< 27 July	29 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played comic book characters[edit]

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

Also nominated

List of actors who have played video game characters
List of actors who have played animated characters

Completely unsourced. Even if it was sourced, it is too broad of a list, and it will be too long and is simply trivia. JDDJS (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every movie or TV show has an article which should establish the comic book origin and the cast. I don't see a reason in WP policy why we shouldn't have this list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lists are useful and I don't agree that the criteria are too broad. Nom claims that the list will be too long; however currently the list isn't too long, and if it becomes so in the future then it could be split. The claim that it is trivia sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As far as sourcing goes, most of the entries in the list link to WP articles that do have sources. I don't see the need to duplicate all of these sources in the list article itself. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being too long is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and the other two "Lists of actors who have played...". This is the very definition of WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." We could have "lists of actors who have played..." for all kinds of things -- characters of particular ethnicities, religions, abilities/disabilities, geographic locations, habits, collections, types of houses, professions, politics, philosophical bents, heights, hair colors ... origins in short stories, 19th century novels, musings of drunkards, and so forth. To have a list we should have some reason for the list, some uniformity of subject and some reason that this list should exist. The statement by User:CodeTheorist that "[t]he lists are useful" is simply an assertion without any explanation or supporting rationale. Are they useful? If so to whom and how? This is not going to be a subject of academic inquiry. No high schooler is going to write a report and need Wikipedia to cover this topic. Who would use it? Ah, players of Trivial Pursuit ... hence, WP:TRIVIA. --Lquilter (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list is useful to anyone who is interested in both comic books and films (which is probably quite a large number of people). WP:TRIVIA doesn't apply because the list is selective rather than a random collection of unconnected facts: "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia"; the selection criteria are clear and unambiguous. Wikipedia isn't just for academics, it is permitted to write articles on popular culture. I couldn't find anything in the notability or list guidelines that would disallow this list, but if you can find something then please add a comment and I'll change my !vote. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals to minor points: (1) The list is certainly not useful to anyone interested in both comic books & films, e.g., me -- reading comics since I was 10 (that's several decades now) and a fan of comics-in-film. (2) We have plenty of pop culture articles (and indeed plenty of academic studies on pop culture), and I'm not suggesting they're inappropriate as a category, so let's not try to impugn the argument with reverse snobbery or implications of academic elitism.
More substantively, (1) You say the list is "selective rather than a random collection of unconnected facts". The facts are not of course a random collection of unconnected facts -- there is a list theme and I'm not denying it -- but there is nothing in the list that says it is "selectively populated"; the title suggests comprehensive inclusion, and there's no particular guidance as to how to populate the list -- i.e., "award-winning" or "most popular" or "most cited" or "best-selling".
And (2) you have still failed to explain why this particular topic, "actors who have played comic book characters", is relevant rather than, say, "actors who have played musicians", "actors who have played historical figures", "actors who have played ...". Actors by type of role opens up a very, very broad -- I should say infinite -- number of possible lists. Why, then, should we have this particular list? Is it generally defining to those actors? (No -- occasionally, i.e., Christopher Reeve as Superman -- but not generally.) So what is the reason? Please have something more than "it's useful", because every piece of information can be hypothetically useful. If you can demonstrate actual uses -- as in references to this or similar lists in news and scholarship, suggesting that it's a real topic -- then we can get somewhere. --Lquilter (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I refer folks to Category:Lists of actors by role, which is currently populated with 14 lists. Five of them cover very specific characters (James Bond, Santa Claus, Elvis Presley, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes); two very specific groups of characters (US presidents, X-Men). Two cover guest stars on TV shows. Two cover special types of acting situations -- multiple roles in the same film or TV series. Then we have the three nominated for deletion here -- actors who have played animated characters, comic book characters, or video game characters. I submit that these are precedential for a new type of actors-by-role lists: actors by source of role. If we go with this precedent, we can have "actors who played short story characters", "actors who played anime characters", "actors who played novel characters", "actors who played radio telenovella characters", "actors who played vaudeville characters", "actors who played shakespearean roles", "actors who played biblical characters", "actors who played religious text characters", "actors who played theatrical characters", etc., etc. There is no limiting factor here besides individual user's interest -- again, the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Because I can sit at home and in my idle time make lots and lots of lists -- it's what fans do. But it has to be more than of fannish interest to be of encyclopedic interest. --Lquilter (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexed: perhaps categories would make more sense in this types of cases. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the standard for creating categories is, if anything, higher than the standard to be met for noting something in an article or including in a list. Inclusion in an article requires a reliable source, NPOV, some significance to the subject. Creation of a category and inclusion of something within that category requires the category to be notably defining -- e.g., we all have millions of attributes and facts that are true, but Wikipedia only categorizes based on a select few attributes and facts: those that are notable and defining. Inclusion within a list is the lowest standard -- it only requires reliable sourcing -- but to actually create the list, the list itself must be notable. Indeed, this is the kind of attribute that would be better handled in a list than a category -- if the list were notable. But that's what I'm arguing here: That this list is not notable. --Lquilter (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all 3 and make categories also. It is almost always the case that when either a list or category is justified, so is the other--they play complementary roles (Though in these cases, the lists would be more useful because they can include additional information, such as the name and link to the character, and the name of the film or play.) The only real difference is that categories often get deleted because very few people pay attention to CfD. The limiting factor, as always , is the limitation to notable subjects. In this case, of notable actors -- and notable comic book characters, or at least major characters in notable comic books (and analogously for video games & animations). This makes it non-trivial and not indiscriminate--no group limited to those who are notable is indiscriminate , and the intersection of two notable groups is certainly non-trivial. I note Lquilter's suggestions, and propose that someone interested and patient enough make the other corresponding lists and categories. As I explained, of the two, the lists would be the more useful, but making the categories is easier. That one can sit at home and make many interesting and useful lists as navigational devices shows not that doing so is worthless, but rather that Wikipedia is in need of more such. The criteria for navigational devices includes usefulness. (But I think with a little effort we could find books & articles discussing these groups specifically) DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, are we seriously going to start categorizing actors by the kinds of roles they have played? You do realize that this will set a precedent that will create an infinity of categories ... --Lquilter (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion by SarahStierch as unambiguous advertising or promotion. (Non-admin closure)

