< 21 July	23 July >

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summerset Avenue[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Original refs to Youtube and twitter are not WP:reliable sources. Triple J Unearthed allows bands to upload their own bio and the charts are based solely on their website and not broadly based. Now no references. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing lots of matches on social networking sites (Tumblr, Facebook, YouTube, ReverbNation, Twitter, last.fm, etc), but no coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found a minor ref. [1] All it does is mention the band, no detail or anything. Reverb has them as 797 in the local area for rating. Won't pass specific notability or GNG.

Delete. Like Gongshow, I saw a lot of matches on social networking sites, but I could not find any reliable sources. The band isn't notable enough to have an article. Ha dg er 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tint2[edit]

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

Notability is not demonstrated by inline citations of the reliable sources discussing the topic in-depth; I found no usable sources in the wild. Tagged with ((notability)) since October 2011. Proposed deletion contested with rationale "Deprodded. Notability is maybe questionable, but I see many news articles that mentions this term at GNews archives. Use AfD if necessary." Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I also Googled hoping to find something and came up with nothing. Msnicki (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in 3rd party sources to establish notability of this software. Dialectric (talk) 15:39, 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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Stevens[edit]

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

Actor; contested PROD. My concern was: No indication of notability (WP:BIO). Also probably no assertion of notability, unless the sentence about his height is one. Sandstein 22:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per WP:BASIC, there are sources like: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Nimuaq (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nimuaq's sources; article needs help but the backbone is there.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nimuaq's sources: Stevens is a well known actor. --87.20.47.170 (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Sandstein is correct in that there is no claim to notability. If there was, this would likely not make it to RfD. However, there are numerous notable films listed in the article so I believe the topic is notable. It does require some cleanup in order to keep out of RfD.--SimonKnowsAll (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work, but he does have numerous roles in notable films as a minor or supporting character that is credited and starred in Man-Thing as the Man-Thing. Seems to pass muster. Ironically the role for the 'Hobbit' movie is another of note, just missing details. His height and size is important in the roles that he plays. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enoughness[edit]

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

Essay-like. Mysterytrey talk 22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An essay about a word that doesn't physically exist (appears to be bollockspeak describing a new type of feeling about something) equals an article that we don't need here. Send it to Wiktionary and see if it passes there, which I doubt. BarkingFish 22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete?Hi all, Marcus Barber here. I've added this given the increasing number of uses of the word in the past year. When I first used it it wasn't in any lexicon and I admit that it's still new and far from being in widespread use. Although I first used the term back in 2008 at no time have I considered it worthy of a possible addition to Wikipedia until recently when another book made specific reference to it as a concept. I accept it is a new term and also suggest that it will be a term you will hear much more of following the uses in the books, one of which is written by a Professor at the University of Houston (Andy Hines). If everyone feels that it's too new or not widespread enough, I'd understand. And I suspect that at some point Wikipedia will have an article on the idea that could (doesn't yet) represent a different movement towards consumption. Just my thoughts. Marcus MarcusBarber (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a word for this in the English language already, it's "contentment" - a feeling or acknowledgement of being content with what you have. We don't need this. Much less an invented word. It's a dictionary definition that doesn't even appear in a dictionary. I say we kill it with plenty of gasoline and fire, or send it to Wiktionary for them to do the job for us. BarkingFish 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move (content to Wikitionary): WP:NEO, WP:POV and WP:COI issues - article apparently created by person who claims coining term. Also asserted dates and info do not appear in cited references. Neologism not in general use, appears to possibly duplicate content at Simple living, especially Reducing consumption, income and possessions. Like the writer says above, though,...maybe later. Shearonink (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or hard redirect to Small is Beautiful. I was the one who nominated it for deletion. The first thing I noticed about the article was that it looks like an essay. It's also not notable. It raises COI flags that you referenced yourself. Looking at this site, it claims that enoughness is made up:

"I came up with the term Enoughness in late 2008..."

I read on and it seemed like the term was coined for raised sales:

"...as a result of some research I was assessing looking at emerging consumer behaviour."

This PDF showed it like that even more. Mysterytrey talk 00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Enoughness of this foolishishnousness that allows usnotme to arbitrarilarily remodifimakeup newnesses wordses. Just becauseness you didn't findeo mynous newie worddie inuh dictionariness doesnotiness makeitnotusefulness whenie I usie itness. Oh please. Ebonics didn't work out real well either.Ren99 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Non-Notable Neologism (at best). Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -----> Carrite (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO --Artene50 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enoughness is a neologism that isn't notable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources about it, either, but even if I was able to, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ha dg er 19:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geometris[edit]

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

Tagged for a long time for source, POV and other issues, but still unsourced and reads like a product brochure. A search turns up nothing except directory entries. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found that this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be non-notable. -- Taku (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use of the phrase "...makes the whereQube H²O ideal for motorcycle, trailer and other weather exposed vehicles" in the product descriptor is an obvious manipulation and therefore fails the WP:SELFPROMOTE standard. Ren99 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lari Lazar Haras[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Basically just a YouTube personality, the claim to be a "businessman" seems a little thin. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is written in the article does not add up to notability and there is not a glimmer of anything in Google. Unless the article got his name wrong, he isn't notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 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 Speedy delete as A7, deleted by Esanchez7587 (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Music[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage of the music label in multiple reliable sources. Google search results in nothing relevant. Contested prod.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.K (rapper) by the same author. ... discospinster _talk 21:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even though Google Search should not be considered as a relevancy meter, there is no significant coverage of this music label and every single inter wiki link refers to the JK rapper. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. As a comment - furthermore, it appears as though the author might have attempted to make the article appear notable through the use of incorrect internal links (all the artists listed in the table lead to J.K (rapper), not to articles on each individual--which are non-existent due to non-notability). --IShadowed 01:59, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The collapse of the Kamov - 27 in Kazan November 26, 1980[edit]

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

There's nothing in the article to meet WP:GNG. A helicopter crashed. Military helicopter crashes are quite common and per WP:AIRCRASH aren't usually notable....William 20:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions....William 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions....William 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything notable, military accidents are far more common and I dont see anything unusual in this one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, into any article within its scope, if not then Delete Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1975–1999), then delete. Mjroots (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article seems to describe an incident that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. If it is decided to keep it the article will need a complete re-write and translation as it is close to incomprehensible to English readers. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Friends of the mind! Help us translate the article to a normal, rather than fractured English. Remove always have time. --Dobryi TiP (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or at best a small entry in an accidents section of the Ka-27 article (if there is one) (not an invitation to start one).Petebutt (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Military aircraft and helicopters, alas, crash rather often. Nothing makes this any more notable than any other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made some major modifications to the article as part of a discussion at the pump, so maybe it's better to re-assess your votes, or whatever, can't say as I care about some chopper crash somewhere, but it is different now. p.s. Personally I think the lot of you are hilarious for other reasons. (can anyone say 'deletion discussions take up more server space than the articles?' I mean just format the hard drives and tell everyone to F off, same principle, but more time-economic) Penyulap ☏ 13:53, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion likes to turn Wikipedia Green.

down with the deletionists!!! Booo!! Hisss.. Penyulap ☏ 13:59, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Well you have done good work to make it quite a bit more readable, but it still isn't any more notable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still not a notable for an article....William 00:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

still Delete - you could edit this till you are blue in the face and it won't be any more notable!!Petebutt (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you hold your wiki breath long enough you turn wiki green, but I'm a smurf, so if I edit this until it gets deleted, and I'm sad to see it go, having lost all the work I put in to it, I would still be a little blue Penyulap ☏ 17:53, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

What happened? A helicopter ran out of fuel due to idiotic behaviour and the crew made an *emergency (crash?) landing* on an intersection in Kazan, damaging the helicopter(?), cables and a tram. As far as I can tell, that's what happened (the longish article makes it a bit hard to pick out the important pieces). Was anybody seriously injured? Not as far as I can tell. Notability? For Kazan (if at all). No notability for the Ka-27 article (as far as I can see). No notability for the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1975–1999) article (as far as I can see). Suggest to take the essence of the incident (What happened, how/why/when/where, plus the outcome) and merge it into Kazan article. Tony Mach (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazan, not Kumertau – I misread that… Tony Mach (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after I thought more about it, I think it will be best to move the article to 1980 Kazan Ka-27 crash landing, boil it down a bit so the information to text ratio is a bit better, change it from translated Russian to proper english (not my speciality) and then give it a short mention (Something like "A Ka-27 crash-landed on the 26th of November 1980 on an intersection in Kazan when it ran out of fuel due to operator error.") in the Kazan, List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1975–1999) and Ka-27 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Mach (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notability (after reworking and using info from Russian article) is first: Crash on intersection in large city. And second: Rumors in the Soviet Union that dozens of people had been killed. Tony Mach (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, could someone move it to 1980 Kazan Kamov-27 crash landing, if that is OK? I don't think I have sufficent rights to do that. Tony Mach (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I think your suggested new title is a good idea we don't normally move an article until the AfD is completed, just to avoid confusion. If it survives AfD then it can certainly be moved. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First: Notability is not inherited. It crashed on an intersection in a large city; that merits a mention in the city article, it doesn't make the crash notabile because it was in a big city. Second: You said it yourself: rumours of dozens of people killed. Where are the reliable sources for that? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jung yang wengen[edit]

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

Blatant hoax, speedily deleted and immediately reintroduced. GregJackP Boomer! 20:00, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rambam's Laws[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability Does not appear to be widely known outside the context of HOPE. Remove twitter and only 34 google hits for the first law - including this article and a facebook hit. Just seems to be a soundbite. If you exclude twitter, this is the only hit for Rambam's second law. noq (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete out of context, non notable article, and twitter doesn't serve as reference or to sustain notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, my bad, sorry for bothering to contribute. Perhaps next time respond with something more positive than just 'this is non-notable' (and the reasons) next time, e.g. 'have you thought about writing a bio of this guy, that you could include these quotations in?' Mpdehnel (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my concern is that this article has four sources, but they don't seem to be reliable. I tried to find better sources, but it's difficult due to false positives. Can somebody find some better sources? Bearian (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, or userfy it to the author (if they request it) for possible reworking into an article about Steven Rambam. To Mpdehnel, I understand your frustration about the response you are getting to this article. But we have criteria for what can and can't be the basis for a Wikipedia article, and the main criterion is that the subject has received significant coverage from multiple independent sources. I couldn't find such coverage for Rambam's Laws in a search of Google and Google News Archive. However, I did find quite a bit of significant coverage from reliable sources about Steven Rambam himself - for example [9] [10] [11] - and that coverage could be used to write an article about the person rather than about his "laws". In my opinion an article about the person would satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. (Some sources list his name as Steven Rombom with the indication that Rambam is a nickname.) If you want assistance in writing such an article, just ask at my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel Nascimento[edit]

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

Looks spammy, seems to lack the in-depth independent coverage needed to pass WP:N bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a specific guideline for coaches and managers criteria for notability in WP:SPORTS?

Apparently not; but the subject appears to fail WP:NTENNIS as well as the "basic criteria" of WP:NSPORTS. bobrayner (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The project Tennis does have an essay on notability, which states something about coaches: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability and looking at Category:Tennis coaches can also be useful.

