break and think it out, there's no need to get offended by comments on the content you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 25 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 Chinatown, Oakland#CCUMC. The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Community United Methodist Church, Oakland, California

[edit]
Chinese Community United Methodist Church, Oakland, California (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)

Unsourced article, contested PROD. PROD was contested with the addition of a PDF of the original document of the Methodist plan for missionary work to the Chinese, which, while interesting, is a primary source and therefore can't assert notability. pbp 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am good with the proposed decision for the CCUMC article to being in the Oakland Chinatown article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_Oakland#CCUMC though it needs to be rewritten as mine is original http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Community_United_Methodist_Church,_Oakland,_California&oldid=287885582 but the Chinatown,_Oakland version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinatown,_Oakland&oldid=418065277 is cut and pasted from the website http://www.chinesecommunityumc.org/aboutus.htm .
By the way, the "addition of a PDF" is a PDF from http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/ the UC Library system, so I think it is not a primary source but is indeed a Wikipedia:RS .
To further be clear, I removed the PROD because this message "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page." so I removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) and added the edit summary:
"removed: ((Proposed deletion/dated |concern = Unreferenced, non-notable, promo |timestamp = 20120718223919 )) as this was important in the Women's Missionary Society of the Pacific Coast antislavery actions".
Was this action of removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) an incorrect action on my part ? rkmlai (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's perfectly acceptable to contest a PROD (see WP:PROD). A contested PROD can be nominated for AfD, but it can't be PRODded again pbp 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rkmlai, thanks for that information. I hope you will add whatever can be sourced to the section in the Chinatown article, if this artlcle winds up getting deleted. And you were correct to remove the Proposed Deletion (PROD), which is only for situations where the deletion is uncontroversial. For those articles that need more thought, this (deletion discussion or AfD) is the way to go. You can't remove the AfD notice from the article, however; that will be done by an administrator after the discussion here reaches consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 20 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 02:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Tarfi

[edit]
Karim Tarfi (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; this player has not yet made a first-team appearance, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL - also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles, for exactly the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 19 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. Further discussion can take place on the talk page  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headstrong Club

[edit]
Headstrong Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, all refs refer to club in connection with Thomas Paine being a member, notability is not inherited. The current iteration of the club (relaunched 200 years later) has no GNews or GHits that I could find from reliable or verifiable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 12:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 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 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of continental intergovernmental organizations

[edit]
List of continental intergovernmental organizations (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)

Totally WP:OR. It's a collection of organisastions unrelated except that they choose to denote some geographical area. Slightly equivalent would perhaps be the European Union, the African Union, and UNASUR, but for that we have Continental union (itself with quite a few problems). CMD (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kroehler

[edit]
Rob Kroehler (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)

Declined CSD. Subject does not seem to pass WP:MUSICIAN as an individual, only notable as a member of a band. (Band may be notable)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 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 A7 by Selket. NAC—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Somdip Dey

[edit]
Somdip Dey (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 page is a biography of the page creator himself, as is evident from the Edit logs. The information given in the biography is incorrect and misleading and might be construed as illegal. As per A7, there is nothing notable included on the entry and is clearly a case of self-promotion, which is against Wikipedia's rules.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 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 snow keep, closing this AfD extra early because the article is on DYK right now. It's really unfair to the writer(s) of this article that it gets AfD'd whilst on the front page. This nom couldn't wait a couple hours? -- Y not? 13:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bei Bei Shuai

[edit]
Bei Bei Shuai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pretty clear-cut WP:BLP1E to me... but I could be wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:07, 19 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. Anything worth merging will remain in history. Note that many of the arguments to keep the articles were merely procedural (e.g. bad faith nomination, not enough time to find sources) and so were discounted. Should further reliable sources surface to support the notability of any of the redirected articles they can of course be restored in the future as with any other deleted or redirected article. The struck out articles are considered to have their nomination withdrawn. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)

[edit]
Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)

Also the following articles:

Originally redirects, these were turned into articles with a back and forth between article and redirect. These articles have absolutely zero independent third-party sources. These are all creatures from Dungeons and Dragons, and all of the sources are from publishers for that game system (including Necromancer Games, who "...uses the third edition of the Dungeons and Dragons rule system"). Books published specifically to be used for a game system are not independent sources for that game system; there are no sources giving third-party commentary or analysis of these subjects, just primary sources: the sourcebooks for the game itself. These articles fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES. SudoGhost 09:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if the closing admin is unfamiliar with the topic area, they are encouraged to review the talk page which has a condensed discussion of the relationships of the various entities mentioned in the following discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely the latest nonsense from the Sudo Ghost-Folken tag team in their crusade against D&D articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem attacks aren't very convincing; it's almost like the article fails WP:GNG, but if you want to believe I'm out on some "crusade", you're welcome to your ignorance but that isn't an argument against deletion. - SudoGhost 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crusades against massive proliferation of crap articles should be applauded. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're unhelpful. Hekerui (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is conflating two separate and independent discussions from the WP:D&D; the second of which does not represent a consensus for action. Ergo your premise appears dubious. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is "Tome of Horrors" an independent source? It is a primary source; a rulebook written for Dungeons and Dragons for the sole purpose of being used for that game system. Under no circumstances is that even close to independent. - SudoGhost 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BOZ, you also appear to have a pretty strong conflict of interest here, given that on the Creature Catalog website your name is specificially mentioned at the bottom of the page as one of the four individuals that did the conversions, and you were the one that began that Creature Catalog conversions in the first place. This becomes a conflict of interest because this same Creature Catalog is specifically mentioned on the first page of Tome of Horrors, under "Special Thanks". In fact, the very last line of that same page is a URL directing people to that same Creature Catalog. Why did you fail to mention this when you decided it was an "independent source"? - SudoGhost 14:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure on my involvement with the Creature Catalog website: I was one of the site admins from about 2002 – 2008; I ended my involvement there around the time I became more involved with Wikipedia. I was one of the people who converted monsters from older editions, and posted them on the site. I did not begin the website or its conversions; the last time I checked the site’s banner read "Scott Greene's Creature Catalog", as Scott was the site’s originator. Scott began working for Necromancer Games and left the Creature Catalog to me to run on my own, and soon after the Tome of Horrors was announced as the publishing deal had been struck. I had no direct involvement in the book, and prior to its announcement I had no knowledge that the book was being produced. My understanding is that the text from the website’s entries was rewritten from scratch and that in most cases the game statistics were altered; at least, this was what I recall discovering when comparing between the two. This is why the book says "Special Thanks" to the website and includes a link, because of Scott's involvement and using the site’s content as a starting point. You seem to feel that there is a problem with me pointing at the book as a source, but I don’t see why any of this prevents the Tome of Horrors from being an independent source. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't prevent it from being an independent source, but the fact that you worked with the author on a related project makes you not the most neutral on the subject. But why would it be an indpendent source? It's a sourcebook for Dungeons and Dragons. Why would that be independent for a creature in Dungeons and Dragons? Are you seriously suggesting that this product, produced for this Dungeons and Dragons, was published with no interest in Dungeons and Dragons, and discusses it from a disinterested perspective? This book is not a third-party source, it is not unaffiliated with Dungeons and Dragons, it's a Dungeons and Dragons sourcebook, and requires other Dungeons and Dragons books to even be used properly, as per the very first page. That's not independent under any circumstances, and the fact that the only sources that are found for any of these are Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks means that no, this article does not meet the notability guidelines. - SudoGhost 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons and Dragons independent of Dungeons and Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. Both publishers are doing so, therefore neither one is independent. - SudoGhost 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be the crux of your confusion. The publisher is a third-party publisher, not a third-party source, those two terms mean very different things, and are not interchangable. A third-party publisher just means that they aren't the primary publisher, nothing more. Their relationship to Wizards of the Coast is immaterial, so their editorial independence or lack thereof doesn't mean anything, the subject matter is not Wizards of the Coast, but Dungeons and Dragons. They are both publishers that create content for that game, and the only thing that is being cited is content from the game. It doesn't matter if they are independent of one another if neither is independent of that game. We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes? third-party publishers have created video game content, that doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't think anyone would argue that it's notable, yet this is somehow different because it's tabletop? No, it isn't. - SudoGhost 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nosir, you would be incorrect. I'm not saying third party source is equivalent to third party publisher. I am saying a third party publisher (as the term describes the predominant model of third party publishing during the d20 system boom) has editorial independence. You assert "it does not matter" that they are independent, but WP policy says otherwise. Editorial independence is is the key tenet of WP:IS. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In our case, it indeed doesn't seem to matter that NG would be "third party publisher", as per the ToH intro, NG had direct contacts with WotC over editorial issues, and in a more general way, NG have clearly expressed their intention (both to readers and WotC) to make ToH a part of the D&D brand/product line. There is neither "editorial independence", nor "disinterest" (both are mentionned in WP:IS) from NG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If NG's editorial relationship was merely securing permission to republish TSR material, I would assert that is not a "significant connection" per WP:IS. If, as you say, Tome of Horrors was somehow "part of the D&D product line", that would be relevant. However, the Tome of Horrors has no D&D branding that I am aware of(unlike Kenzer's Kalamar product line we discussed in the Lamia article). Can you tell me what you are referring to here? - Sangrolu (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editorial independence (which is not the sole criteria in determining independence) doesn't matter, because it's not the publisher that's the subject of the articles, it's a game concept. They aren't independent of the game concept they're selling, their relationship to and editorial independence of another publisher that publishes material for the same game concept is immaterial to that. - SudoGhost 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, as I understand the d20/SRD licence system (I may be wrong), no one really needs to specifically ask WotC to republish D&D content. What NG tells us in the ToH preface is that they not only asked WotC permission, they did so to ensure WotC wouldn't include the creatures in their future releases to make ToH as close as possible to an official release ("We worked directly with Wizards of the Coast to make sure that no monster in this book (well, only a handful) would be included in a later Wizards of the Coast product. So, you can rest assured that the contents of this book will not be superceded by any later “official” book"). The way I understand it, they didn't ask to republish anything (because the OGL apparently lets them do it anyway), they told WotC of their intention to be as official as possible, and WotC let them do so, I can't really see where could be the editorial independence. Besides, NG does state that "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®", making ToH completely dependent on the D&D brand/product line (or if you want, "the subject", as mentioned in WP:GNG, "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator). With such a disclaimer, affiliation to the subject appears clear-cut to me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. It's really not part of the D&D product line, but I can see how you came to that conclusion. Let me see if I can shed some light on this situation, because it is sort of confusing. In other recent discussions, I discussed that Pathfinder uses a license called to Open Game License to republish material provided by Wizards of the Coast in a document called the System Reference Document (d20 SRD), which is basically a bunch of game-rules text Wizards wished to allow under licensing under to OGL.
In addition, they provided another license called the D20 System Trademark License, or D20 STL. It allows the user to refer to the D&D players handbook (as you describe) in very small type, and use the D20 logo; use of the D&D branding is specifically not allowed. Since this is also a no-maintenance license, I don't think this qualifies as a "significant relationship". (As an aside, current Pathfinder products don't use this license).
The one thing that makes the case less clear cut is that NG secured specific permission to republish some of Wizards' fictional elements in the Tome of Horrors. Does that constitute lack of editorial independence? I can see your case here, but at the same time, I still don't see NG as acting as WotC agents, and as the material is not just edited SRD entries, I think that the ToH is definitely more independent than Pathfinder SRD entries. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in that ToH isn't an official WotC product, and isn't officially endorsed by them. However for me, their preface sounds like the writers did everything they could to sell their book to D&D players as a part of the "official" D&D universe, but stopped short of outright saying "This is an official WotC product". We can't say this is a WotC product, but the advertisment behind it strongly implies a connexion. I'll agree, for now, to leave that notion here and to see it as "grey area". However, there is another aspect on which I think you can agree with me: ok, NG is a third-party publisher, but isn't the book a primary source ? We can argue for days about the level of influence WotC had on the product, however, this time it is clear-cut that ToH is part of the whole D&D universe and cannot function on its own, cannot be seen as detached from the D&D game (per the "requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook..."). Though they don't have a clear-cut contract to act as WotC agent, they're still using a licencing that makes them part of the whole D&D gaming experience. The level of sourcing required to pass WP:GNG is defined as being "secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", and per WP:primary, secondary sources "make analytic or evaluative claimes". As such, ToH being a source for in-universe, in-game content, completely integrated into the official D&D gaming system, it is a primary source that doesn't provide any analytic or evaluative claims. And thus, ToH is not "independent of the subject", is not a primary source, and cannot be used to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to lie just for the sake of a compromise with you. Unlike you, I'm not interpreting anything. Refusing to admit the truth about a primary source is not "following the intent" of any guideline, and hide behind an "intent" that conveniently expurges the elements you don't like isn't compromising. If the sources you present "are not primary sources for D&D", then they are primary source for Pathfinder, and thus it is not on-topic. "additional material" means primary source, since in the context of fictional works, a primary source is the fiction itself, and if a work continues the fiction, then it is primary (for more on that see WP:PASI, " primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e., the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction "). If they are not primary sources, then what are they, according to you ? Certainly not secondary sources, because these are "making analytic or evaluative claims", and since, still according to you, Bestiary only contains additional fictional material, then it's not analysis. You are really the only person here holding this rather strange claim that a source of original work of fiction would not be a primary source (which goes against every definition that guidelines and policies have), so you may want to reconsider this strategy of sticking to your non-consensual claim... Edit please read WP:PSTS#cite_note-2 for further proof that your interpretation of "primary source" is incorrect ("Further examples of primary sources include [...] artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs". Question, is Pathfinder Bestiary a fictional work in itself ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "hiding" behind intent and would remind you to WP:AGF. I concede this is an unusual case but authentically believe that the sources demonstrate WP:GNG as stated. Were I have not felt D&D monster articles are notable enough to warrant stand-alone pages I have weighed in against them, and I dismissed the Pathfinder SRD as a WP:RS in prior debates, so I don't know why you think I would suddenly decide to "hide behind intent" now.
The cite note and examples on WP:OR are just that: examples. The real governing policy on WP:PSTS is as I have already cited: "the source is very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". As a counterpoint to your cite note, read WP:PSTS#cite_note-5, "either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source", so don't be so shocked at my contention that something be considered both a primary source for one thing and secondary source for another. I do see your point with respect to WP:PASI, but the article is concerned with where different forms of information come from in an article. That secondary information usually comes from secondary sources is usually true. But that's a manual of style and not related to establishing WP:GNG, so don't that's a)damning or b)relevant here. - Sangrolu (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How the fuck can you with any straight face claim that content whose sole purpose is to be sold for financial gain for direct use within a D&D game NOT be "very close to an event,"??? That is completely and utter absurd and reaching the point where it is impossible to assume good faith.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And? Every newspaper ever is sold with the intent of getting financial gain for the publisher. But they are perfectly okay to use as WP:RS in wikipedia. You have a very skewed definition of what it takes to be "very close to an event". The folks at Necromancer Games aren't employed by Wizards and weren't there when writing the original material. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a newspaper is sold for financial gain, but a newspaper is NOT sold based entirely on a story of single football game or single national election or story of the newspaper being bought by another conglomorate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRPOD, it becomes more and more difficult to assume good faith with you, Sangrolu. I though your were on the reasonable side of D&D fans, but I'm really puzzled as to your new line of defense that consists of carefully selecting parts of guidelines and dismiss those which don't fit with your interpretation. TRPOD is entirely right, that you're dismissing examples cited in WP:PSTS because they are example is absurd, a primary source can be a lot of things depending on the subject, which is why these are examples as a note so as not to take up too much space. Notes in PSTS are as much policy as the rest of the page. And even more absurb, right after dismissing note 2, you have no problem in using note 5 in your argumentation. As to note 5, you still haven't proved that Pathfinder Bestiary would contain anything besides fiction. WP:PASI is a MoS about fiction, which is precisely the case of D&D monsters, and explains how the concept of primary source is applied to works of fiction, which is precisely what we're debating. GNG states that sources used for notability guidelines are only secondary, and PASI explains what are primary/secondary sources for fiction, PASI IS related to establishing notability. You can't just use the guidelines you wish and reject those that contradict your views. Tome of Horrors/PF Bestiary are sources of original fiction, so primary sources, and they don't contain secondary elements. Even if they did, they couldn't be used as secondary source since they'd be commenting on their own fiction, thus not independent of the subject or the creators.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF (particularly WP:AOBF), you seem to have a critical misunderstanding of what "bad faith" means. Also, stating keep without saying why gives no weight to an AfD discussion; AfD is not a vote. - SudoGhost 21:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the badgering and battleground mentality of this tag-team is "constructive debate" then I don't know what to say. I'm done here, so come on Sudo Ghost; post below me and enjoy the last word! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that each individual AfD would be less AfD work? These articles are identical in purpose, and the discussions would be identical for all of them, what benefit would be granted in splitting them unnecessarily? If any of the articles have any additional sources, I've already said they would not apply here, and to remove them from consideration. Barring that, an AfD for each identical AfD would be tenacious at best, and would cause an unnecessary split in an otherwise identical discussion, and that makes no sense at any rate. Unless there is something different about any of the articles, to create 23 separate, yet identical AfDs has no purpose other than to split a discussion. I don't see 23 identical nominations, 23 identical pages someone would have to comment on, and 23 identical discussions for an admin to close being in any way beneficial to anyone for any reason. And where is this convention you're alluding to? - SudoGhost 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SudoGhost, I suspect you haven't fully understood me. When a good faith user who is in good standing asks you to unbundle your nomination so each article can be considered individually, you should agree. This is a convention, not a rule. It's probably not written down anywhere. It's simply good manners: the customary, polite, consensus-seeking, conflict de-escalating behaviour that Wikipedia expects at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how converting from a single discussion to twenty identical discussions is beneficial, conflict de-escallating, polite etc to anyone? In fact, starting 20 individual AfDs would seem to be actively disruptive. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was converting from a single discussion to twenty identical ones, then clearly it wouldn't be beneficial. The operative word there is "if". But the case being made here is that they wouldn't be identical.