NBA 2K (history)[edit]

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

Contested PROD (see [1]). I repeat the reasons behind the PROD: Redundant to the NBA 2K (series) article, but with original research included, namely the "Notable gamers" section. Moreover, the creator of the article is writing about himself in a rather self-promotional tone. I don't see anything relevant that can go into the NBA 2K (series) article here. --MuZemike 21:52, 28 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) --MuZemike 21:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it for the porpose of linking it to NBA 2K (series) in the history section. I havent finished working on it yet, as I created it yesterday. And Im not writing about myself. User:Jay Starz (UTC)

The user is the same person in that section, as seen in an earlier version of his userpage here; he removed it after that was discovered. --MuZemike 22:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm amazed that this even got as far as an Afd. The entire article is an eyesore. The article's Notable Gamers section is A) Not cited and B) Presents only opinions C) Is highly in favor of one party. In that way it is unambigous advertising and can be marked with CSD G11. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it does not appear that this will be kept baring a significant rewrite the name should be changed to something like History of the NB 2K series if it is kept in the end.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. No references worth a second look (or a first look in the case of the Facebook link...). Promotional material present. Peridon (talk) 11:02, 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 redirect to Political decoy#Joseph Stalin/"Rashid"/Felix Dadaev (1940s–50s). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Dadaev[edit]

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

Most likely, a hoax (the guy iis fifty years younger, than Stalin); even if not a hoax, not notable. Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in 2008, Felix Dadaev was 88, Stalin would have been 129, so its 41 years different. This does not rule him out as a double.

BernardZ (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being Stalin's body double does not seem to make the subject notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political decoy#Joseph Stalin/"Rashid"/Felix Dadaev (1940s–50s) where he is already covered. I see no lasting coverage about him, all of the news coverage that go into any detail come from April 2008, to me this adds up to a passing news story, and per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the article should not remain stand-alone. I see no evidence of a hoax, and as RSs have reported this as fact, we must assume that they have checked their facts. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would say being Stalin's body double would make the person very notable and maybe something happened to him that would make him more so.

BernardZ (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Quasihuman. There's nothing in the current article that's not in the proposed redirect target, and there's plenty of space in the target should any more information about Dadaev turn up. The subject is notable, obviously, so it's a plausible search term, and thus a good redirect candidate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 370[edit]

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

Road that doesn't demonstrate notability. All references are to maps, and two-thirds of the references are to the Pennsylvania Department of Highway, a self-published source that doesn't demonstrate notability. Breaking down the notability guideline as it pertains to this article:

"Significant coverage": Doing a Google search, a Google book search, and a Google news search yields no significant results.

"Reliable": Not a problem.