Basically, if one of the players coached by this man has reached a grand slam final, or been ranked in the top 10, or won Davis Cup,... while they were using this coach, then the coach is generally conisdered notable. As far as I can see based on the information in the article he doesn't satisfy any of these criteria. Seems to have been mostly a coach of lower ranked and junior players (which is clearly excluded in the notability guidelines on project tennis) MakeSense64 (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above. If he has coached one of the elites in the game, then wikipedia takes notice. It would appear this coach has the credentials of thousands of others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comment MakeSense64. --Wolbo (talk) 02:18, 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 keep. Pretty well summed up by MelanieN's arguments. Also, see WP:HEY. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Serious People[edit]

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

Article less than 60 days old about a term, supposedly a capitalized proper noun; nominated for deletion based on:

WP:SIGCOV: Topic has minimal coverage but no significant coverage
WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Topic seems at best a wannabe neoligism unlikely to endure
WP:NOT#DICTIONARY: Wikipedia is not a dictionary --→gab 24dot grab← 20:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase is defined in three RSs (specifically about the phrase) and does have significant coverage. The phrase has existed since 2007 up until today and the article isn't written like a dictionary. By those standards we would need to delete the Friedman Unit article which was also created by Atrios even though that phrase has significantly less coverage and use. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in RS to show this is notable; sufficient content to lift this beyond a dictdef. --Lambiam 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NEO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this neologism has little if any encyclopedic value. Perhaps merge to Atrios. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CartoonDiablo & Lambiam. Enough coverage in RS's to meet WP:GNG and not run afoul of WP:NEO, and it is not written like dictionary definition.--JayJasper (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of the three rationales given, two of them are obviously invalid. WP:NOTTEMPORARY? There is no evidence that this is in any way temporary or tied to any event. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY? This is clearly not an article that contains nothing more than a definition. Not even close. The proposer would be well advised in the future to pick one good rationale rather than throwing several against the wall and seeing if any of them stick. This leaves WP:SIGCOV, the only rationale that comes even close to being valid. The problem is, the article has enough coverage to meet our general notability guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with nomination. The article reads like something from Encyclopedia Dramatica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 July 2012‎

Discussion WP:SIGCOV... There are currently 12 cited sources.

5 are written by Paul Krugman (the star of the Wikipedia article)
7 are blogs, mostly referring to Krugman and his writings

The so-called "sources" do not convey the neutral POV required of an encyclopedia (one actually-cited blog page simply states, "Very Serious People. The idiotic assholes who rule us. And dishonest, too."[12]; that's all the cited blog-page says on the topic). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY... The article's subject is like a small moon about "Liberal Planet Paul Krugman". As an independent article, "Very Serious People" simply doesn't survive the WP:10 year test, IMHO. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY... The article includes the wannabe neoligism's definition and origination, which could easily be a dictionary listing. The rest (which should probably be deleted in part for its reliance on unusable sources) makes it clear that this "ironic" pejorative is a heavy-handed mallet used by self-described liberals to beat those who are either conservative or insufficiently liberal; targets for the epithet include conservatives like Alan K. Simpson, Michael O'Hanlon, Carly Fiorina, Paul Ryan. One cited source explicitly states, "As I'm sure you all know, one of the current favorite pastimes in the liberal blogosphere is to mock the Very Serious People who currently make up our foreign policy establishment [that is, conservatives in the George W. Bush administration]." --→gab 24dot grab← 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV: Business Insider, The Daily Beast and CEPR are not blogs nor where they written by Krugman, and all of which are RSs. For those counting that's three reliable sources not including Krugman's Op-ed.

WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Your opinion is noted but the phrase has survived for five years and chances are it'll survive for five more years.

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY: In case you forgot to read what NOT#DICTIONARY says, it only applies to articles that are only a definition without any kind of impact. Since this article is not just a definition of a phrase and includes it's usage then the reasoning doesn't apply.

These reasons are absolutely without any merit CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with CartoonDiablo. I suspect that 24dot's real objection is that this phrase is a "a heavy-handed mallet". Which it is. just like "Feminazi", "Little Eichmanns" and "Political correctness" are heavy-handed mallets. We don't have to like something to fairly report that it exists, nor should we delete articles because we don't like them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CEPR is explicitly, self-describedly "liberal", so it's linguistic ax to grind against conservatives isn't very useful, encyclopedia-wise. Business Insider and The Daily Beast are 'online publications'; even if reportings in both are WP:RS's, that certainly does NOT constitute significant coverage. I believe the wannabe-neologism is unlikely to endure, yes; editors may agree or disagree whether a mere term must populate an entire article independent of the ideologue who almost-uniquely champions the term. Without the material that should probably be deleted for quasi-WP:BLP reasons, the meaning and origination of this term are better left to Wiktionary, yes. --→gab 24dot grab← 12:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already explained, them having an axe to grind is not found among the valid reasons for deleting a Wikipedia article. Bringing it up again and again weakens your argument instead of strengthening it. There is a basic tactical reason why you should limit your arguments to those which are valid grounds for deletion; anybody who votes to delete and indicates that they are doing so because of your "axe to grind" argument will have their vote thrown out by the votetaker.

Of the rationales you have given, several of them are obviously invalid. You really do need to pick one good rationale rather than throwing several bad ones against the wall and seeing if any of them stick.

Take your WP:NOT#DICTIONARY argument. With all due respect, the only people who will accept that as a valid reason for deletion are people who have never actually read WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. That page clearly says that articles that contain nothing more than a definition (which this article does not) should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. Only if they can not be expanded should they be deleted. Yet you didn't bother arguing that this article is impossible to expand (which is clearly not true - it has already been expanded past being an article that contains nothing more than a definition). You would do well to read WP:DEL#REASON carefully and avoid arguments that are not valid reasons for deletion.

Likewise for WP:NOTTEMPORARY There is no evidence that this is in any way temporary or tied to any event.

The only argument that you have put forward which, if true, would be grounds for deletion is your claim that the article does not have enough coverage to meet our general notability guideline. All of the other arguments are invalid on the face of them.

On the coverage question, I would be most interested in hearing what policy you think makes it so that online publications do not constitute significant coverage WP:SIGCOV says just the opposite: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NEO. While I like the notable Paul Krugman, this neologism has not yet caught on; subject to the usual caveat about later re-creation. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 17 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Non-Notable Neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -----> Carrite (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY states, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:NOTTEMPORARY argument appears to be misconstrued Wikilawyering that should have checked the Wikilink before commenting. The WP:NOT#DICTIONARY argument has been refuted, nor is the material in this article anything like Wiktionary would have. I looked at all but a couple of sources listed in the article, where the main complaints would be that it is primarily Paul Krugman that is giving the phrase attention, and that the phrase has a scattering of meaning. If so, either of these problems can be resolved with ordinary editing. Beyond that, reliable sources are provided in the article to establish WP:GNG wp:notability, giving direct attention to the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I choose to agree with source analysis by User:CartoonDiablo above. Progressive blogger Digby has been using the term for many years as well. Professional blogs can be reliable sources and in this case, IMHO, they are. Krugman's NYT cred goes without saying. BusterD (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Digby (blogger) citation from May 18, 2007 which uses this term in precisely the same way the article does. I've also found this by Matt Stoller at MYDD from January 1, 2007 which uses the capitalized term "Very Serious People" and appears to refer to the same characterization of pundits. Leads me to believe this term predated Stoller's post. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not WP:TOOSOON since the term has been in use since at least 2007. It does not get its notability via inheritance from any one individual; the term is used by many people. And it does have significant coverage. The references in the article are not just examples of usage, they are ABOUT the phrase. They cite actual explanations, from multiple sources, of what this term means and who uses it and who they apply it to. The term is at least as well established as other notable political buzzwords that have articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article, eliminating the unproven claim that Atrios invented the phrase in 2010, and adding authors and dates to the references to make it clearer who said what when. It's clear that the term is used by many people who have no connection to Krugman and do not mention him in connection with it, and that they were using it long before Krugman was. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 29 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 Userfied - provided sources discuss EthicalWiki is no depth at all - only the content of some report they released. Wily D 08:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EthicalWiki[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. EthicalWiki is not the subject of any of the articles referenced. The only reliable sources (1,2,4 and 5) are about a survey that the owner of EthicalWiki made about paid editing of wikipedia and this is the subject of all of the sources, with EthicalWiki being mentioned in passing. The other sources are mostly primary sources (written by the owner) or unreliable, e.g. The Signpost and The Examiner. O'Dwyer's blog might just be reliable, but as with 1,2,4 and 5, neither of the sources are about EthicalWiki. (Some discussion has already occurred at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#EthicalWiki regarding the article). SmartSE (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- EthicalWiki is notable on the strength of the PRWeek write up. PRWeek is a reliable source in this topic area.
- There's nothing wrong with having supplementary non-independent sources per WP:3PARTY (Non-independent sources may be used to source content from articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified), provided they aren't used to establish notability.
- The article was reviewed by several editors and made it to DYK.

Cheers! --Woz2 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the PR Week article is not about EthicalWiki, but about paid editing of wikipedia. Therefore it cannot establish the notability of the company. Should we have an article about every company that has ever commissioned a survey that's been mentioned by the media?
Yes, but notability hasn't been established. I was pointing out that none of the sources are suitable.
That doesn't mean that it should be kept. SmartSE (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. This would never have made it this far if it had not interested us because of its link to Wikipedia itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on the second sentence? I'm not getting it. Specifically, when you say "this far" do you mean DYK or AfD? And are you suggesting that the notability criterion is somehow modulated if the topic of the article is a controversial one like paid editing of wikipedia versus non-controversial? Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hey guys. If this gets deleted, can you just move it back to King4057/Ethicalwiki. This is where my signature links to. Thanks. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced, neutral and good to know what this is about. Because it has a connect to Wikipedia there is heightened interest in this here, and so there should be a bias to keep it. If not as an article it could go toa Wikipedia: page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Referenced, yes, but this doesn't mean it is notable. That it is connected to Wikipedia should have no influence on how we treat it. Look at it another way - would we keep an article about a company that specialises in using Twitter for PR if a survey that they published was mentioned in a few media sources? Moving it back to King4057's userspace seems like the best idea to me. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graeme. Meets wiki guidelines. CE it if you like though. PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It clearly meets the GNG, and is well sourced. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how it "clearly meets the GNG"? I've explained why I don't think it does, so you need to explain which sources provide the significant coverage required. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having to comment here as the proposer hatted the discussion on DYK, forcing all discussion to come here. This is an attempt to get a company who specialises in PR on Wikipedia, onto the front page of the project. Yes it meets the criteria, it's been very well crafted. However this is absolutely NOT what we want on the front page. Just because an article meets the DYK criteria it does not mean we have to run it. This sets us up for being manipulated, as we are here. The article itself was written by someone with a connection to the company, who will no doubt use his success at getting his promo onto the front page to attract further clients. This is the kind of thing IAR is for. It can stay as an article but it absolutely does not belong on the front page. Secretlondon (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--so we delete all articles on businesses such as General Motors or just those for which someone paid for or what? There are gobs of articles written by people "with a connection"--Girl Scout leaders who write GS articles, people in the military that write military articles etc. Your approach is too far reaching and without clear bounds.PumpkinSky talk 00:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I hatted the discussion there just to prevent fragmentation. I'm sorry if coming here was a hardship. You have to understand this is a one bit issue: Either a) EthicalWiki is notable or b) it is not. Let's not get into the shooter on the grassy knoll stuff. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No something can be notable enough for an article but not something we want on the front page. You stopped us having that discussion. Secretlondon (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't easily check the timing, but I was under the impression that Smart said he wouldn't AfD it until it was off the main page. When I hatted it (18:49 July 22, 2012 UTC [13]) just after Smart AfD's it I assumed it was off the main page, making the discussion there a WP:STICK. I apologize if I hatted it prematurely. BYW, does anyone have a way of checking what time its DYK ended? Just curious. Woz2 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As best as I can make out, the article had been off the main page for almost two hours when Smart AfD'd it and I hatted and WP:STICK'd the DYK thread. Woz2 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to politely ask for more AGF. I was not involved in the DYK nomination and certainly didn't embark on a plan to use it for promotion. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, also I'd like to remind folks that even Jimbo's very strict so-called "bright-line" position allows a) COI editors to offer contribution outside of main space b) neutral editors to move (or not move) such contributions into main space. But again, this AfD is a one bit issue about notability not COI. Woz2 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments. (1) When you have a COI regarding a subject, you're always welcome to write an article on that subject and submit it through AFC, as was done here. (2) AFD is not just a forum on notability; if we believe that a page be too far gone to save, we delete it, even if it be on a notable subject. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no COI issues here. 1) Read the nomination. 2) AfC is one possible route for article creation but not the only one. 3) The creation route adhered to even the strict "brightline" position of Jimbo w.r.t. COI edits. 4) "Too far gone to save" is equal to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Woz2 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article has not improved in its sourcing significantly since I declined it at AFC. The big problem here is that:

The few reliable sources, such as PR Week, talk about EthicalWiki only in passing or as one example among many. It is not the subject of significant coverage in these sources.
The majority of sources – 10 out of the 15 cited! – are from self-published sources, especially blogs, press releases, self-publishing sites like examiner.com or the like. These might be okay if used sparingly, but do not meet the requirements of general notability nor WP:CORP.