    What's polite and conflict de-escalating is to listen to Sangrolu. He says some of the topics are notable and others aren't. Therefore he's claiming that there are independent sources. Isn't he? And since he has made that claim, it's polite to assume he isn't lying, and it's conflict de-escalating to give him time to find and go through the sources he claims exist.

    Is there some pressing reason why we need to keep all 23 articles bundled into one discussion?—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point out one difference in the articles and the reasons for deletion/keeping? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any of these articles were different in any way, there'd be a reason to separate them. They are not. They have the same references and the same lack of notability for the same exact reasons. If any of these articles can be given a single third-party source (not a sourcebook or D&D rulebook) then it can be removed from consideration. Save that, "what's the rush" means nothing; it's not like these articles are expansive articles that cannot be recreated if they ever become notable. Hell, if they're redirected nothing is lost at all. - SudoGhost 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Pen and SudoGhost, with all due respect, neither of you are listening. Sangrolu claims there are sources for some of these creatures but not others. In my opinion he will be correct.

    How do I know? Because I'm 41 years old, which is old enough to remember when the Dungeons and Dragons craze swept the world (late 1970's and early 1980s). I remember going into my local newsagent to buy a newspaper, and seeing two or three D&D-related magazines on the shelf. And I'm British, so these weren't the TSR in-house magazine; they were editorially independent 'zines run by separate publishers. I'm thinking of White Dwarf Magazine, Imagine, etc. And the thing you need to understand about these sources is that they won't be online. You will not be able to google and find them. But it's entirely possible that Sangrolu has copies in his attic or basement, isn't it?

    Now, if I understand this correctly, a D&D "monster" is (conceptually speaking) not really a work of fiction. It's a kind of gaming piece, represented by a small pewter figurine which the D&D player is supposed to paint, and defined by various numerical characteristics as well as a little free text, which is "fought" by other players in a sort of tabletop wargame. Which means there is, potentially, something to say about it outside the fictional game world. You might have articles about the tactical aspects of defeating one of these things.

    This is why I find Sangrolu's claims entirely plausible and feel his request should be honoured.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you need another 41 years to find the source for those that may have them, then any article can be recreated based on the actual material in that source in however many years from now it takes you to find that source for that particular critter. There is nothing in these articles that even if deleted would be material to those recreations based on third party coverage (and even the current crap articles would be available in the redirect or from admin un-deleting and moving to talk space). -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for now, I'd say past AfDs haven't given us reasons to think D&D monsters would be particularly notable. In not the nominator so it's not my choice, but I'd say that on WP, there's a presumption of non-notability on these topics, so I still feel the grouped nomination is appropriate. While I don't question Sangrolu's or Marshall's good faith, I'm afraid source debates are all gonna be the same as we already had, ie it will all turn out to be primary content. As for gaming strategy in White dwarf, that's sounds like a good at idea at first, but a gaming strategy is still in-game content. Strategies are basicall player-actions, and those are inherent primary components of the game. Saying how to beat a monster has no analytic value outside of a gaming session. Saying that beating a monster is difficult, that such monster is the strongest in all D&D, etc, that is external analytic comment, even though if it is restricted to just one or two sentence it wouldn't be significant. But a gaming strategy is still part of the gaming system, it is still something that will happen only between players in the context of the game, and has no independence to it ("independent of the subject" from WP:GNG). White Dwarf strategies would be an integral part to the global D&D commercial plan (players buy WD as a guide to D&D, hardly being able to exist without the game as support) and there is conflict of interest (not mentionning the fact that WD also published campains for D&D). And even without all these issues, White Dwarf would only be one publisher while passing WP:GNG requires multiple sources (from different publishers), and given that everything else would ~be primary sourcebooks, I don't see it likely that one D&D monster will ever really pass the GNG. At least not any of those nominated here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, please. It's perfectly normal for sources to depend on the popularity of the things they're discussing. We cite sports magazines in articles related to the sport. We cite television criticism in articles related to the TV programme. In both cases, the sources depend on their subjects to be successful, but that doesn't mean there's a conflict of interest, or that they aren't editorially independent, or that they aren't reliable. As for the idea that WD is only one publisher, that's true but it doesn't imply there aren't others, and indeed a brief search tells me that other potential sources do exist, such as ISBN 0-88254-514-0 or ISBN 0-71009-466-3.

    Please note that I do not own these sources and have not checked them. I am not saying that I know these monsters are independently sourceable, because I do not. My position is simply that I think it's possible and that Sangrolu should have the chance to make his case.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not the same case when such sources provide player-actions that are the fundamental basis of the game. When publications like WD contain both guides and new in-universe primary content, I don't think the distinction you're talking about can be done. You're not refering to articles about D&D creatures, you're refering to in-game player actions that have no value outside the context of a game session. As for hypothetical sources, again given the results of numerous past AfD I don't think they can reasonably bee assumed to exist. And unless you're implying that the closing of this AfD will magically destroy any real-life book he could stumble upon, I don't see why Sangrolu wouldn't have the chance to look for them. If he wants to argue that what he'll (maybe) find will impact article notability, then he still has 5 days to so in this AfD, he will still have to the end of his days to do so in article talk pages (since they're likely to be redirected instead of deleted) and the D&D Project talk page. And if he succeeds in proving some articles indeed pass GNG, I don't think anyone here will try to prevent article restoration (which will be even easier with redirects).Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a redirect's okay with everyone, then the AfD should be speedily closed as keep (see WP:SK ground 1). Which is what would have already happened if certain users weren't determined to use AfD for cleanup.