"Sources": No secondary sources are provided in the article. All sources are either ~~primary~~ all maps (Yahoo/Bing maps) or ~~self-published~~ by the Pennsylvania Department of Highways. This also makes me wonder if the article is partially or fully original research based on the maps. Albacore (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. State-level routes are considered notable as part of Wikipedia's pillar as a gazzeteer. Also, "Original research based on the maps" is a contradiction; Yahoo! Maps and Bing Maps are secondary sources, not primary; and PDOT is a primary source, not a self-published source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep - State highways are notable per WP:USRD/NT and WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Dough 48 72 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikiproject essay doesn't make the article notable, a policy does, and "Past precedent" on other roads doesn't effect this particular case. There's no policy. Albacore (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ROADOUTCOMES and WP:USRD/P and WP:USRD/NT, if you want past precedent. Also per The Bushranger on sources. --Rs chen 7754 00:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikiproject essay doesn't make the article notable, a policy does, and "Past precedent" on other roads doesn't effect this particular case. There's no policy. Albacore (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't throw past consensus out the window and reinvent the wheel each time. --Rs chen 7754 00:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Bushranger with a correction: PennDOT is a first-hand source, not a primary one. All maps are secondary sources, regardless of their creators. The primary source is GIS data and aerial/satellite photography. See Wikipedia:Party and person for an explanation of the difference between first-/third-party sources and primary/secondary/tertiary sources. Imzadi 1979 → 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article passes based on WP:ROADOUTCOMES and WP:USRD/P and WP:USRD/NT. Source rationale in nomination misunderstands how sources are used. --LauraHale (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikiproject essay doesn't make the article notable, a policy does, and "Past precedent" on other roads doesn't effect this particular case. There's no policy. Albacore (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS, however, is relevant, as are the Five Pillars, among which the fact that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia but also a gazzeteer can be found. Also I really wish the "it's just an essay" thing would go away. WP:ATA is "just an essay" but nobody ever says that about it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is WP:BRD. --Rs chen 7754 00:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So can anyone show me how this actually passes WP:N? Albacore (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state highway systems are all notable. For Michigan, there's Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, for Pennsylvania there's currently List of numbered highways in Pennsylvania, and nationally there is Interstate Highway System and United States Numbered Highway System. To provide systematic coverage of the level required of a gazetteer, sub articles are needed per WP:SIZE. So the highway system gets sublists that have tables listing all of the state highways in a state. To continue the necessary systematic coverage needed, each highway gets its own article, again per WP:SIZE. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. One of the functions of a gazetteer is to included significant roads; roads designated state highways are significant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As the main writer of this article, I've made my WP:POINT. (Closing admin can ignore this if they want. I need to vent.) Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 01:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And thus another good contributor gets run off the project by the nabobs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently. --Rs chen 7754 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This delete vote makes no sense. Dough 48 72 01:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep As wikipedia does cover roads (I challenge the nominator to debate this point, but would prefer they did not), one of the most, the not THE most substantial indicators of a "notable road" is the selection of that road by a provincial or state government for inclusion in their numbered road network. These roads are given more funding, have higher design standards and traffic is funnelled towards them as they are almost always the most significant/major roads in the areas they travel through. They are the roads tourists are directed along. This precedent has been well established through years of AfDs that have all resulted in a kept article, hence why editors have chosen to write an essay about it. Neither an essay NOR a policy makes an article notable; notability makes a topic worthy of coverage, and that essay describes why roads of this nature are notable. Can this be closed now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the personal attack I would like to hear from someone not affiliated with the US roads Wikiproject. Albacore (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attack? Can you please substantiate that allegation or strike it? My affiliation (I do not edit US Road articles, FYI) is irrelevant, and you are dodging my arguments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As wikipedia does cover roads (I challenge the nominator to debate this point, but would prefer they did not) [2] If you can explain to me how an article with 0 written references is notable be my guest. Albacore (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... that's a personal attack how? Can you provide a single policy, guideline, or (I'll even stretch it this far) essay that gives any indication that we require written references for a topic to be notable? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I guess it's not a personal attack, just some unnecessary comments. My view is that just because you are in a broad list of something (i.e a map) you are not inherently notable because you are on that map, and based on that I view the article to be unnotable since there are no written references outside of maps. Albacore (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we have a pillar that says we are a gazetteer too. "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important reference for information about places and place names (see: toponymy), used in conjunction with a map or a full atlas. It typically contains information concerning the geographical makeup of a country, region, or continent as well as the social statistics and physical features, such as mountains, waterways, or roads." (Emphasis mine.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. If you buy a book about Pennsylvania, it will show this route. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. WP:SPS says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article... and there is unquestionably no entity on the planet that could be more of an expert on the topic of PA 370 than the agency that built it. When you take that snippet of policy in hand, this AFD doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nominator should be advised to consider researching prior outcomes of past AFDs before nominating to avoid nominating articles from a group that has been generally accepted by the community as acceptable for inclusion. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Articles about numbered state highways work as a collection, to provide complete encyclopedic coverage of the highway system. Long precedent establishes that we keep these articles. It does no good for anyone to create holes in the coverage or to start arguing road by road about their notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the nominator's arguments are based on incorrect premises regarding Wikipedia's guidelines on sources. V C 17:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. No particular indication of why this road is important or special. All the maps prove is that it exists. There seem to be a lot of other road articles on here, maybe they're all notable, maybe they aren't. Who knows. It would be beneficial for a non-enthusiast to run a Pokemon test on them all. Are those shouting "speedy keep" assuming the nomination was in bad faith? --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability comes from sources, per WP:GNG. Plenty of sources have been given above. Your argument seems to boil down to preference and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Rs chen 7754 18:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So can you, in less than three sentences, tell me why this road is important and special? --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it is a state highway, and state highways are considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia (see above). --Rs chen 7754 18:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The essay you refer to (WP:ROADOUTCOMES) states "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." But I can't see anything beyond a description of the route and its history in the article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Take a look at WP:USRD/P, a list of past AFDs on state highways. It is the longstanding consensus of the community that state highways are kept on the English Wikipedia, for as long as I have edited here (over seven years). --Rs chen 7754 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Alas, history = more than description of route. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also they're kept per the five pillars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, fair enough. That's the answer I was looking for. Just remember consensus can change, and FWIW I've been editing Wikipedia for two years longer than Rschen (albeit some of it as an IP) and been running internet stuff for getting on for 20 years, not that means anything. Now, let's all go look at some pictures of kittens. Aaaaah. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Bing, this road exists. So, wikipedia should keep it since its verifiable. --Artene50 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid keep reason, just because it exists doesn't make it notable. Albacore (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Features of the landscape, such as towns, schools, landforms and roads have long been held to be notable just simply by their existence. The truth of the matter is there is not available much secondary material on these types of things, but yet the community holds them important. This AfD seems like a vendetta being spearheaded by one individual. The presence of a different standard for inclusion for one type of article isn't some perverse sort of bad-willed discrimination. Patrol new articles for a while and see how many articles get put up and speedy deleted pertaining to bands that have never played a gig or some weird idea that maybe five people have shared. Things like these are totally non-notable, because no-one beyond the bands' mothers or the five people that shared the idea give a damn. But a road, even though it doesn't get coverage in the media, remains important. The fact that the state has recognized a particular stretch of pavement and noted that recognition by the placement of signs and the appropriation of funds for maintenance should be enough for notability. I wouldn't expect the community to find notability in Luce County Highway 432 (Michigan), because it is little more than a two track that starts in the middle of nowhere and leads even further into nowhere. But I do not think it is asking too much to simply live with the existing standard that "Existence=Notability" for state highways and other features of the landscape. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a vendetta, merely someone questioning whether the status quo is still correct. Remember that in 2006, everyone thought all Pokemon were notable enough to have their own article. I get twitchy when people say "it's such-and-such because that's been the way we've always done things". --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:50, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Johansen[edit]