As you can see, this article appears to be shipshape at first glance, but on careful examination is not sufficiently well-sourced to be considered notable. As for the apparent COI: I don't think we should be discussing that, since firstly, it's completely obvious, and second, the user has gone out of their way to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's AGF and focus on the content. Steven Walling • talk 04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 out of 15 argument doesn't seem relevant to me. If five establish notability, the 10 can't subtract from it. I agree the 10 don't add extra notability either. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral here out of necessity, but I'll note that Steven already rebutted your post with his first bullet point. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, noted. You are absolutely correct that the nub of this issue is whether or not the outside citations indicate notability. That is where the difference of opinion between the keepers and the deleters here lays (for the most part at least). The COI, the controversial nature of the topic, and the additional self-published sources are red herrings, IMHO. Woz2 (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! One more thing... the opening phrase of the PR Week article is "According to a study by EthicalWiki,..." and most of the article is centered around that work. I believe that that is significant coverage. Woz2 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Agreed - we should concentrate on the sources. I deliberately avoided mentioning the potential COI issues in my nomination. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woz: that does not meet the definition of significant coverage. Significant would mean that the article is actually about EthicalWiki, rather than simply uses it as a source about a broader topic. Steven Walling • talk 03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted that examiner.com cite from the article and the sentence it supported. I find that particular site problematic, and don't want this article tainted by it. The sentence in question wasn't of much interest to the general reader anyway. hth. Woz2 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Canvassing is occurring. Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Diffs? SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Complete set Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EthicalWiki Woz2 (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - [14]. Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP - the alleged "sources" hardly address this company at all, vs. talking about Wikipedia and some "survey". Appears to be merely a well-played advertising vehicle for a non-notable tiny consultancy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase "well played advertising vehicle" is an accusation of bad faith and I strongly object to it. I'm completely disinterested in EthicalWiki. I created and DYK'd the article because it's related to a topic (COI editing) that interests me and I believe our readers too. I recently volunteered one of my Saturday's to talk about this topic and found that people were very interested in it. Woz2 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an accusation that you got played, not that you were the player. The topic you talked about was one tiny consultancy, or Paid editing of wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) (clarification underscored) Woz2 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get played. I came across King's draft, thought it notable, and decided on my very own to create and DYK it. I'm 54 years old and not naive. Woz2 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree about various levels of naivety. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thinly veiled insult and I don't appreciate it. Woz2 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stay on topic? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Fails GNG and CORP. Only reliable sources which detail subject are responding to the "85%" study released by subject. As mentor to page creator, I told User:King4057 back in June this wasn't ready, that sourcing was thin yet, and with the obvious COI issues involved David had a responsibility to nail down IRS before taking this to mainspace. I agree pretty much with the AFC reviewer's opinion and his statements above. In addition, I tend to agree with User:Hipocrite; I feel EthicalWiki's study was a "well-played advertising vehicle." Without coverage of that study, we have zero IRS. No lack of AGF on my part; remember, I've been mentoring this nice fellow, and he's been playing it straight with all of us. I told him so at the time: "Most of your sources are those who have commented on your released study.". I'm disappointed David decided to ~~advance~~ allow advancement of this page to mainspace before acquiring better sourcing; specifically sourcing directly detailing; however, in typical King4057 common sense fashion, David has agreed to take the page back to his userspace for further development if consensus holds this is not ready. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As clarification, David did not appear to attempt to advance this page on his own. He gave Woz2 the freedom to be bold. In the end I have to agree with you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right; I struck through and corrected my copy above. BusterD (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I submitted it to AfC originally, accepted the feedback I got, but decided to use it in my signature, seeing that many COIs use <name> (org) instead of my much more long-winded disclosure. When Woz came by I pointed him to the AfC feedback and suggested he do whatever he wants. When he moved it to article-space AND submitted for DYK, I saw this kind of controversy coming from a mile away. Now I see that SmartSE and Woz are both soliciting for participants in the AfD discussion with very POV invitations that encourage them to take their respective sides and I imagine editors are fuming behind their keyboards.

If there was some way I could sing kumbaya, remind people of AGF, civility and canvassing and return us to a routine AfD I would. As long as I have something to point people to that explains my approach and position, it's not really that important to me whether it's in article-space or not.

In any case, the crux of this conversation is really if PRWeek, Ragans, etc. count towards notability, even though they are on a study I published rather than on EthicalWiki specifically. What might be best is if Woz and Smart compromised on the best way to use those three sources that are clearly reliable in other articles and userfy this article. For example, just those three could be added to COI editing on Wikipedia. Woz could learn more about COI by improving that article (also with updates from CIPR) and Smart will no longer contest notability.

From my perspective, I probably won't do too much PR for EthicalWiki, as much as for the approach to treating Wikipedia with the same autonomy and respect as a news organization that isn't openly editable, satisfying its content needs and the value of an ethical approach to Wikipedia. This is a message I would think most Wikipedians would generally share and appreciate my efforts to sway the PR field in that direction. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment With hindsight, my notifications were a mistake, as discussed earlier today here. One of the users I notified (Ryan, DYK commenter) voted against keeping, one voted keep (Pumpkin, DYK promoter). The other two (Silver (COOP founder) and Poeticbent, DYK reviewer) haven't responded as yet. Woz2 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per BusterD. The page served as background on King/a declaration of any Conflict of Interest he might have. It is currently not ready for the mainspace and should go back to that purpose. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a deletionist. I gave it the green-light at a DYK nomination page, because the article was new, written in good English, supported by multiple external sources, long, truthful and not flagged with any dispute warnings in spite of its AFC history apparently. If you can make it work, please do so. Poeticbent talk 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, BTW the broken history was my mistake... Long story... Woz2 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: failing WP:CORP and written like an advertisement. Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: The Ragans and PRWeek sources are nice and put the article on the borderline of notability, in my opinion. But I do feel that another source or two from a news article (subject area-specific news sources are fine) discussing the Wiki or a report it's put out or something like that would be better before having this in mainspace. It's just a bit too borderline at the moment. And no need to throw around canvassing accusations. I'm one person who it's proper to notify, in my relation to the subject and, as you can see, I am taking this AfD seriously and probably voting in a way that surprises many of you. Silver seren^C 03:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional in intent, started by the proprietor. Fails GNG and the special criteria for Corporations. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD resulted in causing Woz2 to retire, after thousands of edits and several GA articles. Please join me in asking Woz to come back and letting him know his contributions are appreciated. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 09:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the sourcing is very weak - no in depth coverage of this company in independent sources. It all consists of trivial mentions. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also just spotted, and deleted, a clear copyright violation. If this article isn't deleted it needs revdel'ing from r504829341 backwards. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:34, 29 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} 02:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Totally Rad Show episodes[edit]

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

Each episode is just commentary on news/gossip/media, none of them are indepedantly notable. It would be similar to having List of Fox News episodes or List of CBS news episodes etc. So doesn't meet our guidelines of WP:GNG, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:LINKFARM and WP:WEB. Otterathome (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lists of The Guild episodes and lists of Red vs Blue episodes, as well as ones for shows like Marc Maron's WTF Podcast, or Diggnation. Each show is independent from the next and this page helps index that. 14:18, 25 July 2012‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.135.137 (talk • contribs)

The guild is a sitcom that creates original content, red vs blue is comic science fiction, both completely different to Totally Rad. The other two are likely to sent to AFD for the same reasons as this in future. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't the best argument to use either.--Otterathome (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list serves as a public guide to episodes involving cultural events in media and entertainment. It provides a temporal context for a wide variety of relevant information regarding media products/releases/responses that may not be directly linked to the article in question. This article adheres to the guidelines stated in Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists. If this article does not meet the notability requirements stated in WP:WEB then it calls into question countless other articles including The Nerdist: Episode List. 22:53, 25 July 2012‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblair86 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately meeting one list guideline does not let us ignore other policies. The other articles you mention are likely to sent to AFD for the same reasons as this in future. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't the best argument to use.--Otterathome (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational usage of list page for notable program. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:ITSUSEFUL. Not a reason to ignore core article policies.--Otterathome (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator is hardly in a position to negatively characterize the use of WP:OTHERSTUFF, since "It would be similar to having List of Fox News episodes or List of CBS news episodes etc." reads much like the first delete assertion in that subsection. As it regards WP:NOTTVGUIDE, point 4 of that section reads "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." This podcast is itself notable per WP:WEB, having "... won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Being notable, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, a list of episodes may be acceptable for inclusion. We decide such questions by consensus, and this is such a discussion. I'll concede the page needs additional RS and is right now a linkfarm; I assert, however, this is nothing that can't be fixed with ordinary editing. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 30 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pitbull mixtapes[edit]

The Streets Are Talking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Pitbull : Free Agent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

International Takeover: The United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Mr. Worldwide (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Delete. These non-notable releases have not charted (and never will, as they are all free downloads) and have not received non-trivial coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources (a series of quick searches brings up torrent sites, chat forums and Wikipedia itself [15][16][17][18]). These articles also fail WP:NALBUMS, which state that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's...discography". As this has already been done, these articles can be deleted and recreated if/when more sources become available. SplashScreen (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find coverage of these mixtapes that would satisfy requirements for WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Till 13:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HitFix[edit]

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

PROD was removed by an SPA. My concerns before were: Fails WP:WEB. Other than this article at the time of the site's launch, I can't find anything which provides significant, independent coverage of the site. Unless some better sources are found, we shouldn't have an article.

Two extra sources have been added, but I still don't think these are sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few reasons the HitFix article should remain active

Alexa has HitFix ranked 14th among entertainment news sites putting it above other household names in that space. I've added a reference to that list in the article
HitFix is often cited by other reputable news outlets as a source. I've added a few references to the article, but a search for "Hitfix Reported" in Google, will show many more.
I've seen the HitFix article referenced by several other wikipedia pages although I'm not sure how to dig those up.
Two of the HitFix contributors have their own Wikipedia page Dave1279 12:06, 2 July 2012

Additionally 637 pages on Wikipedia reference HitFix http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hitfix&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 Dave1279 10:40, 6 July 2012 — Dave1279 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

None of those are sufficient for us to have an article. As I said before we need "significant, independent coverage" of the site, which there does not seem to be. SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are really about hitfix. They are about other things and trivially mention hitfix in passing. Stedrick (talk) 14:53, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is notable as it contains various good sources. TBran dl ey 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But do any of them provide significant coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:46, 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radiotelevision of Herzeg-Bosnia[edit]

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

No sources, most information is highly subjective and false. Xzpx (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so this article obiously isn't popular enough for anyone else to put anything here. I have edited the article with citation needed and other tags where citations are missing, or the article is otherwise incorrect. As you can see there is lot of citations missing. This article is mostly false, and highly subjective. Here are some examples in a short article:

Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

"broadcasting organization of the former Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, now of the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a vague term, and I as a Croat of B&H have never herd of RTVHB, or listened to the radio. This is probably true for most Croats living in Bosnia, or outside the Herzeg-Bosnia region in Herzegovina (which makes up the majority of Croats in B&H).