    There's a three-stage process going on here. 1) Deny that any sources exist. 2) When it's shown that sources exist, find some basis to deny that they count. (The argument boils down to "It may be by a separate company but that company's selling to D&D's market, therefore there's a COI!", which is a contention you should probably run by WT:RS. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've never seen that particular line of argument succeed at AfD.) 3) When your contention that they don't count is challenged, claim the challenge is invalid. I don't really approve, and I think this point-blank refusal to unbundle is tendentious.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, this AfD cannot be be SKed for ground 1) because the nominator did indeed advance an argument for deletion: failing WP:GNG. I'd gladly BOLDLY redirect any D&D monster article that I stumble upon. Each time I (or others) do so, the same minority of D&D enthusiasts tell us to "go to AfD" ([14]), so that's what we do. I guess they see AfD as the ultimate article-legitimation tool on WP, and I don't disagree with that, as AfDs are notified to the whole WP community, and not restricted to article talk pages and projects talk pages which are usually more likely to attract like-minded users rather than large numbers of diverse contributors, consensus thus appears more global and more difficult to question. I also guess that a well-structured timed debate with systematic evaluation by admins feels more certain/secure than endless discussions never leading anywhere. If that's what people on both sides want, why deny it ? As to your "2)" point, my contention is that strategy only intended for in-game use is not comparable to proper criticism and I provide reasons to think so, among other concerns of CoI, yes. But you boil it down to "COI!", don't answer, and instead you tell me to take it to WT:RS and that you "don't approve" contradiction to your claims. BTW, I don't merely say "this is invalid" and then leave, I engage in a discussion as to why I think this would be invalid and give you the possibility to provide convincing counter-argumentation. You are either assuming bad faith on the part of people who question sources, or are implying that being a D&D fan or an inclusionist would mean that you can never be wrong. From the moment you "don't approve" the very idea of a debate, I don't see why I would continue talking to you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yanno what? I'll be over here with Joefromrandb, because you three have convincingly proved him right. Go on and post below me, enjoy the last word.—S Marshall T/C 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with them being redirects, if that's what the AfD consensus is (which it appear to be leaning towards, with both the keep and delete comments), then an RfC is unnecessary. - SudoGhost 01:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As this is where we discuss deletions and there is no case for deletion, this is the wrong venue. This isn't "articles for discussion". Though redirect can be an outcome of AfD, it's not supposed to be used to avoid finding consensus in the proper venue. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't the wrong venue. I do not feel these subjects warrant articles, and nominated them for deletion. If that means a redirect through consensus, that's fine, but you disagreeing and a subsequent discussion is the entire purpose of this page. There are no hard and fast rules concerning where things are "proper" to discuss, I opened this to discuss deletion, if you feel a redirect is more appropriate, this is the place to discuss that. This is the entire reason these matters are discussed, wherever that may be. "Procedural keep" does not mean anything; if you feel the articles should be redirected, then this is the place to state that, while it's being discussed. "Don't discuss a redirect here so that we can discuss a redirect somewhere else" doesn't make any sense; if you feel it should be redirected, then there's no reason to hold off discussing that here for the sole reason of discussing it somewhere else just for the sake of bureaucracy or "procedure". Even if there were some "prodecural error" in filing an AfD (which is your opinion), a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request, per WP:NOTBURO. - SudoGhost 02:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can feel anything you like. There is no basis in policy for deletion here as there are obvious (and previously used) redirect targets. This would seem to be an end-around what AfD is for. You were happy with redirects here, and now feel that deletion is a better option? Hobit (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES is the basis for deletion. - SudoGhost 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
neither of which apply to a redirect.... Hobit (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and as is very obvious, none of the nominations is a redirect. so your point is?-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That deletion isn't a reasonable outcome (while a redirect might be) and so AfD is the wrong place? I thought I was clear. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Argument for deletion was given, that the articles fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES. 2) No, none do. Your definition of a game book being independent for the game system it was made for was rejected by every single individual asked at WP:RSN, and no explanation has been given as to why this is independent (see the question above, the only explanation that was given has no basis in any consensus on any level, and is contradicted by WP:IS). 3) Each article has the same exact sources, they are all cut and paste from the game's sourcebooks, none of them are any different. - SudoGhost 04:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming that this single source is an independent one (which still hasn't been explained how this would be), are you suggesting that these articles pass WP:SOURCES, that these articles are based on third-party sources, because a single line in each one discusses a different sourcebook? Articles require multiple third-party sources, and required that the articles are based on such sources. These articles have zero third-party sources (not third-party publisher, those terms do not mean the same thing), and even if the third-party publisher's source were for some reason independent of the game system it was designed for, none of the articles are based on this one single source, it seems to have been added as an aside at best, and there's not enough content in the source to base an article on it. - SudoGhost 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to which "particular definition of independence" we would be using, and how it would differ from independence described at WP:GNG, which merely "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". Campain source books and add-ons, even from different editors, are still affiliated to the subject and the creator in an obvious way ("This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"). I think it is rather those who which to keep the articles who are using a particular and non-consensual version of independence, and sometimes even trying to push their own essays to the detriment of actual policies. Besides, these people conveniently only refer to their twisted definition of "independence" while forgetting that sources also have to be secondary, in that they contain out-of-universe analyses of primary sources. Campain add-ons are primary source and don't contain any analysis. I'd like to see the defenders of D&D monster take part in a consensus building instead of asserting their own controversial beliefs of D&D fanatics and then leaving the discussion without answering to objections, something that could be akin to voting.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys keep dragging these same arguments to new venues, hoping that they will gain traction. TSR and Wizards are not the same company; Wizards is a successor in interest, and therefore independent of TSR or TSR is a predecessor of Wizards and therefore independent of Wizards. Regardless, the Paizo source is independent, as are the other discussions of the creatures, which may or may not be online, but certainly are not homogenous throughout these vastly different articles. The allegations above that all currently have the same sources may indeed be true, but a good-faith nomination requires more than looking at the articles' current state, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats completely asinine. The contents were solely published when and by first party concerns. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Paizo argument nonwithstanding (and I don't even think any Paizo products are currently even being used as references in the articles anyways), I don't understand what you're getting at with the TSR/Wizards comment at all. It doesn't matter if they're independent of each other, neither one of them is independent of the actual subject of the article. TSR, and then later when they were aquired by them, Wizards, were the official producer of D&D products, thus anything either of them publishes about D&D are not going to be independent sources from D&D subjects. That's what "independent sources" means, per Wikipedia:Independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective.". I think you may be misinterpreting the policy if you think that TSR and Wizards not being the same company means that they count as indepenent sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens' claims are not only irrelevant but completely wrong. Wizards of the Coast is not independent of TSR (or the other way around), because WotC bought TSR in 1997, for all intents and purposes, they are (or if you want to nitpick, became) the same company. And, as Rorshacma said, independent of each other or not, the fact remains that neither of them can be independent of D&D as they were each in turn the official D&D publisher, every content either from TSR or WotC is thus first party. But I don't think anyone said the issue was between TSR and WotC. The issue is between Necromancer Games and WotC, or rather between Tome of Horrors and the whole D&D brand/product line. We haven't mentionned Paizo either, but if you're referring to the Pathfinder game, it has already been acknowledged as not independent by the RSN:[15], and let's not forget that Paizo was once the editor of the official D&D magazine Dragon, any Paizo material published in Dragon issues won't be independent. My interrogations remain: which "particular definition of independence" would we be using, and how it would differ from independence described at WP:GNG ? And so, how could Tome of Horrors, which "requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"", be independent ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tome of Horrors is not even about the subject of the article- the D&D Death watch beetle - its about D20 Death watch beetle. If we change the article to Deatch watch beetle (d20 system) then again, we are in primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tome of Horrors is a D&D sourcebook, it is a D&D creature used for a D&D system.