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

The article about this Norwegian footballer, Eirik Holmen Johansen was previously deleted as a PROD, and the concern was that he fails both the general notability guideline and the football specific guideline as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. These concerns are still valid Mentoz86 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Player for Manchester City, Premier League winners 2012. Also in the Norway Olympic squad. - this is Notability. Atban3000 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in the youth ranks of a Premier League-wining side does not confer notability. And what Norway Olympic squad? Not football since Norway aren't fielding a football team at the Olympics. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - Holmen Johansen have played for the Norwegian under-21 team who failed to qualify for the Olympics. That doesn't confer notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I read the sources he plays for the Premier League squad, not the youth squad. __meco (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He recently signed a new contract with Manchester City and played in a pre-season friendly, but these do not indicate notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or at the senior level for the Norwegian national team. He has not received significant coverage. As such, this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reading the comments from people who want to delete this article, it occurs to me that the notability threshold seems to be perceived significantly more restrictively for a football player than it would have for any other bio, sports bios included, that I can remember having seen at AfD. Johansen has had two regular articles about him only in two of Norway's biggest newspapers. By that alone he should qualify per WP:GNG notwithstanding any topic-specific notability requirements. __meco (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two articles listed, one is a transfer news piece, the other a match report, which are both usually regarded as routine coverage, regardless of their publisher. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be quickly restored if he ever plays for Man City. Number 5 7 08:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with easy restore if play occurs, too many times players with be signed and never play matches and never see a game. While I tend to err on caution, GNG is not met yet and notability is not either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be restored in the future when he gains more notability. —Hahc 21 15:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of parties inspired by Project X[edit]

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

Non notable subject. User continues to push it while concealing their own agenda for this "Project OBX" thing, such that the article has a subsection purely for it. It is an unnotable subject about matters barely notable in the parent article, but user refuses to discuss or reason. Needs deleting not only because it is inappropriate but to prevent misuse. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It surley is notable as the events appear on the news and cause lots of damage and arrests, even death.--71.80.53.52 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not notable in its own right, inappropriate and adequately covered at the parent article. And yes, there are agenda issues also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textual portion is duplicated from Project X (2012 film). Table doesn't have references, and some of it is obviously non-notable, so it's unclear if any of it should be saved. No reason for this to exist as a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. What's this about the Arab Spring? --BDD (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. The (now) redirect ProjectOBX should probably also be removed, as it was dubiously created at the same time. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepThis is carazy that this article is even being considered for deletion, obviously meets all or most requirements, especially notability.--71.87.155.30 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — 71.87.155.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Look under Project X's Legacy section, no need for merge. This article has 'example' and TBA/TBD for entries as if Wikipedia is a social relay of future plans for these parties. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subedar Gird Ali[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines being a junior ranking army officer was not awarded his country's top military honours. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer, no decorations for gallantry, no apparent reason he is any more notable than many millions of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Simply serving in an Army isn't enough for a Wikipedia page. Vincelord (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to lack "signficant" coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to lack enough sources to showcase notability, so failing GNG. —Hahc 21 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Sourcing may be due to age alone, but the notability is more pressing. Having made 2 million of X medals and giving out one to every participant in conflict is not distinguished service for Wikipedia inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Epino[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE guidelines. A gnews search turns up nothing except for his Twitter feed. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Nothing but his twitter feed"??? Somebody's gogle-foo is broken. Easy enough to find that PBS tells us Epino was co-founder of the National Film Society (needs an article itself) while sharing that with release of his first feature film he was tagged by The Independent as one of its "10 Filmmakers to Watch".[3] and Independent Exposure gives us more background on the man. IFP's Filmmaker Magazine discusses his film Mr. Sadman and gives us more about Epino himself. Asians in Film sought him out for a in-depth interview. As did the Filipino-American Fil-Am Ako "Nothing but his twitter feed"??? G-news finds he or his works discussed in Asian Journal Eugene Weekly Indie Wire Variety and Channel APA Is he as all time notable as Steven Spielberg or John Huston? No. Do he and his works have enough coverage to meet WP:ENT and WP:GNG? Yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these links MICHAEL Q, they have been incorporated accordingly. I second the notion for this article to be KEPT. Much more than just his Twitter feed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.38.205 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get this resolved and remove this box from the Patrick Epino wiki page? I think its pretty unanimous that this entry be KEPT. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.40.1 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the three opinions for keep, it being relisted below means this discussion will run another 7 days from June 28th. When the discussion is finally closed, the tag comes off. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:45, 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 speedy delete. Played for the United States women's national soccer team at the tender age of 13? Speedied as a hoax. Favonian (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Harper[edit]

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

Amateur youth women's footballer who plays for an amateur team. Has made appearances (purportedly) for the US nation women's team and so passes WP:FOOTYN, but I can't find any sources to actually verify any of the content, and so fails WP:GNG, which is paramount. Just for extra spice, the article is full of WP:OR and is clearly being written by the subject based on her own experience. I attempted to BLP PROD the article but the author kept removing it (without adding a source) and I'm not going to resort to edit warring to keep the notice there. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, and while notability is asserted it is not supported by third-party sources. WP:OR is also a significant consideration, as nominating editor states.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Boxing Hall of Fame (2008)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominated Page moved; this nomination adjusted accordingly.