10 million German marks[edit]

"Interestingly, television had never started broadcast its program[citation needed], although in radiotelevision was spent more than 10 milion German marks[citation needed]." The 10 million number seems made up. No sources for it, and I doubt anyone could spend 10 million marks during the war to set up a television station.

Croatian Language[edit]

By the end the article becomes simply false and very hostile:

"He[who?] broadcasted program on Croatian language[citation needed], until 1999, when his work was banned."

Who was band? What is Erotel?

Forcibly[edit]

" and forcibly took away the transmittersands and handed them over to Federalna TV"

Really? They snatched it from RTVHB's hands? If it is a legal takeover how can it be forcibly?

Federalna TV languages[edit]

"which broadcast program in Bosnian language"

False, Federalna TV broadcasts on all official languages of Bosnia (Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian)

further Federalna TV hostility[edit]

"which broadcasts anti-Croat[citation needed] program and jeopardizes the Croatian language and Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina[citation needed]."

Hostile, False and misleading.

Conclusion[edit]

As you can see if these sentences are deleted the article is left with a single sentence and a sidebar. Would this still be an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzpx (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

RE[edit]

Source[edit]

This is source of this article: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatska_Republika_Herceg-Bosna#Mediji. If you are really Croat of Bosnia and Herzegovina, you will understand this text on Croatian Wikipedia, because it is written on Croatian language.

You're referencing another wikipedia article without any sources.

Croatian Language[edit]

He and his were my mistakes in text, so I corrected them into it and its.

Federalna TV languages[edit]

Federalna TV broadcasts program on Bosnian language. Fact about three-language (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) Federalna TV is only formality.

This is not true. The three languages are the same, with small differences. I have heard countless times FTV commentators and anchormen/women say 'tjedan' - which is Croatian language term. 'sedmica' would be in Bosnian and 'nedelja' would be Serbian. Also, Croatian names for months are used every third day on FTV. Xzpx (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Ivan OS 19:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything in this discussion so far, apart from the first two words of the nomination, is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. Our task at AfD is not to determine whether the article content is true, but whether independent reliable sources exist with enough coverage on which to base an article. I can find no evidence of such sources under the English name, the name in the language(s) formerly known as Serbo-Croat or the abbreviation. It is not credible that a notable media organisation operating in the last 20 years in Europe would have no sources available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hints for participants in this discussion:

If you want to argue for keeping this article then please identify reliable publications independent of Radiotelevizija Herceg-Bosne that have significant coverage of it. If they are online then provide the web address and if they are in print, such as books or newspapers, then provide enough information so that other editors can identify them. To argue for deletion please explain why you believe that such coverage does not exist. Such arguments will have far more weight than arguments about the current content of the article based on your personal knowledge.
Please don't use section headings, such as "==This is a section heading==". These make the discussion difficult to read.
Please sign your posts by adding "~~~~" to the end, so that we all know who wrote what and when.

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Although this article needs a lot of work, I would keep it for now and provide a chance for a better English language text (the current is an obvious translation from the region language syntax). There seem to exist certain interesting claims, and a TV station that enters the fray of 3rd world countries is inherently notable. Oh, and, the tips for other editors opinig above are a bit off-putting. Please opine as you wish everyone. Thanks. Turqoise127 03:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would you suggest basing an improved article on? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources. I gave my opinion. You however, did not give your opinion; you proceeded to "educate" all participants by offering tips on how to vote, effectively discouraging independent comments and thought. Your tips are a form of censorship and they are a blatant tool of influencing strictly source based opinion, and yet I could bribe a journalist tomorrow to write crap about me and then do an article on myself based on that source I paid for. Do you see why we need independent opinions here? That's too bad I seem to remember you had some quality input on here, especially on the Balkan region. Oh how the project just keeps regressing...Turqoise 127 21:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, the suggestion that we are here to decide if "sources exist with enough coverage on which to base an article" is something from the 2006 WP:N, today's WP:N repeatedly (if not 100% of the time) denies that article content is a wp:notability issue. I have been researching this topic, and there are numerous hits, not easy to read with Google translate. In general we know that media don't tend to talk about competing media, but since media are important to Wikipedia's ability to source our articles, we don't need a cornucopia stuffed and overflowing with sources for media articles. Here is an in-depth analysis of TV HB in 1996 from a group associated with Association for Progressive Communications, here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about the current article content, but in fact explicitly stated that content is not the issue for this discussion, and today's notability standards very much are about the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability only requires evidence, it is WP:V that requires sources; [WP:N#Notability requires verifiable evidence] has a shortcut WP:NRVE and states, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:NRVE, evidence of notability has been provided, along with one strong in-depth source. This does not prevent ordinary editing from merging this topic into a broader topic. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley O'Shaughnessy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a recreation of an article that was deleted for failing WP:GNG. It is somewhat difficult to see that anything has changed since then, so it still seems to fail WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Weak keep O'Shaughnessy seems to be barely notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD. A lot of secondary coverage, but I was unable to find anything significant that is unrelated to his love affair with Rihanna. WP:NOTINHERITED. Cavarrone (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - we have kept less notable models, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahlen Rondot (2nd nomination). That being said, about equal numbers of models' articles are kept or deleted. He has had some press, as a boxer and a model, so I think he's just barely notable. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many references listed that tell of the individuals former boxing career and recorded success (from reliable sources) in the field. As well as growing coverage in regards to his modelling career. The individual has a large fan following and much press coverage under his name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Re:_Dudley_Deletion. For details of the discussion. I have seen much less known models on wikipedia and far less reliable resources. Ugochinyerem (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2012 (GMT)

Keep He has more than “trivial” mention in articles, i.e. editorial pieces made on him. Fairly reliable resources are present. BBC, evening standard, telegraph… as well as independent sources. Not presumed, published interviews are included in sources. Improvement and difference from previous article although could be expanded. The subject’s notability is not temporary as coverage goes beyond the music video, the subject is a model in his own right. Mizziman (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has a breadth of coverage and a huge fan base. Much more known and recognizable than other models listed on wiki, eg.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Ziehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.187.10 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up -- He seems to be notable enough after reading everything, the article is decent, however it could be improved grammatically. unsigned

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. Merger discussion can take place on talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bang-bang robot[edit]

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

Highly specialized term for a class of robots, the content could easily be merged to SMT placement equipment, which i was inclined to simply do, but thought a small discussion might be warranted. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - probably to SMT placement equipment as nom says. There isn't enough here to justify an article; on the other hand, deletion doesn't seem appropriate either, so it needn't really have come here to AfD, merging would be enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bang-bang is a control technique for robots and so quite a different topic from the purpose to which the robots are put. SMT assembly is a very particular application so is not at all suitable as a merge target. A page which could use some content about different control schemes is robot control. Warden (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Possibly to the Section "Control techniques" (which I didn't find) in the Article "Robot". Or delete, this one is not an article but a stub consisting of two sentences, the first beeing a word-by-word 100% paste of the content of its very reference, a copyright problem, I would say. --46.115.44.162 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin Robot[reply]

Keep It is a stub, but the article deserves to stand for one simple reason - it is a field of robotics and type of robot in its own right. As such it deserves a separate page, and indeed a stub can be as small as one or two sentences "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text ...".

There is no need to delete it as it can be expanded, and if deleted will only need to be re-created again. It is a copyvio though, and needs rewriting. It cannot really be merged with anything, and its lack of an entry on the Robot article probably reflects that it is such a small part of robotics, though many were made, that it does not really need to be mentioned on such a wide-scope article. The other problem, as Colonel W says, is that the control technique should also be included. There are many sources that can be used, such as [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. I will endeavour to expand this later tonight or tomorrow.

First, I will fix the copyvio issue immediately. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to fix the copyvio and expanded it and added refs. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erblin Llullaku[edit]

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

Still has to play a match in a fully professional league, hence does not pass WP:NFOOTY Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet, WP:TOOSOON Seasider91 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources referencing his move to a Romanian club fail verification. __meco (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG at the present time. — sparklism ^hey! 10:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete although mentioned on the UEFA website. There are not many other sources that tell us he is notable yet. And too little information written. Mizziman (talk) 20:52, 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 speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Besomi[edit]

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

This is a borderline speedy deletion A7 candidate, but arguably does not fulfil the speedy deletion criterion due to the claim that he is the CEO of top-ten-song.com. However, I can't find any references about him online, and I don't see any indication that top-ten-song.com is notable itself either, so I don't think the subject passes WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not a borderline CSD candidate, but a regular CSD case - no notability demonstrated. Speedy delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of the Strong[edit]

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

I guess the best rule reference is WP:SCANDAL... Basic problem for me here is that this article is full of an awful lot of "alleged" this and "claimed" that about living people, but very little "this actually happened". BenTels (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH. The interconnectedness of the "groups" in the article are based upon a single unreliable source, a Southern Poverty Law Center article from 2000. "The Brotherhood of the Strong" appears to have been a local scandal in 2000 involving three or four deputies of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office [25] that may have been investigated by the FBI.[26] "The Brotherhood" appears to have been a different local scandal in 1999 rumored to involve employees at Indiana's Putnamville Correctional Facility that was investigated[27]. The SPLC is the only source I can find that suggests there is a "Brotherhood" in other states. While bits of information about these various incidents can be found in various news sources and could very well be mentioned in other articles, there is no evidence to show that they are interconnected, nor is there any evidence to support the lede's assertion that there are gangs of correctional officers named "The Brotherhood" or "The Brotherhood of the Strong". Location (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per User:Location. 'Nuff said. ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -serious BLP problems with the claims regarding the Oregon sheriff deputies. No evidence of any relationship between the isolated events mentioned. Highly unreliable sources...The Portland Tribune reference leads to the homepage with no current access to the older story. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogscast[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Yogscast" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unremarkable podcast - repeatedly recreated and deleted as part of a promotional effort by the podcast to appear credible. Other than number of viewers, no significant claims notability, and I believe the provided references from reliable sources only show minor coverage, or are from unreliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This new source from 10 July 2012 is not trivial. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Previously this has always been deleted due to no claim of importance. It now has a claim of importance. Speedy delete is clearly not appropriate here as it has been controversial to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The subject has gained notability since then. There are many articles from reliable sources cited, including from Edge Magazine, PC Gamer, Salon magazine, and the BBC. (There are a number of nonreliable sources used also, but that warrants cleanup rather than deletion.) I am pretty sure there is enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Belegdal (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of the article has received significant outside coverage and meets WP:N Ducknish (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 23 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) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass the GNG, though some of the fluff in the article does get in the way. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two PC Gamer articles are just about enough to pass WP:GNG, and assuming Edge Online is a good source, that would be at least four instances of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are pretty bad though, and the article needs some serious clean-up. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Torchiest: Edge is listed as a reliable source per WP:VG/S. PC Gamer and Edge also have articles about the Yogscast in their print magazines, and several other online articles not cited in this page (I count five total at Edge Online) Belegdal (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that link, which makes this an even clearer keep. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem :) Belegdal (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BBC News, PC Gamer and Edge Magazine are reliable sources that all provide significant coverage. Also covered at IGN and Gamezone [28], [29]. --Teancum (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 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 speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Farley-Bouvier[edit]

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

WP:ESSAY, bordering on political attack. GregJackP Boomer! 14:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is an attack page, plain and simple. It has no other purpose than scoring political points. Pichpich (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Lacking in sourced biographical content. I've flagged the article as CSD:G10 because of the attack content. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Orbin[edit]