it matters neither way. if it is a sourcebook for D&D, then it is a primary source and not an independent third party source giving more than trivial coverage. If it is not a D&D sourcebook then it is not even talking about the actual subject of the articles, the D&D monsters and its existence is completely irrelevant again in establishing the notability of the D&D monsters.. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jclemens has been disputed, it'd be helpful if you'd explain. These articles not only have no independent sources (it still hasn't been explained how these would be independent sources, despite numerous requests for explanation, saying it over and over doesn't make it true), but even if this one single source were independent, it supports a minor sentence in a brief "Other publishers" section. These articles are not based on third-party sources, per Wikipedia policy. Are these articles somehow excempt from Wikipedia policy, requiring articles to be based on third-party sources? - SudoGhost 05:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons), if White Dwarf #29 is refering to D&D, then it is primary source ("written up as a player character race"). There's no indication that this source contain any external analytic or evaluative claim, only in-game content. I really don't know which would be the "two reliable sources" you're refering to, Tome of Horrors can't be among them since it's a primary source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be coy. You know I don't share your assertion that the Tome of Horrors is not an independent source, so please stop behaving as if it has been established by the consensus that it is not an independent source. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't care if you don't want to accept you're wrong" - my, that's constructive. It's not as if I said "ToH is independent, so there, nyah." I (in responding to your factually incorrect assessment of Tome of Horrors being "officially branded D&D") explained the licensing situation of the OGL and D20STL. If you do not come to the same conclusion as me, then fine, but don't pretend that I have made no credible effort, referring to WP policy and the facts at hand to justify that position. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that all your efforts are based upon a fundamental minsunderstanding of policies (and I say "policies", but you're constantly refering to the essay WP:IS instead of the policy WP:GNG), I can't see how you could have made any "credible" effort. There only 2 ways to see this, and both lead to the same conclusion: ToH is primary content on D&D and thus can't be used to establish notability. Or, ToH is primary content on Necromancer Games' own D20 game, thus not about the D&D creature. Whether it is officially affiliated to D&D or not, it still doesn't contain any analytic claims and "does not discuss the notability, significance or "out of universe" context" (per the RSN comment at the Lamia talk [16]). As long as you refuse to adress these issues, you can't be credible.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is a notability guideline per the top of the WP:N page, not a policy. And the top of the WP:RSN page also says "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.", emphasis mine. BOZ (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is an essay more consensual than a guideline, then ? I don't think so. Guidelines still represent global consensus. As to WP:RSN, I never said it was official policy, but it is still not something you can ignore blindly. Especially when this particular comment only paraphrased WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • POLICY is pretty consensual WP:SOURCES: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. " There is NOTHING even close to being able to BASE any of these articles on non-primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These accusations are unsubstanciated. Please always assume good faith. The nomination is based on the valid concern that the articles don't meet WP:GNG and there are already several users sharing this view. The article are almost identical in content and sourcing, and there is no clear-cut precedent in other AfDs that D&D monsters would be particularly likely to be notable, so the nominator saw in good faith a justification for a grouped nomination. If you think about it, any user taking part in any AfD has to research sources under what you call "the specter of deletion hanging over his head". If you want to oppose to this AfD, please do it with a valid argumentation, not with comments on the nominator based on assumed bad faith.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the user is free to research in peace without the spectre of deletion by working on articles in xir sandbox until they have found substantial coverage in reliable third party sources and then moving to article space. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right up to the bit where they " obtained official distribution rights to Dungeons & Dragons and other TSR products in the UK" making them a licensee. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. If they were in a licensing situation which constitutes a "significant relationship" per WP:IS at the time of the publication, they may not meet the criteria of independence per WP:GNG, putting them in much the same boat as Kenzer. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation of licensing is nonsensical--that is, since these are copyrighted elements, there must be a license to use them (including the SRD, of course), but anything that's licensed would be inherently non-independent. This is conflating two different policies, intended for different things, to eliminate coverage of the notable elements of an extremely notable fictional franchise. That excessively narrow reading of "independence" would make it impossible to cover GNU software, for instance, because of the GPL. Independence is about not regurgitating press releases and similar output. These aren't those, not by any stretch of the imagination. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? TechCompany puts out GNU software. TechCompany writes about their software: Insufficient to establish notability, they are a primary source. Wired writes about the software: Generally fine, third party source covering the subject of the article, the GNU licensed software. However, if Wired is the parent company of TechCompany or if Wired merely prints the code of the software, then no there is no significant third party coverage about the software. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But by downloading GNU software to write about it, Wired has become a licensee, and is therefore not independent of the subject--at least under the "licensee != independent" rationale. You see the problem? Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely untrue. the author may have downloaded the software and become an licensee to USE the software, but Wired is still fully and freely able to determine whether or not to publish review. Neither the author of Deathwatch Beetle entry nor the publisher of Tome of Horrors is in any way independent of the licensing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy your logic. I've articulated how licensees can be independent editorially of the licensor, yet you refuse to accept it. Not much more I can do to convince you, I'm afraid, so I'll just agree to disagree. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no interpretation, Jclemens, it's just called reading. "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Note: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations."
Jclemens, you have an excessively narrow (and non-consensual) way of reading this passage by conveniently reducing it to just "press releases" and pretending the other elements don't exist, in order to force inclusion of non-notable elements from, indeed, an extremely notable fictional franchise which notability cannot be inherited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say there's no interpretation, and then you hang your argument on the definition of "strong connection". I think you just scored an own goal, there. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no interpretation, WP:GNG does assimilate affiliation to a lack of independence. Independence is indeed not just "avoiding press releases", contrary to what you said.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you completely neglected the point I just made. Your two sentences are unconnected. Would you mind paring back the volume of your contributions to this page, and instead focus on quality of argument? I'm sure the closing admin wouldn't mind. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how my two sentences would be unconnected, your contention was that independence "is about not regurgitating press releases and similar output" and thus that conflict of interest in any form (affiliation) wasn't impacting independence. Which is wrong. My two sentences are part of the same discussion on the meaning and different elements of the concept of "independence" as described in WP:GNG, they are connected. Note that this doesn't prevent you to try to argue that licencing is not always conflict of intereest, which can be a valid assertion in some cases. But your argument on GW is nonesensical, linking two different cases that have nothin in common - one is a licence to use content, the other is a full commercial distribution contract making GW a first-party distributor. So yes, you can try argue that GW wouldn't have a "strong enough connection" with D&D, I just don't see any consensus happening on that any time soon, though.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, my personal perception of the character of White Dwarf is such that I believe they did not have any great degree of editorial oversight by TSR. That being said, having an exclusive license to distribute D&D products does imply a relationship that suggests a conflict of interest. So while I am willing to accept things like OGL and GPL licensing situations as being free of conflict of interest, lacking further public information about the licensing situation between TSR and GW, I'm not willing to assert that material published by GW at the time qualifies as WP:IS. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Through the lens of your keyboard it may look that way to you, but allow me to state what I see. What I see is a large number of articles that fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES and editors keeping them as articles under the logic that the sources currently in the articles are sufficient, and asking those that disagree to "start an AfD". I see that all of these articles are, to my reckoning, identical in their failure to meet these guidelines and policies, and not a single person has (to my knowledge) shown that any of these articles are different in this regard. These are bad articles, sourcing-wise. Third-party independent sources are required so that articles can have a neutral point of view, the requirement of which is a core policy. If an article is incapable of having a truly neutral point of view, then the article's presence is doing readers a disservice by its existence. If these articles are deleted or redirected, the appropriate article/merge target would then be where editor effort is placed, an article that can abide by WP:GNG, WP:SOURCES, and WP:NPOV. To me this is a net gain for Wikipedia.