Subject does not appear to be notable. There are two organizations claiming to be British Boxing Hall of Fame, neither of which appear to meet the WP:ORG Notability guidelines. News searches turn up a few hits, but few of those refer to either organization, and the one or two that does is a passing reference, and it is unclear which they refer to. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I reviewed the article as a result of this comment at helpdesk, but I don't think that the grounds mentioned there justify deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not encyclopedic, completely unverifiable. hajat vrc @ 18:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I understand a hall of fame to be a building with exhibits, but there is none. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - I am also not so sure that Trademark infringement is not cause for Speedy Delete for the same reason that copyright infringement would be. I have also included the following article because of the close connection between the two. If the first one goes the other logically should follow.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Festival of Boxing was tagged by PRehse, pointed at this AfD and the above ((la)) template was added, so I guess the closer should consider it as bundled to this nomination. Bundled nominations can be missed by the closer, especially if they aren't on the top, so I wanted to make it a bit more visible that it was here. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both, non-notable per the above. ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The festival has not yet been held WP:Crystalball.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable therefore not applicable to be on an encyclopedia. If a good amount of verifiable information is supplied, decision may change. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the non-notable wp:ORG and it's upcoming boxing card. Note also possible COI diff 94.195.187.69 (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is a reference to the British Boxing Hall of Fame from a reliable source but its only an indirect one. Organization seems to lack notability in general. --Artene50 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article links to the valid domain of the British Boxing Hall Of Fame [4]. It is also recognized by over 30 ambassadors from British and world Boxing whom have held both British and World titles, of which links to some are included in the article. Please note that some of these Ambassadors are also inducted into the International Boxing Hall Of Fame IBHOF. Also see article [5] which refers to both the British Boxing Hall Of Fame and the Festival Of Boxing. The British Boxing Hall Of Fame also does exhibit memorabilia and artifacts at its headquarters. This article will be updated regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusah (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refactor to describe the existence of two organisations (or make an article on each and use this as a disambiguation page). References include [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Having read more about the name dispute, I've moved the nominated page, and made the original a disambiguation page. I've moved and updated this nomination accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Page has been edited to include more information on the organisation and its operation. References also added to the page with link to recent news article. More news articles and links to be added as they are confirmed. Ambassadors have also been updated and links created. Marcusah (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or at least, hold off for a while before deleting. There seems to be a reference-able article here, with a bit of digging to find the documentation (and disentangling the two groups with the same name). Mike Peel (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit confused - The Festival of Boxing talks as if the event has occured but the only mention I can find of it is August 2013. Am I missing something.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the Festival, weak delete the HoF I found nothing to show that the festival is notable or sourced. The Hall of Fame lacks sufficient independent coverage to show notability, although more may be available when it opens in 2013. Until then it's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jakejr (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am concerned that some users commenting on this article are doing so without properly reading the material first. The delete request in relation to trademark issue is currently unfounded and is made without clarification or legal order. Copyright of the Emblem as shown in this article is claimed prior to any trademark existence by the claimant. It should also be noted that this article relates to an organisation with strong links with the British boxing industry and the boxers and non-combatants within it. This is a new article and although both the British Boxing Hall of Fame and the Festival Of Boxing still require more substance, links and references, they are valid pages containing factual information which will be enhanced on a regular basis. Those commenting on these articles please only do so if you have an authority within the industry of discussion or sufficient knowledge to do so. Comments on how to improve the article in line with Wikipedia preferences are gratefully received and will be acted upon 92.29.160.138 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Those commenting on these articles please only do so if you have an authority within the industry of discussion or sufficient knowledge to do so". Anyone with a view is welcome to comment, in line with Wikipedia's long- and well- established polices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Zero element. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of zero terms[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Containing the word "zero" isn't enough of a connection between concepts to warrant listing them together. Zero_object_(algebra) looks like the most appropriate place for some of this material, but zero divisors and zero sets have nothing to do with them or each other. Xnn (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zero element. Most of the entries are closer to the Zero element (generalisation for number zero) that Zero_object_(algebra) (eg trivial group). That article could do with a few more concrete examples. I've expanded Zero (disambiguation) to list other uses. So most of the article is covered elsewhere.--Salix (talk): 20:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zero element. The mere list isn't very interesting. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and maybe merge. (Not everything listed there is actually a zero element, rather, it is a list of things having the name zero in the title). The proposed deletion misses the point of this list: sometimes, when one gets old, and starts loosing brain cells, one sometimes simply cannot remember the name of some things. One might know its a zero-something and this list is a great way of finding such forgotten ideas. Personally, I've spent many hours/days of my life trying to find things I've forgotten, and lists like these are a god-send. Yes, most of the things here are examples of zero objects, but a few are not: I see no harm in changing this into two sublists, a list of zero objects, and a list of other things with the word 'zero' in them.linas (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Q, would the list at Zero (disambiguation) satisfy your need?--Salix (talk): 12:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the problem with that is that disambig pages are not supposed to have partial title matches (I think this is covered at WP:PTM, though I'm not sure whether that's part of a guideline or just an essay, but either way it seems to be a widely followed standard). So for example zero sharp really should not be there. --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the obvious reason. -- Taku (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't hurt anything to have a possibly redundant page, and, as Linas said, it's sometimes useful. IMO, it's like a tarted-up disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginia-American (talk • contribs) 13:34, 29 July 2012‎
Weak keep. Doesn't excite me much but it does seem to serve a useful navigational role in the context of WP:PTM. Power users could get around it by doing a search for "zero" and limiting it to titles, but that's a pain and not everyone knows how to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Salix. That they are related by name should be handled by disambiguation pages, in particular Zero (disambiguation), while the mathematical connection is covered by Zero element. This just pointlessly duplicates one or both of them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Redirect. Basically all the information in this Article is already covered in 0 (number). So, this Article is redundant. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What?! As far as I can tell, none of the information in list of zero terms is covered in 0 (number). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Zero element as per Salix. This seems to be redundant and unnecessary as a separate article.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zero element. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swonkey[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. This is not a notable game. The websites given as references do not mention the game, and I found no reliable sources mentioning it. John of Reading (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To quote from WP:NOT: "If you or a friend invented ... a drinking game... it is not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day." Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No notability from WP:RS --Artene50 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for drinking games you and your friends made up one boozy night. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:53, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Udita fractional operator[edit]