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

It seems doubtful to me that this person meets notability criteria under WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:BLP1E. Using AfD and not Prod because Americans with a better view of the case might disagree. BenTels (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article does not fail WP:PERPETRATOR per, 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Marjorie has been the subject of several tv-crime series and she herself had appeared in a film which was heavily covered in media at the time and by the tv-crime series. She also passes WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E for me is very vague has someone could be known for one event but still be notable within that event such as here. A google search brings 19 400 specified hits on her. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even a book has been made about her and her case in particular called Dancing with Death: The True Story of a Glamorous Showgirl, her Wealthy Husband, and a Horrifying Murder as stated in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly -- I find it difficult to judge. Sex and money are the two most common motives for murder, dismemberment is grizzly but not exactly unheard of and it wouldn't exactly be the first time someone made a television movie (or devoted an episode of a real crime series) to a murder. Like I said, I'd like more and broader views from across the pond on this one. Too uncertain for me. -- BenTels (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound rude, but I think you are placing your own personal bar for notability for this article subject too High. As often users do with crime articles. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With that reasoning one could claim that the Aurora mass shootings are not notable because mass shootings has occured previously and with bigger casualty numbers. But we can't place our bars too high.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here, I am not saying the crime in question is too small to be mentioned on Wikipedia. What I am saying is that I am uncertain as to whether or not the perpetrator of this crime has met the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, that I cannot judge from the particulars presented in the article as it stands now and that I am asking for input from others (other than myself and, also not to be rude, the author of the article). If those others feel the standard has been met, then that is perfectly fine with me. But I still feel the need to ask the question. -- BenTels (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is perfectly fine. We need more input I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Sources demonstrate the presence of significant coverage in major media outlets. WP:PERP #2 is essentially useless as a guideline in that most of it is open to interpretation (i.e. the determination of what is an unusual motivation, and the determination of what is sustained coverage beyond contemporaneous news coverage). WP:BLP1E is troubling to me, too, in that it is frequently used as a guide for deleting articles rather than as guide for renaming articles. Articles about criminal events, perpetrators, and victims are often intertwined, so I think WP:EVENT is entirely relevant, and this particular case and its perp have received national coverage in major media outlets. An argument could be made that this should be renamed as Murder of Jay Orbin, however, I would recommend that it stay as titled in that the media coverage is due to the perp rather than the victim. Location (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another crime of passion by otherwise not notable people, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The crime appears to have received widespread and persistent national coverage including a book about it. However, I believe it is the crime that is notable, rather than the perpetrator, and I believe the article should be retitled Murder of Jay Orbin per usual practice. Marjorie Orbin is not notable in herself, but only as the murderer of her husband - the perpetrator of a notorious crime. Such a move would leave a redirect for those who are searching under Marjorie Orbin's name. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Name change made.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 29 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} 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tam syn[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No trace of this phrase in Google Books, other than wp mirrors. Given the (blocked) user name of the creator I imagine it relates to a girl name Tamsyn. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heck of a lot or mirrors of this, but the term doesn't even translate to what is claimed - on Google Translate at least. 'Tam' is apparently 'three', and 'syn' doesn't register ('sin' gives 'sine' in English). Given that this was created by a blocked (for username Poop555) account, I'd say probable hoax or vandalism. Oddly, the best matches I can find for these words are in Czech, Polish and Slovak, where 'tam syn' translates as 'son there' or 'there son'. Not really relevant. Peridon (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To take the translation check further, "người từ chối cúi đầu trước" is the Vietnamese for "Person I refuse to bow to" (and it back-translates as "who refused to bow to the"). Peridon (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax - see Google Translate. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., for the record, I was the admin who blocked the creator three years ago. Just doing my job mopping up messes, folks. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible hoax, no sources, no evidence of notability. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:02, 29 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resumé (magazine)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, possible WP:GNG fail Mdann52 (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - I have heard of the magazine. Obviously proven to exist via sources. Needs improvements however but on the other hand that is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I notice that the Swedish Wikipedia has an article (our article appears to be a translation of the Swedish article). I believe that the users at WP:SW are better equipped than we are to judge the suitability of this article. I did find one source about it in English - not sure if it is a Reliable Source but I will add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - that's not an independent source, it's the magazine's publisher. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The magazine's articles are referenced by other media [30], and there are some articles and interviews referring to the magazine itself [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. While I can't say much about their reliability (last two are blogs, but I see no reason to assume that they're unreliable, at least when it comes to assess notability), it seems clear to me that this is indeed a significant and well established trade magazine, and note that the last link states that it's been running for 50 years — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 30 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 - INHERITED applies to arguments that someone's notable by connection to a notable person. The sources presented have convincingly demonstrated that that isn't the case here. Wily D 08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Koroma[edit]

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

A sad death no doubt, but being the president's mother fails notability under WP:NOTINHERITED and being a city council member fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough notability though this article will need to be improved, but nothing normal editing practices cannot fix. 1. She was a member of the political class particularly the All People's Congress, it was during this era the West African countries began to acquire independence from the European colonialists. 2. She was one of few African women of that era (though this part needs further verification). 3. She is a mother of a president. 4. the source cited are reliable secondary sources. She must have been considered notable enough for these sources to cover her death. I think we should be very careful and try and avoid systematic bias. I have seen many articles on English wikipedia about people have achieved nothing with their lives or contributed nothing to humanity apart from showing their tops and happened to live in the "1st World" with a group of admirers. Yet, people who lived in the so called "third world", who have contributed tireless to humanity, but happen to live on the wrong side of the fence cannot even get an article on English Wikipedia without it being PRODED or put on AfD. I think this is dangerous and I don't like it one bit. Yes, some articles deserve deletion and I will even press the deletion button myself, but there are many many more which don't, and those have been deleted, PRODED or put on AfD. Tamsier (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This nomination has nothing to do with systematic bias, and I am surprised and disappointed that you played that card. It is irrelevant to the discussion whether Koroma comes from Africa, Asia or America. The same standards apply to every nomination. Decisions are based on guidelines, not geography. WWGB (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - There is no card played here. I have highlighted my reasons for keep (notability, reliable and verifiable sources). Systematic bias was a side issue, made in reference to the fact that, I have sat here and seen many African related articles brought to AfD or PRODed. Many of those articles (not all but many of them) have been proved notable enough. Sometimes all it takes is a citation with RS and copy editing or a check to establish notability. That is what I do whenever I come across these kind of articles, in order to improve the project (what it was originally meant for). It is very easy to nominate but rather difficult to write and find sources. I do not criticise your nomination based on what you think. You are more than welcome to nominate any article if you believe they've met the criteria for AfD. However, I think it is right for me to raise the point of systematic bias when the notability of some "1st World" articles are questionable at best and never brought to AfD.Tamsier (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, spot on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Tamsier that this looks like WP:BIAS, but advise him to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. She was the 2007 Woman of the Year and she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources for an extended period of time, as this 2008 interview demonstrates. She easily passes WP:GNG. The amount of news coverage generated by her death ought to have been sufficient to demonstrate notability. Pburka (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context: "Alice Koroma has reportedly received the Woman of the Year 2007 award at a ceremony organized by youth in Bombali district know as All friends production. Sierra Leone in Makeni over the weekend. The purpose of the award was reportedly to show appreciation for the tireless efforts undertaken by certain personalities to develop the district." The notability of this "award" is very dubious. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the award is irrelevant for WP:GNG. All that's required is that she be written about in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's another interview with the subject, this time from the BBC. Pburka (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added additional content and references - here, here and here. She's more notable than I originally thought she was. Tamsier (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Ernest Bai Koroma per WP:NOTINHERITED. She sounds like a good person, locally notable (city council member), but her only national notice is as the mother of the country's president. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I notice that we do not have articles about Ian Donald Cameron or Mary Fleur (parents of British prime minister David Cameron), or about John Ebenezer Brown or Jessie Elizabeth Souter Brown (parents of British prime minister Gordon Brown) or about Pál István Ernő Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa or Andrée Jeanne "Dadu" Mallah (parents of French president Nicolas Sarkozy). I point this out, not to play the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS game, but to respond to the concerns about systematic bias expressed above. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 29 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Public Policy Research[edit]

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

Cannot find appropriate sources to pass WP:GNG. Not to be confused with the Centre for Policy Research, established in the 1970s, which is notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong anyway. CPPR hosted SAYS'08. It was organized by LYSA. Or so said the poster at the conference. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 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, BusterD (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already has a source from a national newspaper 'Times of India'. I have added two more from another national newspaper 'The Hindu'. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:33, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Whilst I maintain that the article as I initially found it appeared as an OR collection of mother's tales (and I don't think it reasonable to expect every nominator to be able to instantly scan obscure books for sources), I see now that this is certainly a valid and useful article. I withdraw. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lugbara proverbs[edit]

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

Collection of WP:OR. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would this be an acceptable page for our Wikisource? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book source given by the author on the talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A google book search for lugbara proverbs actually yields a large number of books [37]. This seems to have relative significance to the region. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list of books shows convincingly that this is a notable topic. I'll populate a Bibliography in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination's claim of OR has been shown to be blatantly false. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per regional notability, fight against systemic bias, and incorrect claim of OR. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:50, 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 Speedy deleted per previous deletion discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Zuckerberg[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTINHERITED. Little more to say really. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here. Just got a message inviting me to talk here, I think. Priscilla is rapidly becoming a celeb in her own right as judged by the articles published about her. If you delete this page you'll only have to recreate it again when she is even more famous. Cosmic Disturbance (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the articles published about her are cited in this Wikipedia article yet. And if we delete this page now, and wind up re-creating it later when she is more famous, that's fine with me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Coverage at Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life is sufficient for now. It's certainly easy to imagine a point where she'll merit her own article, but it's WP:CRYSTAL to keep in anticipation of that. But for now, the only coverage of her seems to be in the context of her relationship and recent wedding to Mark. The wedding was a surprise to most people, which speaks to how low-profile she's been. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (though still without prejudice) I didn't know there had been a previous deletion, and even after the wedding. Definite WP:CSD#G4. --BDD (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability by association only. Could be recreated if she becomes independently notable (e.g. as a clinician or through charity work). JFW | T@lk 19:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Priscilla Zuckerberg was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Chan (Mark Zuckerberg). • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time to close this discussion since the article in question has already been deleted.[38] --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 28 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} 02:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McGuinness[edit]

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

Blatant vanity bio. Appears to have a lot of sources, yet none demonstrate depth of coverage whatsoever (one reference, for example, does nothing other than quote him along with several other randomly chosen readers, on how they like the newspaper's new layout). Prod was disputed, most likely by subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To clear GNG there must be multiple, independent, published sources about the subject in so-called "reliable sources." I'm not seeing any. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete Article doesn't contain enough reliable references. Over bombarded with repeated refs. Mizziman (talk) 21:02, 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. Even after throwing out the numerous comments with no basis in Wikipedia policy there still appears to be a consensus that this material is appropriate for Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Jenneke[edit]

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

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

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

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

A youth athlete who became the subject of a recent viral video. Her notability (WP:BIO) is questionable. Because she fails the WP:NTRACK requirements as far as I can tell, any notability could only derive from the media coverage dedicated to the video of her. But that appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. Moreover, judging from the Google news results, the coverage tends to be highly superficial, often limited to variations on the theme of "hey, look at this sexy athlete wiggling her hips", and contains very little coverage of Jenneke as a person - i.e., very little material that would be useful for writing a biography. That said, if a contributor can unearth any substantial coverage of her in non-tabloid sources, I'd have no problem with keeping the article. Sandstein 12:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Her athletic record alone would almost certainly be enough to establish notability, but the viral video definitely pushes it over the top. You reference WP:NTRACK, which gives a list of criteria where notability is presumed. But even if she does not meet any of those specific criteria, that does not necessarily mean she is not notable as an athlete.

And it looks to me like she does in fact meet criteria number 7: "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body". Her profile on the Australian Young Olympic Team website states that she broke "the Australian record at the 2010 Australian Championships in the 4x100m relay", which would be a continental record.