At no point does bad faith come into play (I don't know where "bad faith accusations" were directed at people asking the keep the article, the only thing I do see is individuals accusing me of bad faith). I don't see these articles (especially parenthetical disambiguations) as being likely search terms, so I nominated them for deletion. Where is the bad faith in that? Since it seems there are a number of editors that agree with my assessment on at least some level, do you think it's possible that maybe it's just a disagreement on this matter, as opposed to "bad faith" and maliciousness on my part? - SudoGhost 04:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Endorse stiking and compromise. This is not a !vote (I already voted above) but an encouragment for all users to find a way forward. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time and boldness to take a step forward. I still beleive that each of these merits their own research as each takes considerable time to find references for individually.
    That being said, with the mind that this compromise will be accepted, I no longer think Brownie can be regarded as having an additional WP:RS in White Dwarf; it appears White Dwarf was operating under license with TSR that may compromise it as a WP:RS. Similarly, a user has come forth and identified that other of these creatures exist in other Pathfinder bestiary products like Caryatid Column, but it may be (may, more research is needed) the case that these products are edits of Tome of Horrors material, which may compromise their secondary nature. Based on current research, the only one I would clearly assert has sufficient resources that it stands apart from the rest is Adherer, which has Misfit Monsters Redeemed, which is not just a Bestiary-style product but contains additional ecology and "use in game" style information.-Sangrolu (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first thing should be to clear up confusion as to the nature of primary and secondary sources when dealing with fictional works, and also on "independence of the subject" per WP:GNG (for example, can a commercial book producing an original work of fiction, or having been granted rights to commercially reproduce a previously existing work of fiction, be regarded as an independent source of analysis on this very work of fiction ?). Conclusions to these discussions could seriously impact various policies and guidelines such as WP:PSTS or WP:WAF, and have repercutions on many other topics than just D&D. Piling up sources that might be invalidated as a result of these conclusions seems to me like a waste of time right now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already !voted to speedy keep it above. I don't know how you jumped to this conclusion, but please don't admonish someone for not following WP:BASIC (which is inaccurate) by ignoring the section right above it, WP:AFDFORMAT, which says "do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." I've stuck this second "Speedy keep" of yours to avoid confusion. - SudoGhost 07:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ref for Axe Beak added. Web Warlock (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wow! is that substantial coverage or what!!!!! -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
research takes time. That was the WD I happen to have had sitting on my desk while having my coffee. Web Warlock (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found resources for: Al-mi'raj, Aurumvorax, Axe beak, Blindheim, Caterwaul, Coffer Corpse, Crypt Thing, and Crabman, and Death watch beetle. Moving on to other books and magazines now. Web Warlock (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found additional resources for: Algoid, Al-mi'raj, Ascomoid, Atomie, Aurumvorax, Blindheim, Bonesnapper, Buckawn, Caterwaul, Cave fisher, Coffer corpse, Cooshee, Crabman,and Crypt thing Web Warlock (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please just note that all of these are primary sources, "X appears in these other games" is not gonna solve the notability issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is still more research into this than you have done. At least I am trying to contribute. Web Warlock (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing research doesn't allow you to be rude with others.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through a stack of Imagine and Challenge magazines from the 80s. Web Warlock (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to claim that the community is currently unaware the the extremely low sourcing levels and notability claims of the majority of the fictional beasts is to fly in the face of years of such discussions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps so, or perhaps not. However, possibly you would consider the virtues of this course of action: assume good faith, post a notability template on articles where you have a concern, wait a respectful length of time to see if they are addressed, then bring the unaddressed concerns forward to AfD. This would seem to be in accord with WP:CIVILITY and it accomplishes the same end. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:AAGF. This is not some out of the blue AfD, these articles in particular have been discussed, with editors claiming that the sources are sufficient. Now that this appears to not be the case, it's "not hospitable" to take it to AfD? There are no policies or guidelines saying that AfDs can or should be "postponed", quite the opposite in fact (WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:MUSTBESOURCES). - SudoGhost 00:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and any interested party that thinks they just need a little more time to find significant coverage in a third party source can request a deleted article to be userfied while they continue their search. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's actually no policy-based argument for deletion vs. redirect, any editor will be able to revert the redirect and add sources, assuming that the discussion is closed as a redirect. If anyone does that without a good-faith effort to address the AfD's outcome, whatever that may be, however, that would get a trout for disruptive editing and a protection of the redirect if done multiple times. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly accurate. Adding a source doesn't mean "any editor will be able to undo an AfD consensus". These are not at AfD for lack of any sources, they're at AfD for lack of independent sources, and because the articles are not based on such sources. Short of a complete overhaul of sources, adding a source or two (especially for a brief mention in an "in other games" section) isn't going to address that core policy. - SudoGhost 01:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A huge number of people have participated in this (or at least it seems that way). If there were some independent sources to verify the notability of some of these features of the Dungeons & Dragons game, then why hasn't anyone found them? I find it difficult to conceive of independent sources that would mention these features. Why would anyone publish something talking about the D&D use of death watch beetles and cave crickets, unless they were producing modules or promotional material for D&D? Having an article on death watch beetles in D&D makes about as sense as having an article on the use of the combination of the 'flower' and 'w' keys in Firefox on the Mac. Just as you might choose to mention D&D features such as death watch beetles in an article on D&D, you might want to mention Firefox features in an article on Firefox. They are just features, they do not need their own independent stub articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Why would anyone publish something talking about the D&D use of death watch beetles and cave crickets, unless they were producing modules or promotional material for D&D?" – There's a simple answer: enthusiastic hobbyists; the same motivation as for people working on Wikipedia. Some of those hobbyists do work for respected publications or have commercially published works. As for finding independent sources, well in some cases you may be right, but I've been amazed at some of the topics that get reliable independent sources, so it's best not to make that type of assumption. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
might they? sure! have they? there is absolutely no evendence that anything like The Amazingly Complete Encyclopedia of Fictional Insects. Issue 4a Critters in Dungeons and Dragons. Volume iii. Cave Cricket to Deathwatch Beetle Published by Simon & Schuster. Copyright 2099. has ever been or will ever be published. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise known as reductio ad absurdum. Basically your statement is a non sequitur. Good day. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're focusing on an inconsequential touch of humor to better avoid TRPOD's point: that notability for D&D articles has been in discussion for more than 4 years, and no single independent source has ever been found. Please stay on-topic and constructive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You find that humorous? An intriguing interpretation. In plain English then, I found RPoD's rejoinder to be a ludicrous, overly sweeping generalization that did not establish his premise. If no such sources can be found, then so be it. But I continue to find this approach objectionable. It's hardly difficult to place a notability tag on a page to ensure that people on the watch list are informed, and therefore have an opportunity to address the situation. But this discussion grows iterative. RJH (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sudo: perhaps so. However, you shouldn't assume that everybody is familiar with every discussion that takes place on Wikipedia. I'll change my preference to keep since postpone is not acceptable. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:27, 27 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aphetic place