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

The subject of the article appears only in the recent PhD thesis of Udita N. Katugampola, and one recently published article by the same person. No credible independent sources refer to "Udita fractional operator", making at least the title of the article a WP:NEOLOGISM. Furthermore, User:Uditanalin contributed substantially to the article (as did a number of other single-purpose accounts). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, it was not demonstrated that this new mathematical concept got sufficient attention in its field.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was one of the contributor for this article. I would like to give my opinion on this matter. As far as mathematics is concerned, it takes time to get it spread. Everything has to start somewhere, so I do not think you should delete this article just because it has some sources from a PhD thesis. But I do noticed that some other authors from around the world has used the concept of udita fractiona operator in their work. So I do believe it is an independent concept, which needs some attention. As an author, I am also using this concept in my current research. I can include, these references once those papers get published. __mathproff (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — MathProff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not agree with Slawomir Bialy (talk · contribs) argument. New authors can contribute to wikipedia that is the whole point of this huge project. Anybody can see that Slawomir Bialy (talk · contribs) has deleted some of the work contributed by MathProff. May be Slawomir does not like these authors personaly. Another thing, one of the famous author has referred this operator in his/her book, Fractional Calculus. An Introduction for Physicists, by Richard Herrmann on page 248. Several other authors follow this work in their research. That is enough to keep this article live. -mathbuddy (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — MathBuddy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - Comment What do you mean? New authors cannot contribute anything?
    - When large numbers of single purpose new accounts show up at the same deletion discussion, it is very suspicious. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In mathematics, physics or anyother science subject or even outside science, it has enough evidence that whoever introduce a new concept will get credits for it. We have heard about Newton's law, Hadamard operator, Riemann integral or Einstein's convention and things like that. This is because, there should be a name to refer to this special case. So I do not think there is any conflict with WP:NEOLOGISM here. -mathbuddy (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  This is not correct. Dozens of thousands of papers get published every year, most of them introduce new concepts, and most of these papers never get cited. For us, a new theory is notable if there is a proof that it got considerable attention in the corresponding scientific community - proven, for instance, by number of citations, or by number of apperances outside the works of the author. In this case, this number is zero or at least is in single digits.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that this term exists outside of the original author's own work. I did a search of Herrmann's book and could not find the term. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Please check page 248 for the reference. Other than that, you can find 5 citations in [|Google Scholar] 3 of those are outside of author's work. Somebody has to introduce it to the community. You will see this term soon in the future. -mathbuddy 09:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure. Please come back after the first thousand citations.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The paper may appear in the bibliography, but Herrmann does not refer to the "Udita fractional operator", nor, as far as I can tell, does he specifically mention Katugampola's work anywhere in the text. Also, mere listings of the work in Google scholar are not "citations". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry to say this, but I have to tell you. Do you have any knowledge of advanced mathematics? Did you really check any of those cited work? In mathematics nobody cites anything if there is no any use of it. As far as I can understand, this work has to be reviewed by those who have some knowledge of the subject, but not by a foreigner to mathematics, otherwise it would be like a review of a French novel by English reader, no idea what they are talking about. Let's wait until somebody who has some knowledge of the subject, other than the authors, make a comment on the article. -mathbuddy 15:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a ridiculous ad hominem attack. Tell me, where in that book is the work actually cited? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC) And, not that it's relevant, but I am a mathematician.[reply]
        I did not attack anybody, I just suggest what is more appropriate in this situation. For about the citation, please contact the author and ask him where he cited the work, if you canno find it by yourself. I do not think this author is an idiot. You said it is not relevant here. But I am not agree with you. A mathematical judgments has to be done by those who know mathematics. I think anybody can understand that. - (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Absent clear evidence to the contrary, the author did not site the work, much less use the exact term "Udita fractional operator", which is what we'd need for an article by that title. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for "please contact the author and ask him where he cited the work"... or you could simply tell us instead of playing a cat-and-mouse game, since that appears to be the crux of your argument. "I do not think this author is an idiot"... well, neither do I, but I fail to see how this opinion has any relevance here. What is important is an objective assessment of whether his work discusses this topic or not, and it in this case it appears to be the latter. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I contacted the author of that book and here what he says, "On page 248 of my book indeed the article Kalugampola, U. (2010), New approach to a generalized fractional integral, arXiv:1010.0742v1[math.CA] from the year 2010 is listed as an example for further reading, but I leave it up to the reader to judge about the value of this article." The rest is upto yours. MathProff (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I get zero hits for the title in Google books, Google scholar, and MathSciNet. Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting new theories, it should follow the recognition that those theories get in the academic community. In this case, no such recognition means no article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not know the user user:uditanalin personally, but have used this integral operator several times in my reaserch and thought to contribute to this article. I am not against you, if you feel that there shouldn't be an article of this name. At the same time, it would be an help to mathematical community if there is an integral with this name cos this can help whoever want to adopt it. -mathproff 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable yet, if ever. Greglocock (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who started this work as an experimental page on sandbox and did not have any intension of promoting this as an actual wikipage. Later mathbudy, mathprof, micheal hardy and some other contributers joind the journey. Somebody even suggested this as an wiki article. Thank you for all your contributions. It looks like there is a fight between Slawomir and mathbudy. It is really ugly you fight for such a thing. I will delete my article soon. Now I know how wikipedia works though it was a bad experience, which really tarnish my name. Thank you all for your contributions. Please chat with me in contributors area. Uditanalin (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's not the way wiki works. Once an article is published in mainspace it is no longer yours to delete. You can enter a Delete 'vote' or strike out your keep 'vote' if you made one. Note that strictly speaking they aren't votes, they are summaries of an editor's opinion.Greglocock (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the G7 request on this article, as multiple editors have made substantial contributions to the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - mere mentions in textbooks probably would not be enough for notability, but discussions or homework questions would be significant coverage. Has anyone checked the extensiveness of mentions of the functions? Bearian (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I contacted the author of that book and here what he says, "On page 248 of my book indeed the article Kalugampola, U. (2010), New approach to a generalized fractional integral, arXiv:1010.0742v1[math.CA] from the year 2010 is listed as an example for further reading, but I leave it up to the reader to judge about the value of this article." MathProff (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. -- Taku (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward Delete, but I could be convinced otherwise. Seems to be used only in one paper and a few papers which refer to it, most not using that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is traditional for the discover of a new concept to have his name attached, but not when he does it himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peachtree Accounting[edit]