And she also has a silver medal from the Youth Olympic Games. That, combined with her continental record, should be more than enough to establish her notability as an athlete. The viral video is just icing on the notability cake. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Rreagan007's argument. Also, I don't believe that WP:ONEEVENT applies, assuming the "one event" is the video of her warming up for a race that has received a lot of media attention. The first instance of the video, from what I can find, appears on June 15th (my search shows its absence before then), the day of the race. There's no significant coverage of her before then (see here). While the one event may have lead to more attention, she's also being covered for her hurdling. It can be argued that the one event lead to more attention but it's not the only thing she's covered for. You could call it the Kim-Kardashian-clause of WP:ONEEVENT. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the reference that we have found regarding her world record may be in err. Did she set a world record then subsiquentally not win the gold in that event? I understand this is possible given that she may have set the record in a hear then lost in the final but this may need more attention. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any error. The page says she broke the record in the in the 4x100m relay at the 2010 Australian Championships and also that she placed 1st in that same event at the 2010 Australian Championships. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She is so freaking hot. There must be some better way to spend your time than pursuing this deletion. Isn't there a reflist somewhere that needs formatting? <3 Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is rather useless for this discussion. "she is so freaking hot" isn't part of an inclusion guideline and WP:HARMLESS applies to the rest. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The wikipedia guys/gals who usually vote delete for stuff like this really need to get laid. In both senses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.21.179 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 83.43.21.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The nomination says "sexy athlete wiggling her hips" like it's a bad thing. It is still our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets coverage for her accomplishments, as well as the viral video. Plus hey, all viral videos are notable aren't they? Dream Focus 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The subject does not satisfy any of the criteria at WP:NTRACK. If it is considered that the viral video "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" then the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about point 7 as mentioned above? OlYeller21^Talktome 02:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point 7 refers specifically to "world junior records, world youth bests" so it is not clear that it extends to continental junior records. WWGB (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's somewhat vague and a matter of interpretation, but when you look at that record in combination with the silver olympic medal I think it's enough to meet notability requirements for athletics. Plus you have the viral video with worldwide media attention on top of that that also adds to her notability. You have to look at the totality of the situation here. I will also note that 6 other language Wikipedias also now have biography articles on her. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTRACK tells us plainly at the outset, "has competed in the Olympic Games". That article tells us that the Olympics consists of the Summer Olympic Games; Winter Olympic Games; Paralympic Games; and Youth Olympic Games. The subject has competed in the latter and so passes WP:NTRACK. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if she is considered an Olympian then she fails WP:NOLYMPICS. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does she fail that? It starts with "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". So she passes WP:NOLYMPICS Dream Focus 07:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She competed in none of those competitions. WWGB (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its run by the International Olympic Committee, in the same was as the regular Olympics. Same thing. Athletes from around the world compete, ample media attention, notable achievement, so no reason not to consider this notable enough to count in the same way as the regular Olympics. Dream Focus 07:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's your opinion, not what the guideline WP:NOLYMPICS states. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Youth_Olympics Dream Focus 07:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. JoeyRR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justification usually goes well with a !vote in discussion. Especially from an editor whose 57th and last edit was to this AfD, their first AfD. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Google news archive search shows that she has received coverage years before the viral video, for her athletic accomplishments, winning a silver medal in a notable sporting event, the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, etc. Dream Focus 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Rreagans arguments. No doubt for me that she passes the criterias needed for inclusion in Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HOTTIE. Seriously, she is so close on a couple of the WP:NTRACK requirements, the silver at the youth olympics plus a bronze at the nationals championships this year (results) coupled with the viral video thing, is enough for me. The-Pope (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Pending the consensus determining the notability of the Youth Olympics that Dream Focus started. If the track events are determined to not be notable enough to confer notability to this athelete, then the viral video is not enough to show any lasting notability of the individual. However, as I largely suspect the track events she medaled in will be determined to be notable, I am strongly leaning towards Keep. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HOTTIE, WP:NTRACK etc causa sui (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She doesn't fit prong 4 any of WP:NTRACK this guideline specifically requires a gold medal at the youth Olympics. The consensus from the NSPORTS community was that the Youth olympics have only occurred for a short period of time (once I think?) so we don't know how much coverage results from that competition. From some research we found that gold medals definitely lead to notable coverage but we were split on looser restrictions (likely after several youth olympics this requirement will be lessened to something like medalled, but for now its gold). I'm not sure prong 7 was meant to include relays, but as it is currently written she certainly passes it. However, thats not the reason I chose keep. She clearly has notable coverage that satisfies GNG for her hurdling, whether this resulted from her viral video is irrelevant, there is coverage of multiple hurdling events, so this does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT --MATThematical (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - WP:GNG trumps WP:NTRACK and given all the attention she has received lately from plenty of different reliable sources, she easily passes the notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. TonyStarks (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's an athlete with a notable track record as well as global name recognition. It's far too early to be calling for deletion. Kegill (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let Wikipedia grow with articles about everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.17.54 (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 2.150.17.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michelle Jenneke is a good athlete for Australia and very well could represent at upcoming olympic events, even without the recent fame the page is justified. Much lesser athletes have Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.145.243 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 121.223.145.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I heard about the viral video from my wife (a former athlete and dancer who likes the idea of a warmup being fun rather than robotic) and came to Wikipedia as my first source to find out about her. I suspect that many others have done / will do the same. She is - at least currently - a person of interest. I don't know about the "rules" for inclusion, but I think this article about her serves the public good (again, at least at this time). Seems to me a reasonable metric for continued inclusion would be how many people use Wikipedia to learn about her. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be averaging about 20,000 readers per day. That's quite high as the current featured article, giraffe, only gets about 4,000 readers per day. It's about the same level as Barack Obama or Lady Gaga which is as good as it gets. Warden (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never liked hit rate arguments under WP:IAR but that one is hard to ignore or argue with, in my opinion. Does anyone have a reason as to why that should be ignored? OlYeller21^Talktome 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a pretty retarded crowd-surfing argument? Sheer numbers of visitors do not establish notability, otherwise every yahoo on youtube would be article-worthy.

"Retarded crowd-surfing argument" - Looking past the unneeded vulgarity, I don't really know how to respond to that other than I have no idea what it meant but I assume you're not in favor of the argument. I completely agree that YouTube hits mean nothing here and have never agreed with a "hits" argument. I !voted keep because of reasons that reflect my interpretation of WP:NTRACK and that I believe that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here (see reasoning above). Outside of that argument, it seems we've found a grey area where we've filled a hole. People are looking for information and find it here, 20,000 times per day. It's fundamentally different than a WP:GHITS or WP:SUPPORT. I've never made an WP:IAR argument in an AfD but this seems like it's probably a case to do that but I may change my mind if someone brings a coherent argument to the discussion. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article makes another interesting contrast. That's another athlete, Nick Adenhart. That article only averages about 200 readers per day - just 1% of the article in question. Jimmy Wales' State of the Wiki address points the way, "emphasizing the need to "rexamine our priorities" and cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else." Warden (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being famous for being attractive in a viral video isn't sufficient for article inclusion...this is one of those times where you look beyond the bean-counting of sources and delve into what they are actually saying. This stuff happens all the time, and it brings to mind an embarrassing vote from my youthful and carefree self; to my shame, I voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination). This is no different than that, an article with thankfully did not go my way. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did she win any Youth Olympic medals or hold any continental records? Jenneke has competed at the highest levels of junior athletics and her athletic accomplishments alone are enough to make her notable. Stokke was merely a talented high school athlete who never competed at the world class level. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junior records are not on par with our notability guidelines. The only reason we're here is because a video of cute girl working out appeals to a nation of basement-dwelling heterosexual males, the stuff about minor awards is a weak and vain attempt to justify an article for what amounts to a youtube pinup girl. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better read point 7 of WP:NTRACK. It specifically states that world and continental junior records are a way to establish notability. Can we assume that the only reason you're here, citing your lack of knowledge of notability guidelines is that you don't like the video? I couldn't care if she's the sexiest woman alive or some sort of troll-human hybrid but you assumption is an assumption of bad faith, in my opinion. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lecture me on guidelines, kiddo. They are called GUIDElines for a reason; they are not mandatory and can be set aside if there is a compelling reason. In this case, the compelling reason is that 99% of this woman's notability stems from the aforementioned undersexed males dribbling over her perceived sexy video upload, and scraping up a single part of a single sub-notability guide to keep a viral video star is not what an encyclopedia should be in the business of doing. Her "fame", as it is, is squarely in WP:BLP1E territory, to which WP:NTRACK should be set aside. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument makes no sense. You are saying that you want to set aside the athletics guidelines that say she is notable because there has been another event that has happened that makes her even more notable. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, yes. Guidelines can be and are set aside if there are greater concerns, e.g. BLP1E trumps the general notability guide, where even though a person appears in multiple reliable sources, they aren't worthy of an article if the coverage is only for one event. Or the much-reviled WP:PORNBIO, where for the longest time the wording covered group scene awards. Many editors found this to be ridiculous and set it aside when holding AfDs. It is called "editorial discretion", something that needs to be more utilized around here. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddo, eh? Your counterargument wasn't that we should set our guidelines aside, you counterargument was that the argument was "not up to par" with our guidelines when that's very specifically not the case. Is it time to change your argument because you felt attacked? Now that your argument is that we should ignore a guildeline, why should we? Who's the "newbie" from your edit summary? I'm guessing it's not me. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Up and coming athlete with a good track record behind her already. It may well be worth reviewing the page again in the future if decides not to pursue her athletics career any further, but for now she's well known enough (in Australia at least) and has enough future potential to justify keeping the page. Russco (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reagan007 Pass a Method talk 16:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reagan007. 99.191.106.234 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~She will be notable per sports guidelines when she competes for Australia at the olympics.~~ She passes GNG. My bad. Missed the Olympics. --LauraHale (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a couple of sources to the article which are mostly about her and pre-date the controversy which demonstrate GNG beyond this one event. --LauraHale (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:GNG with flying colors and then some. Ridiculous AfD. (Just a note -- being attractive and garnering news coverage because of it is a reason for inclusion. If it wasn't, we wouldn't ever have articles on models or pornstars because, as the nom says, they "contain very little coverage of [name] as a person". Oh please.) IShadowed (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All of this information seems relevant on an up and coming world athlete. Already taking 5th in world jr sports she has proven herself to be a worthy wikipedia addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.249.38 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.182.249.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - worthy of inclusion on the basis of many news articles mentioning her etc Silent Billy (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. See below There are three possible arguments for keeping this article: the closeness to meeting the athletes guideline, the coverage of popular viral content, and the GNG. Taking them in turn, First. The athletics guideline is already so liberal that it would be the height of folly to stretch to further--it is disproportionate to the coverage of WP in almost all other fields. We have always interpreted the top levels as the top adult international levels, and essentially all articles based on the notability of Junior champions that have come here have been rejected. If we were to modify this, it would presumably include first the winner of international junior championships. She is not one of them: the international record is a 2nd place; only her national record has first place finishes. This is therefore not a good case for expanding the guideline. I note the use in some of the arguments as "up and coming" and its synonyms. We have always interpreted such phrases as meaning Not yet notable. WP is for those subject which have already become notable, not the immensely greater number who might be someday. We all might. Second our coverage of viral video sensations has been very restrained. I don't think the evidence shown the world wide coverage in major news publications that we have normally wanted. I am especially reluctant to accept viral videos as worth coverage because of their sexiness, as seems to be the basis here. Not that I do not appreciate sexy videos. But using this as a basis comes much too close to Tabloid--and, yes, to Hottie. It is with considerations like this we are most likely to stray--an encyclopedia is a work of reference judged by rational criteria, not by emotions. Even the most popular of emotions. Third It is articles like this which shows why we might as well abandon the GNG. Sure there are references, but the question is the nature of the references and whether they support encyclopedic content. Nobody would have thought of writing a article here on the athletics accomplishments alone, and the timing of the edit history shows that nobody did so. The references would not justify it--the ones prior to the video are all of them either incidental mentions or excessively local, where home town athletes are indiscriminately hyped. The video is not encyclopedic content unless substantial works have been written about it over time--the coverage fails WP:News and the multiple other criteria used to rule out the nonsense produced by thoughtless use of counting alone.