[edit]
Aphetic place (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)

Unsourced since 2009. Seems to be so obscure that even astrology books do not mention it. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:19, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horoscope pattern

[edit]
Horoscope pattern (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)

Unsourced since 2008. No reliable independent sources that allow us to establish notability for this astrology concept. If properly sourced material can be found about it, then would easily fit in our existing article about Horoscope
MakeSense64 (talk) 08:04, 19 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.

Marat Fidarov

[edit]
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Zambia

[edit]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Zambia (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 church google search doesn't reveal notability Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rationale for deletion is weak, since there's no reason to assume that Google will have the same coverage of the local media of Zambia that it does of more computer-saturated parts of the world. Wikipedia's coverage of Africa is already weak, to the point where well-written articles should be the last thing we delete. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this article was proposed for deletion only three days after the article was created. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about a denomination, it's about a particular church. And where are the sources? Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a denomination, with 30 churches; cf the ELCA ref for the best source I've found to date. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:19, 20 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. Redirect can be created if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage Game

[edit]
Bondage Game (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 animated film is extremely obscure, thus finding reliable sources for information about it may not be possible. Also, very few pages link to this article, if any. LegallyBlindGamer (talk) 04:35, 19 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) 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 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 02:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BFN Group

[edit]
BFN Group (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)

On notability grounds. Some references were added but it still is a young organization with not much history. Borderline enough that a debate is worthwhile Peter Rehse (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are notability guidelines for kickboxing organizations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force#Guidelines and at WP:MMANOT#Organizations for MMA organizations. Papaursa (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's more is that I find it quite ridiculous if one has to properly assess the article on guidelines that barely exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.132.127.165 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry this was my comment, forgot to sign in.Znertu (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this article needs better sources. What I see are fight results, press releases, and non-independent sources. This looks more like it's part of It's Showtime since so far only one of its events has not carried the It's Showtime name (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 14 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Capps

[edit]
Dennis Capps (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 first assistant director of TV shows. first assistant director usually doesn't handle the creative process, but does more administrative tasks. I don't think assistant directors are inherently notable and doesn't qualify under WP:FILMMAKER. He did direct ten TV episodes and was a co-writer on six episodes. No independent, reliable sources are available. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 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) 14:37, 11 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of carols at the Nine Lessons and Carols, King's College Chapel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of carols at the Nine Lessons and Carols, King's College Chapel (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 main problem here is this is badly afflicted with recentism. The college's archive of service bulletins only goes back to 1997, which leaves out eighty years of the service's history. Many of the carols have been done since nearly the beginning; others (e.g. the Boris Ord setting of "Adam Lay Ybounden") have repeated many times. Surely there are many in past years which have not been repeated of late. It seems unlikely that this article will ever be very accurate, and "Carols sung at the festival since 1997" seems arbitrary and not notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A list of commissioned works already appears in "Nine Lessons and Carols". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:02, 22 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Schoenmann

[edit]
Joe Schoenmann (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)

Author of one non-notable book, (according to WorldCat, only 32 copies in libraries) Nothing else notable about his career--minor awards only DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 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) 13:22, 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) 14:39, 11 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Boudreaux

[edit]
Corey Boudreaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATH having never played professionally, and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown (fullback)

[edit]
Chris Brown (fullback) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT having never played in a professional regular season game as well as WP:GNG (Chris Brown is such a common name, it was difficult to find much on this one). Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Critics Circle

[edit]
Young Critics Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed immediately after posting with no changes. Fails notability per WP:ORG. Essentially unsourced; the only sources (now dead links) are to the organization itself. Cresix (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Cresix (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second...I removed the PROD because, according to the PROD template:
"If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However, please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."
On that note, I removed the PROD and included my objections on the edit summary, because the message itself said I can. For good measure, I left a message on Cresix's talk page, which didn't have had any reply. I was hoping that he would, at least, explain his reasons for adding the PROD; I didn't realize that at the same time, he was also creating this AfD.
Third...when I created the article, I made sure that it will have references. All the references I included are news articles from major television networks and broadsheets in the Philippines with a wide readership in the country. This year's awarding ceremonies even got coverage in the evening news which was broadcast nationwide:
It is only unfortunate that the Young Critics Circle doesn't have its own website and domain and, at present, only exists online through social media outlets. But I'm not convinced that on that alone, the article does not meet notability standards. It is now considered a major award-giving body for Philippine cinema along the lines of the FAMAS Awards, Star Awards and Gawad Urian...or else, it will not even merit the attention of the mainstream media in the Philippines. For this reason, I'm voting for a keep. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no sources to "news articles from major television networks and broadsheets". I only see sources to the organization itself (Young Critics Circle). There are no secondary sources. Cresix (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under "References", I did (wikilinks to the sources' articles added):
  • Himpapawid Wins Big at Young Critics Circle - ABS-CBN (October 16, 2011). Retrieved June 28, 2012.
  • Young Critics Circle Bares 1st Quarter Citations - Philippine Daily Inquirer (May 7, 2002). Retrieved June 28, 2012
  • Young Critics Circle will hold awarding rites on March 11 - Pep.ph (February 28, 2009). Retrieved June 28, 2012
  • Tale of ex-Yakuza, Diana Zubiri lead Young Critics Circle awardees - Interaksyon.com/TV5 (June 19, 2012). Retrieved June 28, 2012
  • Young Critics Circle to hold awarding rites on June 27 - The Philippine Star (June 18, 2012). Retrieved June 28, 2012
--- Tito Pao (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those are not sources cited in the text of the article. They are external links. Cresix (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cited them in the very first edit, using reftags. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - I stand corrected. Editing now. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Though I would have appreciated it if, if the only issue was that the sources were not cited in the text of the article, then it was at least pointed it out first in the talk page or if you edited it yourself before subjecting the article to a PROD or AFD. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply moving the external links to citations with complete disregard for making changes in the article only minimally at best improves the sourcing. Essentially you are sourcing one very basic sentence describing the organization with multiple citations. Making a statement "XYZ is an organization" and then adding four or five citations does nothing to expand the sourcing of the article as a whole. And please don't suggest that I should have fixed the article. That was your job that you should have done before removing the PROD. Cresix (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 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. AfD is not meant for article imporvement or trimming. It is already sourced well. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Prince Edward Island

[edit]
Politics of Prince Edward Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to cite sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course it should be better sourced, but it's easy to get those sources; I added two in just a few minutes of editing. It's otherwise well written and looks like a bit of attention to more sourcing should keep it away from the grim reaper of deletionism. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence of Gaussian prime numbers

[edit]
Equivalence of Gaussian prime numbers (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)

Unencyclopaedic OR. The article seems not to be about any particular theorem or result, though it's so badly written this is unclear. It hedges it's bets with vague statements and in three places asks the reader to prove a result themselves. No refs; the ELs are potential refs but are general ones on primes, Gaussian integers and Gaussian primes, with none precise enough to help clarify what this is meant to be about. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written, espeically in comparison with Gaussian integer; if there were to be any useful content, you'd find it at that article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly written" is often a reason to revise rather than to delete, but in this case, you can't be sure that there's something worth keeping here because the poor writing leaves one unsure what it's about. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the "equivalence" refers to is contained in the statement any Gaussian integer has number of residues equal to its norm, which is a slightly obscure way of saying that if z is a Gaussian integer then the ring Z[i]/(z) of residue classes modulo z has number of elements equal to the norm |z|2. This is correct. The second assertion about Fermat's Little Theorem is confusingly stated but expands to saying that if p is a prime congruent to 1 modulo 4 then p is the norm of a Gaussian prime π and z → zp is the identity map on the ring of residues modulo π, which is the finite field of p elements; whereas if p is a prime congruent to 3 modulo 4, then p is a prime of the Gaussian integers, the ring of residues modulo p is the finite field of p2 elements and z → zp is a non-trivial automorphism of that field, which agrees with complex conjugation. This is also correct. I am assured that references exist for these facts "in inumerable books" and propose that the material, correctly attributed, be merged into Gaussian integer and that this article be deleted as the title is an unlikely search term. Spectral sequence (talk) 01:46, 20 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 Young Critics Circle. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Critics Circle Award for Best Performance

[edit]
Young Critics Circle Award for Best Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed without comment immediately after placed. Only improvement was addition of one non-reliable source. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Cresix (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cresix (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M-Squared (DJ)

[edit]
M-Squared (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:ANYBIO. I can't find coverage in reliable sources. Note that someone by this name won a 2010 DJ contest but that DJ M Squared is from Orlando. Pburka (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 07:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 19 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 112th United States Congress. The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special elections to the 112th United States Congress