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

Notability of this software is not established with the inline citations of the reliable sources discussing the topic in depth. Since being tagged with ((refimprove)) back in December 2007 the article still relies exclusively on primary sources. My search gives no reliable sources either. DePRODed with rationale: "I don't really see a problem with the sources on the article - more to the point, the solution here is to improve the references, not to delete, unless there is a complete lack of notability." Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even trivial investigation finds reliable sources discussing the software, including PC world, well over 10 books (including a "For Dummies" book,) and at least one reference in The Wall Street Journal ("Small businesses, defined by the IRS as those with assets of less than $10 million, often use one off-the-shelf software program such as Intuit Inc.'s INTU +2.74% QuickBooks or Sage Group's SGE.LN +2.26% Peachtree." I stopped looking after finding that one, but expect to find more.) I agree the lack of references of article in a problem, but deletion isn't the solution to that. Frankly, the existence of the "For Dummies" book by itself settles the issue for me. (And, that book would probably make an excellent secondary source to improve the referencing in the article, if someone wants to find it in their local library) Nandesuka (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, that the first link is "about.com" — typical unreliable source, books are written by people connected to the software's vendor (which is quite evident from a glance) and WSJ only side mentions the topic. Nowhere close to what WP:GNG requires. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable, it's a syndicated article from PC World. Look at the URL, it says pcworld.about.net. Just because it's from a site that is usually user-sourced doesn't mean everything is user-sourced, and there is wiggle-room for syndicated content used on the site. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, may be you could give a PCWorld link? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. For future reference, you can try this procedure: visit the about.com link, highlight the title (in this case, "Peachtree 2007 Improves Office Integration") and then paste that into the search box. Click "Google search." In this case, the original PC world article is the the very first link: here it is. I'm glad to help out, and I hope you find this procedure useful in future discussions. In regards to your other point re: that article, we don't have to guess about whether a user or someone connected to the company wrote it, because the link I originally provided had a byline to the PC World author who wrote it. Looking at a URL is useful, but not sufficient - you actually have to examine the content in question, and this time it looks to me like you didn't. Nandesuka (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at URLs is often enough to examine the possibility of using the link as a reference. So, now we have one reliable source of multiple needed. Other suggestions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are multiple reliable sources provided; just because you didn't examine a source does not mean that that source hasn't been provided. In fact, you have provided multiple reliable sources, as you would know if you clicked on the "books" link of this very AfD. Or are you seriously trying to argue that books published by major publishers are not reliable sources? When there is one book on a topic, notability should be considered. When there are 20 or so books on it, I don't see how anyone can argue non-notability with a straight face.

In any event, this is not the venue to dissect the fine details of how each source discusses the software. What matters is that a single trivial google search shows that many such sources exist (and presumably more could be found if someone spent more than the 30 seconds I spent to locate those 20 or so links, articles, and books), and thus your claim of non-notability is incorrect on its face. I'm a big believer in deleting articles on non-notable topics (ask anyone; I've been referred to as a 'rabid deletionist' in more than one forum), but I think you've made a pretty obvious mistake here. I think you should own up to it and move on. Nandesuka (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nandesuka is quite correct. See also WP:NOEFFORT. Warden (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FFS! How many decades has Peachtree been around? What fraction of the small business accountancy market do they have? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was WP:BEFORE done here? Because if you're a small business in the United States and Canada, you've heard of it easily. Pretty much like Quicken and Word, a highlight title in its software field. The usual cites, fix the problems and AfD isn't cleanup. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then sure you can find the viable references. I did WP:BEFORE and failed to find anything. If this problem looked fixable, I wouldn't get this article to AfD in the first place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 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. G3 - hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer School Olympics[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a series of hoax articles. I have been unable to find any sources for any of this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Delete all. I searched and was unable to find anything to show that any of the claims in the article are factual, let alone notable. The closing admin will want to do some cleanup with various things that the original editor has added, such as various templates that were created like Template:Infobox Country School Olympics and Template:Country flag IOC alias ATT. I'm not sure what speedy category could be used for these, if any, but considering that they're part of the series of hoax articles created by this editor they'll need to be taken care of as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No reliable sources, and no search results, so probably a hoax. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These articles appear to be a pure hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - pretty clear hoaxes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Svobodni Narod[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a notable newspaper to me. Only one source given. Failed gng. Google test finds no reliable sources. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weekly newspaper published by largest political party in the country. Disappeared long before internet, and name original is not in Latin script. Thus google searches might give wrong impression as multiple spellings are possible. --Soman (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman. Relying solely on Google hits for stuff like this risks presentism. matt91486 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic despite the difficulty in fleshing it out. Probably searching in Hebrew will yield something. Btw, "Svobodny" is possible. Zero^talk 09:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, although difficult to find sources. An expansion may be better useful. What about possible info on the relevant Wikipedia? Doing a language invest, "Svobodny Narod" means "Free Nations" in Czech. Also, this may help. —Hahc 21 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G7) by GB fan. NAC. Cliff Smith 17:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and decorations[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page.It lists some of categories present here.Any new person just browsing wikipedia woudn't understand what a category means.A person usually searching for an award will obviously know the name of it! TheStrike Σagle 13:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