It's getting more common than it used to be to find me and Tarc on the same side of an AfD discussion. I think that's because we both share an interest in actual notability , not on reference counting. He normally interprets it much more narrowly than I do, but this is outside even my limits. And I had a similar experience to what he shares--In my first year here i did in fact depend articles like this--and I sometimes did defend them on reference counting alone. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't one of those junior football/soccer teams which no one takes seriously. This is the Youth Olympics run by the international Olympic committee. That is something. And winning 2nd place at an Olympic event is still notable. You shouldn't try to delete something because you don't like "sexy videos". Many people came to Wikipedia to find out information about this person, who gets ample news coverage. Michelle_Jenneke has been viewed 146,977 times in the last 30 days. Don't be a hater. Wikipedia covers all notable topics, not just thousand year old dead kings no one ever reads about. Dream Focus 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page views are the classic non-argument. there are many things fror which there will be page views that are irrelevant to an encyclopedia. We are not the entire web.

In support of the Youth Olympics, she had Australian coverage for that specifically dedicated to her, and her performance was mentioned in a Jamaican and a USA based news source. The sexy video part is a small component. Beyond that, timing of article creation is largely irrelevant. --LauraHale (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small component, in the article, but the major factor in about half the arguments here. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any one of the 3 arguments for keeping the article that DGG lists could be enough alone to justify keeping this article, but when all 3 are taken together the justification for keeping this article is overwhelming. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her athletics record as a Junior satisfies WP:NTRACK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint91 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see it almost like a trademark. Ozzie smith was famous for somersaulting onto the baseball field and jenneke now has several videos of her warmups going around. I think when you wonder about notability here just consider the worldwide affect and how many girls are going to start dancing in their own warmups or inspire other athletes to be more outgoing. Its no coincidence the US womens swim team just realized a video of themselves lip synching "call me maybe". I just think influence on her peers should
Keep, open and shut case, meets criteria #7 of WP:NTRACK and also clearly meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Undecided I've re-read the article and the discussion. I'm not as sure as I was that it represents an unwarranted extension of our practices for athletes. I continue to have strong doubts about the aspect of notability as an internet phenomenon. I continue to have strong doubts about the encyclopedic nature of the actual interest in the article. But it is not unreasonable that when even this sort of internet coverage has a basis in the real career of a person, that we cover that career, DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil. Meets NTRACK, meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For two reasons: 1) She is a legitimate world class athlete (silver medal at Junior Olympics) and 2) Why not? I was never before even aware items were brought up for wholesale deletion. Perhaps (probably) this is an argument for a different forum, but I just cannot see why any item would ever be deleted wholesale from the Wikipedia site. Is Wikipedia running out of server space? While editing (or even locking) an entry to ensure some semblance of accuracy is maintained is a regrettable necessity, why ever eliminate an entry completely? Just by the facts someone goes to the trouble to create it, others take the time to contribute to it, and (certainly in this case) a massive debate is created on the appropriateness of its inclusion, hasn't it justified its relevancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.210.179 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criteria #7 of WP:NTRACK states, "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body." She took first place in the 4x100m medley relay at the 2010 Australian Junior Championships, setting an Australian record. Depending on your definition of continent, that alone would satisfy the criteria. Even if that does not meet your definition, that is still holding a sports record in a large country. Now, I realize that criteria #4 of WP:NTRACK states, "Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships or Youth World Championships." However, she did win silver. That is still quite notable on its own, and combined with the previous comment, should probably be justification enough. And, as per Dream Focus, there does appear to be significant interest in her; we're here to provide the world with information. If that is the information they are seeking, should we not provide them with it? --~Scholarly Breeze~ 21:04, 29 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} 02:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In previous AFD, article was kept on basis of unverified claim this was mentioned in a major magazine (which, if true, even by itself would not justify an article) and some then new added sources, which, upon examination, fail WP:RS criteria. Article fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:GNG. There are not multiple, independent *reliable sources* covering this in a nontrivial way, which is required before having a Wikipedia article. AGS awards are not notable awards for determining notability. These awards are so trivial they aren't even mentioned on the Adventure Game Studio article. But this brings up another damning point: these aren't even individual games but essentially modules released for another piece of software, like a fan-created DOOM level. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC) DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

First, this is an independently developed, free game that now has posts from half a dozen different websites that review (primarily free) computer games. So, if articles can be posted on free games, then the references meet the criteria of WP:RS and WP:GNG.

Next, AGS Awards are now posted on the Adventure Game Studio article.

The only justification for removing this article can be is that these references are, thus far, insufficient.

The idea that the game qualifies as a mod is simply false. Adventure Game Studio is an game engine. Classifying Ben Jordan as a mod is comparable to stating that Half-Life 2 is a mod of Counter-Strike: Source because they use the same engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogliostro (talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — Cogliostro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 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, KTC (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article with no evidence of WP:GNG whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable game, fails all notability guidelines. References do not appear to be from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:02, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Thug[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSBIO, the group he allegedly "came to fame" with doesn't have a page either. Zujua (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Serious independent notability concerns here. Even if the subject's band was notable (which it does not appear to be) it would not automatically apply notability to one of its members. No assertion of WP:MUSICBIO expectations here at all, and sourced only by a spammy collection of primary external links. -- WikHead (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikHead. Minfo (talk) 12:15, 22 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} 23:49, 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, KTC (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Electric Catfish 16:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:MUSBIO per nom. IShadowed (talk) 09:30, 24 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} 02:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication Risks and Best Practice in Global Software Development[edit]

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

Previous Prod with rationale "No evidence that this book meets the notability guidelines.". Prod was removed by the article creator along with maintenance tags. The issues remain, so I'm bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the previous Prod. AllyD (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete completely non-notable book. Wikipedia is a not a self-promotion tool. Minfo (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nothing notable here whatsoever. MsFionnuala (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability neither in the article, nor off-site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, some sections stink of having been plagiarized directly from editor's notes of the book itself. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death Pact International[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable project from a non-notable band. The only reference I can find to this term on Google in any reliable source is a single page in a German book about Neonazism. The text isn't available on-line so it may not even be relevant. The article's references do not appear to be reliable sources, and the ones which can be verified are only passing references. Pburka (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 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, KTC (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Minfo (talk) 12:21, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey Wolves[edit]

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

Despite claims that this group pioneered the death industrial genre I can't find even passing references to the band in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 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, KTC (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I'm sure these guys had fun in the 80s, but by any metric, far from notable. Minfo (talk) 12:22, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arends[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for entertainers or for creative professionals, or the general notability guideline (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 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, KTC (talk) 10:24, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 11001–12000#201. Clear consensus; WP:SNOW/WP:NOTBURO/WP:OUTCOMES The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11277 Ballard[edit]

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

Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 11001–12000. This particular rock doesn't seem very notable but we have lots of asteroid material and so we should consider it as a whole rather than deleting individual fragments. See our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 11001–12000#201 per WP:NASTHELP. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Little information specific to this asteroid in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The article as-written doesn't meet WP:NASTRO, and its history says it's another bot-created stub from the events that prompted the creation of that guideline. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:43, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pasek[edit]

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

Recently created biography of an academic. Appears to be completely absent from google scholar and hard to find in normal google (including German language google). No evidence of in-depth coverage by independent sources found. Biographies in French and German wikipedias also lacking independent references. PROD silently removed by SPA creator of article. Given that he seems likely to speak classical greek, church latin and coptic, there's a small chance there are sources in those languages to support notability, but I have no idea how to find them. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the references are now sufficient to support the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilius Magnus (talk • contribs) 11:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete sources only support the fact that this guy is your run-of-the-mill university professor. Google provides nothing to disprove this. Minfo (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps even speedy A7 if somebody feels like it, no real evidence of notability given, publications and CV is not surprising for an academic seven years after Ph.D. Clearly fails WP:PROF. —Kusma (t·c) 19:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Curriculum vitae without any evidence of encyclopedic notability. Cavarrone (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. References are not verifiable.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, poor english language sourcing. If user has sources in other languages then perhaps the article should be moved to a language that can be properly sourced. Peppy Fazoo (talk) 00:49, 30 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} 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sicap[edit]

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

A B2B technology company. I've cleaned this stub up somewhat - it previously read like an advertisement - but am not yet convinced it's notable per WP:CORP; Google news results seem to be mostly adapted press releases or routine coverage of the odd acquisition. There are also indications that a principal contributor has been attempting to promote this company throughout Wikipedia; see WP:COIN#Sicap. Sandstein 09:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability. Also both WP:B2B and WP:NBIZ rationales apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability per WP:GNG. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG either. All I find is press releases which have been repeated in multiple languages: [39][40]. Google books returns sources which are for different usages of the word. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My Google searches turned up nothing substantial on this company except press releases. Fails all notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They may deliver innovative solutions, but I cannot deliver any reliable sources, so delete per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:10, 28 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 Alan Pizzarelli#Music albums. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voices from the Grave[edit]

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

Album appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Possibly it would be appropriate to merge with the Alan Pizzarelli article, but this seems doubtful as his notability derives from poetry rather than music. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alan Pizzarelli#Music albums. I found no significant coverage about this album. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 17 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, Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahnzeit[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page that does not serve to disambiguate anything. The lead is a dictionary definition, and the two entries don't have articles, nor do the links that they do have even mention Bahnzeit in the articles. Whpq (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an unimprovable dictionary definition, then the best outcome is usually a soft redirect to Wiktionary. (Wiktionary don't have an entry for Bahnzeit so we'd probably want to ask them if they want a transwiki; they might prefer to start from scratch.) Anyway, it's not a good idea to turn this into a redlink that encourages a new user to write an article, because of the risk that we'll be back at AfD again in a year's time saying the same thing; and besides, it's a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The dictionary definition aspect of it provides a definition for a German word so I don't see the utility of a soft redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does that follow, please?—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - My reasoning is that this is the English language Wikipedia, and so providing a dictionary definition of aa non-English word is not appropriate. English does borrow words liberally from other languages, and in those cases an entry on the English Wikipedia would be okay. But I don't see that "Bahnzeit" as a word is used much in English, and I note that there is no entry for it on the English wiktionary, or for that matter, the German one either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay... I would see the fact that there's no such entry as an argument in favour of the transwiki. The de.wiki culture is different from ours but it's not like them to omit a commonplace German colloquialism.
        I acknowledge that you've not encountered it in English, but the fact that it's obscure is what makes it a plausible search term: end-users might not understand it and might very well turn to Wikipedia for information. (I want to add that this is obscure but not totally unknown. The rules for neologisms or protologisms don't apply to words that have been around since before the 1920s.)—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm not familiar with the requirements for an entry on Wiktionary, and whether this would qualify. I'd support a soft redirect to Wikitionary if the entry existed there. -- 13:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable disambiguation page for a plausible search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of the target articles even mention "Bahnzeit" in the body so I don't see why directing readers there from a disambiguation page servers any useful purpose. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - That assumes that there is anything truly relevant to add to those target articles. -- Whpq (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could certainly mention that the staff magazine is actually called DB Welt nowadays. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily (((db-disambig))), we do not have an article on DB Welt or on the MDR's program. I (native German speaker) also have never heard the term used to refer to 24-hour clocks. The dewiki disambig page doesn't mention that, either. —Kusma (t·c) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 18:33, 20 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, Sandstein 08:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the English language version and we cover the topic in English at railway time. If we need links to equivalents in other languages, this can be done using the usual interlanguage links. Warden (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article has 3 meanings, not just "railway time". It was created to clarify the differences between all three (and any others that come up). I have linked it to railway time though. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but create DB Welt, the new name for the Bahnzeit magazine by Deutsche Bahn, the German national rail carrier, thus providing clear links for at least 2 of the 3 meanings Bermicourt (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If an article for DB Welt is created, Bahnzeit should redirect there. Until there is an article for more than two meanings, disambiguation is not necessary, and I don't see us creating an article on the MDR show soon. —Kusma (t·c) 07:16, 24 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} 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic flywheel[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable concept. Perhaps the book it came from was, but this certainly doesn't warrant it's own article. Mesoderm (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Good to Great which has got a lot of coverage (that cited and e.g.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]) but no evidence that this is a widely-used concept apart from the book. And the book article isn't so long it needs to be split. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GDP failed to forecast or forewarn the 2008 banking collapse. GDP looks at the economy as if it is static and only the BIG contributors considered in GDP matter. Economic Flywheel notices that large contributions from the GDP components can have big effects, but many contributions from tiny labor efforts, not measured by GDP, can add, and their absence, can detract from economic health. A significant retooling of economic metrics is required to survive the Peak Oil economic realities. Life requires energy, less affordable energy, less life. Economic Flywheel illustrates this fact. GDP also fails to note that Government Debt can both contribute to GDP with output and drag by the need to service and repay that debt. --BillJamesMN