[edit]
Special elections to the 112th United States Congress (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)

Entirely repetitive of content in 112th United States Congress —GoldRingChip 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baltazár

[edit]
Baltazár (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as an obvious hoax. I didn't find it blisteringly obvious as to warrant speedy deletion, but if this is indeed false information, it should be deleted Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 19 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Students' Guild

[edit]
Aston Students' Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Organization is local and has not appeared to have received significant coverage in reliable media. Notability tag since December 2007. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 19 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 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Corante

[edit]
Jorge Corante (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)

Notability questioned since September 2009. Involve din production and does not appear to qualify for notability under WP:MUSIC Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Jones

[edit]
Georgia Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG. All significant GNews and GBooks hits appear to refer to others sharing the same common name. No reliable sourcing or significant biographical content; all references are either promotional or industry listings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 19 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 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Alpha Tau

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Phi Alpha Tau (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 single-chapter university club. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:GNG. Fails WP:ORG. Unverified claims of age are inconsistent "oldest professional communicative arts fraternity" and "Oldest Fraternity at Emerson College;" the inconsistency and lack of citations make such claims suspicious. GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 19 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. This should be treated the same as a PROD. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Eliza Phelps

[edit]
Paulina Eliza Phelps (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear notable. No independent, reliable, in-depth sources available. First reference appears to be a self-published album, seonce appears primary, third is by the church, and fourth is FindAGrave  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varonis

[edit]
Varonis (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. Fails WP:ORG and all the sources given are wothless. Article has become an edit warring battleground between the representatives of Varonis and their competitor Whitebox Security. SpinningSpark 18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you would care to give a link to your 1.5 million ghits. I got rather less than that for Varonis, the vast majority of which are hits for people called Varonis who have nothing to do with this company. Have you actually found any reliable sources that give more than a passing mention? SpinningSpark 20:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why in world should we care about WP:GOOGLEHITS? Answer: We don't. As a general rule, all it takes to establish notability is two good reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject. Right now, you have zero. But if those WP:GOOGLEHITS actually mean anything, you shouldn't have any trouble finding the two you need. Msnicki (talk) 23:19, 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are about the product. In my assessment, I didn't get caught up on company vs. product. My finding was that we have something notable here. --Kvng (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Still in order to validate the inclusion of a notable topic we have to define it. We just can't have an article on "Life, the Universe, and Everything". – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that an article quality issue and I don't give it strong consideration in AfD decisions. We don't delete bad articles, we improve them. --Kvng (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of notability of article's topic is not the quality issue. If there is something notable here, it must be identified and there should be article about it. The current topic — company — isn't notable, so the inclusion of an article about it is inappropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found notability evidence for the company's product. The article can be reworked to target the product. I think that's a better path than deleting the article and and having someone eventually creating a new one about the product. --Kvng (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article tells nearly nothing about the products, so repurposing it will involve writing completely new text (with no single sentence from this article) under another name. At this point there is no sense in keeping the current article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement that "this article tells nearly nothing about the products." Are we reading the same article? --Kvng (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading Varonis. If properly condensed and cleaned of PR mess, it would be a miserable stub with one reference. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:05, 25 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Racing

[edit]
The Hartford Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined with no reason given. Article is a promotional piece written by a WP:SPA with likely WP:COI, that details one company's no-longer-existiant NASCAR sponsorship. Wikipedia is not an indisciminate collection of information; there are no secondary reliable sources that establish how this sponsorship was notable. The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 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 to delete this article, or more accurately, no interest in discussing it. It's been relisted a third time, but per WP:RELIST this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, and a lack of participation is not exceptional in AfD debates nowadays. Relisting multiple times is not a substitute for a no-consensus close. This discussion had low participation and few policy-grounded arguments were expressed, so there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. NAC—S Marshall T/C 07:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Eborn Books

[edit]
Eborn Books (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 can find casual mentions of this store/publishing business, but I don't see any significant discussion of it that would show notability. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 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 Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:58, 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* 10:59, 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]
So are you saying keep? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:59, 15 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 00:56, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Pershey

[edit]
Bernie Pershey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sources all fail WP:RS. Note that the band he played in is also at AFD for failing WP:BAND. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:57, 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) 14:42, 11 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 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except notability is not inherited from the band to the band members. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 23 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Oak

[edit]
I Am Oak (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 insufficient independent coverage to meet the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. If this is kept, it should be clarified whether this is a band or an album ("creative output"?) and what Mr. Kuijken's relationship to this project is (since he is the only one listed in the lede). Cmprince (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 15:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 15:44, 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]

As the page is used by BBC Radio to link to their 'artist playing' system I think its important it remains as the artist has had several BBC radio plays using this system. Mick.scholefield (talk) 13:11, 10 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) 18:35, 11 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 00:52, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polu Khenpo Dorje

[edit]
Polu Khenpo Dorje (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)

Was a BLPPROD, was removed and unreliable sources added. Fails WP:GNG Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:36, 11 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 00:52, 19 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 Case Western Reserve University. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Psi

[edit]
Sigma Psi (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)

Single chapter club, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sources are all WP:SELFPUB or tangential coverage, at best. Claims of "oldest and largest" are unsubstantiated and suspicious.GrapedApe (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:55, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:52, 11 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 00:50, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De la Beche Club

[edit]
De la Beche Club (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)

Notability not established by significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this page should be kept. The information has been sourced from a number of references including the three specified (GeoLogic), and from personal experience of organising De La Beche Club events over a period of nearly 30 years. The Club is also described in the Imperial College Calender, the authorative account of College affairs published annually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msr69 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Msr69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP I believe this article should be kept as it contains information from numerous references including my own experience as chair to the club over the current academic year. References also include the union of the prestigious and reliable Imperial College London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwebb11 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Mattwebb11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As 2011-2012 Honorary secretary for the De La Beche club, I urge you to keep this page as it is representing a long standing society within Imperial College Union and the Royal School of Mines. Alongside being verified by the university as a society, the Sir Henry De La Beche page of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography recognises the club as a "student geology society subsequently called the De La Beche club" after the work De La Beche did on the Royal School of Mines [1]. [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Em.penn (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 July 2012‎ (UTC) — Em.penn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I invite you to re-cast your arguments in terms of the Wikipedia:GNG guideline. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 21 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 02:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Comrades Marathon

[edit]
List of winners of the Comrades Marathon (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 information is repeated in a collapsible table at the bottom of the article Comrades Marathon. The article gets about 5 views a day compared to 130 for the latter. JMK (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 5 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 22:43, 11 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 00:42, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Records

[edit]
Triangle Records (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)
Persistently unsourced article on one of many minor bootleg record labels. I'd vote Weak keep with considerable trimming if reliable sources (per Wikipedia policy) could be found for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences. Paragraphs 2 & 3 (of 4 total) seem entirely promotional and assert no connection to the article topic beyond "in spirit"

the label survives in spirit by the work of a remasterer living in FRANCE aka Texas Barbudos sharing music for free and worldknown for the high quality of his remastered bootlegs

I acknowledge that Triangle Records existed, and I'm certain that with a few peacocky WP:PUFF links this article could clear the notability bar, but it would still be fundamentally uninformative beyond some bootleg imprint that put out rock CDs -- here are a few titles found in my record collection. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 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 22:45, 11 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 00:40, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Barmat

[edit]
Julius Barmat (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)

Wikipedia:No original research clearly states: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source". This article is based on the section of a draft version the book that publisher decided to remove from the final version. Therefor it is not based on a published source. On February 6 some part of the article was deleted with the remark "cp ed and removal of conspiracy junk" but I'm afraid the rest is still too unreliable. See also previous remarks on the talk page (Talk:Julius Barmat) - Robotje (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 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.
  1. ^ Secord, J. A. "Beche, Sir Henry Thomas De la (1796–1855), geologist". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 21/07/2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
More