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another Non-Notable Neologism. I'd suggest a merge, but this seems promotional in intent and a bit of a POV push as well. I haven't checked out the copyright status of that graphic, but dollars to donuts that license is defective as well. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speaking as a doofus with a degree in Economics, that graphic is, at best, original research and POV horsepuckey. It's very pretty, but the content is gibberish. The explanation of what is shown on the rights page has nothing to do with the content whatsoever. If this piece is kept, that graphic needs to be hauled straight to MfD. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more: zero footnotes showing; this entire piece is Original Research as nearly as I can tell. Written in the form of an original essay. Delete is right, merge is wrong; if the concept relates to the book in question, that piece should be developed appropriately through the normal editorial process, which includes footnoting the source, including page numbers. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the graphic contained in this piece for deletion. The debate appears at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_July_23. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite: both the article and the graphic, both of which are standing right on the line of copyright violation. Even if somebody added sources, I am not sure that this neologism is yet notable. I also agree that it is little more than a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 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. The consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sourcing to demonstrate that this martial art meets the notability guidelines. Incidentally, no one has said that the martial art does not exist, merely that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwan Ki Do[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art with no references and no attempt to demonstrate uniqueness Peter Rehse (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly could use improvement, but this is a legitimate martial art with notable and unique characteristics. Minfo (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is written like an advertisement, but nonetheless, the article does not include any reliable sources. A quick Google search indicates mostly Facebook and YouTube results. -- Luke (Talk) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources--even the organization's home page is under construction. My search found no independent sources to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep article does seem like n advertisement, however it is a real martial art. The page needs to be restructured Mizziman (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically an unsourced article that gives no indication of notability. To those who voted keep because it exists, mere existence does not show WP notability, especially with no reliable sources. Mdtemp (talk) 15:00, 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 merge/redirect. I am boldly closing a discussion that has been rendered moot. With the uncontroversial merge and redirect of the premature stub article to the parent topic where it may be discussed in context, there is really no film article left and no reason for an AFD on the film article to continue.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divergent (film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. No principle photography has begun. Should be a Redirect to Divergent (novel) until such time as it meets notability standards. Sidenote, creator submitted to AfC process, then apparently reviewed it himself and moved to article space (not that this is against policy, but as an explanatory note). GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see article creator's comments at Talk:Divergent (film), he/she supports deletion until film can meet notability standards. GregJackP Boomer! 05:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Divergent_(novel)#Adaptation. It's a given that the movie adaptation will inevitably be notable, but at this point in time it hasn't started filming and doesn't meet the standards of WP:NFF. (That even if the movie looks like it'll be notable, there's no such thing as a "sure thing" in the movie world and until filming begins, the movie shouldn't have its own article.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original article creator supports this, I'm going to boldly redirect the article to the film page- no need for a long and drawn out AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:08, 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. The consensus is that the sourcing is sufficient to meet the notability requirements. The lack of detail in the sole delete is not sufficient to warrant ignoring the mention that the Portland Business Journal is a reliable source PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Luck[edit]

Keep: In addition to her various awards, Luck is a regular speaker at industry conferences, workshops, and events. Luck is widely respected and recognized among her peers, and is considered an expert in her field of online survey techniques. She continues to push innovation in the industry around mobile platforms.

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

This is a tricky one - I'm nominating this ideally for a second opinion more than anything. The article subject has been in contact with the OTRS team and does not wish for this to be deleted, but after some time working on improving the article I have come to the conclusion that Luck simply isn't a notable enough person to warrant an article. There are plenty sources but all seem to mention her only in passing, and she is president of a company that does not have its own article on Wikipedia. — foxj 03:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Portland Business Journal source is what one could consider a reliable business source. Perhaps this stub of an article should suffice since the sources are legitimate. But perhaps other contributors have other opinions. --Artene50 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability guidelines. Minfo (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia guidelines biographies must have the following characteristics: "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE It is clear from the article that Luck has 1. been nominated and received several awards and honors and 2. has contributed to the historical record in her field both by being a leader in market research (long-standing articles in journals and other publications) and founding an important group for women in the industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Luck#cite_ref-1
To address the comment above "she is president of a company that does not have its own article on Wikipedia" it is not mainly her presidency of the company that is of note. It is the other activities mentioned in the article. --Mariefayandre (talk) 20:03, 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 merge to Young Guard (Soviet resistance). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of the Young Guard (Soviet resistance)[edit]

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

Not much actual content, no refs - maybe this should be mentioned in Young Guard (Soviet resistance) rather than having its own article? Also, unsourced Russian text, and unsourced translation. INeverCry 02:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young Guard (Soviet resistance), omitting the Russian text. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article cites no reliable sources and there is no significant coverage, that I can find, that warrants the subject passing WP:GNG. Even if merged the content would be subject to WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xwoaf[edit]

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

speedy declined, PROD removed, WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even though it has lots of results on google doesn't mean it is encyclopedic, after all, many of them might just be mirrors of other sites. --'The'ChampionMan1234 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no usable sources online and the LWN.net's note in the article's references is too short. Common sense tells me that if this distribution saw two releases, no mention in specialized media and is discontinued long ago, it was never notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this, so i would vote to keep it, but I think this needs a page, so its not forgotten. A graphical OS running from 1 floppy is pretty amazing. Theres no reason to delete it, just leave it. --Francis2795 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you attempt to claim historical significance this way? Even if this claim made sense, prior art exists: MinuetOS (this is the first floppy-based graphical OS that came to mind, though I'm pretty sure that much more prior art exist from the earlier periods). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined to speedily delete this because A7 doesn't apply to operating systems, but I don't see any sources which indicate notability. There aren't many Google hits, what hits there are are mostly download sites and forums, and in the case of software it's unlikely there are any offline sources. Hut 8.5 12:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete Much as it seems a pretty cool technical feat (although practically useless: can't remember the last PC I saw with a floppy drive), I can't find any reliable sources per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:09, 28 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 (nomination withdrawn). With the creation of an article on the entire series, I agree that redirecting is a better route. I thank Tokyogirl79 for creating that article. CtP (t • c) 02:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Brute Force (novel)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Google Books searches time-restriced to the existence of the boook do not turn up significant coverage but rather a slew of McNab books with some likely false positives thrown in (see [50]). A Google News archives search only turns up this article, which does not contain significant coverage which would satisfy the general notability guideline. (When searching, I used the search term "brute force" "andy mcnab".) CtP (t • c) 01:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Nick Stone Missions (series). The author's site has blurbs from various reviews for the book, two of which are in publications that would be considered reliable sources. (The Daily Express is a tabloid, so it's sort of dubious as a source. The Good Book one seems to also sell books, which makes their review somewhat dubious, assuming I'm looking at the right site.) However, I can't actually find any of the actual articles for any of these reviews so I'm unable to actually verify if the quotes are taken out of context or if they accurately portray the whole gist of the review. A redirect to the author's page would be a good idea and I actively recommend creating a page for the series as a whole with all of the novel titles redirecting to said series page. Nine times out of ten, most entries in any series (long running or not) don't merit their own articles while an article for the series as a whole would. The reason for this is that the longer the series is, the fewer reviews the books get in the long run and the harder in general it is to find sources. If someone can verify the sources I'm willing to change my vote, but right now I'm leaning towards a redirect to the author's article until the creation of a larger article for the series as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Agreed with most of Tokyogirl79. I think a page for the series as a whole would be a great addition to Wiki and the best route to take for this specific article. Gamble2Win (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. For the reasons stated above. INeverCry 19:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've created a page for the Nick Stone series as a whole. While the page could certainly use more fleshing out and more sources (what page can't?), it seems to pass WP:NBOOK due to the amount of reviews and coverage- especially of the semi-kerfuffle surrounding Crisis Four. I'm going to go ahead and redirect the other book pages to the Nick Stone article, as none of the individual books seem to have enough coverage to merit an individual article to themselves.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. Crossover[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While this game has received media coverage, it fails all of the notability guidelines. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No rationale is given as to why the unanimous consensus reached in the previous AfD is not valid anymore; also no specific reason given in nomimator as to what would make this non-notable or what notability guideline it fails, nor how it fails them. The game has received significant coverage in independant, reliable sources and the urrent referencing in the article more than appropriately reflects that. "Notability guidelines" are all about "media coverage"; the nomination's statement makes as much sense as saying "This small landmass is completely surrounded by water, however it is clearly not an island." Salvidrim! 00:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salvidrim. Sources already present in the article show that it meets the general notability guideline. Sure, there aren't any 10-page analyses of the game present, but it has received adequate coverage nonetheless. CtP (t • c) 00:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Don't judge an article by its short description. Sure, "Flash-based Mario game on Newgrounds" doesn't sound notable, but sourcing for this one clearly proves otherwise. --BDD (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salvidrim and BDD. May not sound notable, but has third-party sources. Zappa O Mati 03:25, 22 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) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passes WP: GNG as thereare ample reliable, 3rd party sources listed. Electric Catfish 16:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Six reliable sources listed, and no real rationale give for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep More than enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per having the WP:RS's to meet the WP:GNG, nominator failed to check WP:BEFORE, lack of real nomination rationale, WP:SNOW, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 24 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut butter, and jelly[edit]

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

Non-notable, but furthermore, there's nothing on the page worth saving. It consists entirely of the lyrics to the song (see WP:WHIM) and information on its origin which proves that it is a copyright violation (originated on Barney, written by a person too young for the song to be in the public domain). The article is about half of a hair away from meeting CSD criterion G12 if you're stringent in following CSD criteria; I probably could have gotten it deleted with G12, but I'm sending it here just in case. The infringing content has since been erased from the history, but notability is still an issue.

As if that's not enough, the song is simply not notable. My searches (admittedly a bit restrictive, but that's to prevent a colossal slog false positives) turn up nothing that would satisfy the general notability guideline (see [51], [52]). CtP (t • c) 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is completely unsourced, and I haven't found any good sources either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Echoing what others have said re: sources. It's on the Barney Wiki; folks can find it there. :) MsFionnuala (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even sure why this isn't csd Old Al (Talk) 02:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have used CSD--delete per nom. Gamble2Win (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a new article but sadly it doesn't appear notable. --Artene50 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I would CSD tag this as an A7. Also, it fails WP: MUSIC. The fact that the song has once appeared on "Barney" is not a claim of notability. Electric Catfish 16:26, 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.