1) Unnecessary disambiguation page. - In your opinion. I have a different opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) A person usually searching for an award will obviously know the name of it! - Again, in your opinion. My experience is the opposite. There are many, many, many decorations. Many of them have similar names. It is very likely that a person searching for a decoration does not know its exact, and does not know exactly how it has, or hasn't been capitalised. If it's a foreign award, you can pretty well guarantee that the person does not know the name of the award, does not know how to spell it in the foreign language, doesn't know if the page name has been translated into English, and if it has, how well it has been translated, and which spelling dialect the translator has used.

For example, if you weren't American, how would you find out the name of the American wound decoration? Why would you think that it would be called the Purple Heart? Do you understand my point, or do I need to provide more examples? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3) There are a number of similar requirements which I am trying to address. I expect that there are many ways to address them. I'm trying to determine a useful and usable type of functionality to address them. Completely removing the functionality by proposing it be deleted is neither helpful nor useful. If you can think of a better way to provide the functionality, I could use all the help and ideas offered.

A simple example: Let's say you want to know what the highest civilian decoration for bravery is in a given country, what's its name, and what the medal and ribbon look like. Finding the highest military decoration is usually not too hard. But civilian decoration? That's an example of the sort of problem I'm trying to address. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how do you expect a normal(not us) reader to understand categories and browse through them? TheStrike Σagle 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving that some thought. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No primary topic, so no need for this page. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe no primary topic is stated yet, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm working on it. All suggestions greatfully received. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - Moved it to User:Pdfpdf/Awards and decorations. Obviously it's not sufficiently mature to put in wikispace yet.
However, any suggestions on how to address/solve the problems I mentioned would be appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:02, 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} 02:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ariful Haque Arif[edit]

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

No sources to verify notability of person. A simple Google search shows no meaningful results either, unfortunately. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the "references" in the article were merely links to other Wikipedia articles. I've removed these as they are not reliable sources. AllyD (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nearest to a solid 3rd party reference that I've found is this press article which describes the subject as a "veteran journalist" in the context of interviewing him about someone else. If more solid reliable sources to his career can be found (not necessarily in English) then Notability is likely, if not then it is an unsourced BLP and would need to go. AllyD (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that establish subject's notability per WP:BIO. --SMS ^Talk 12:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Language difficulties again. Someone who reads Urdu may be able to find references. Urdu is written in Persian-Arabic script. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i tried to find some reliable sourcesWP:RS but i couldn't find even one. Tariq.Imran ^Talk 14:28, 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. consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3D Home Architect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears non-notable. Certainly does not sufficiently assert notability: no third-party reliable sources are present. Google search just gives lots of download sites. GNews shows nothing other than clearly irrelevant hits from the Himalayan Times. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. The only independent reliable source I found was Dreier, Troy (March 2, 2005), "DIY Home Design", PC Magazine, retrieved July 22, 2012 ((citation)): |chapter= ignored (help), which focuses on a broader scope, so probably shouldn't count for a real source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absence of reliable sources that demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No supporting sources, fails Notability guidelines in both general and corporate areas. The sole reference in the article does not support the claim it is attached to (no mention of 3D Home or Punch! in the source). The product appears to have been discontinued, possibly except for the Mac platform. The article history reflects a cycle of changes which follow author opinions, possibly because of a lack of sources to provide facts. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:20, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Schools of Georgetown County[edit]

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

Consists entirely of original research. Marked for merger for 7+ months without any discussion. RadioFan (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless everything can be sourced. Ducknish (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced essay of only local interest. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Unreferenced WP:Original research - an essay. A lot of work has gone into it, but this belongs in a personal blog or stand-alone web site. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A & T Solutions Provider[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be promoting an organization promoting services ViriiK (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable, no citations, reads like a classified listing. Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:CORP. This should have been speedied. --SMS ^Talk 09:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. no reliable extensive sources. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was page move completed following use of ((db-move)) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deiva Magan[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 18:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No dab page required. It has two films with different names. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with the nom's point on disambiguation, this should be brought to Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can request a move from Deiva Magan (1969 film) → Deiva Magan. Or, if you're bold, you can request a speedy deletion (G6) and move it yourself.--SGCM (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll go for CSD then. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:38, 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 merge to Summer heat wave of 2012 derecho series. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (shout) @ 11:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late July 2012 North American derecho[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This storm did nothing notable. There were no injuries or deaths and very few tornadoes. There are no sources and these types of minor derechoes happen all the time and do not get pages. United States Man (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a source, and the storm is notable for affecting some of the same areas with the third derecho in a week. That is historic, regardless of injuries or deaths. Your statement regarding injuries, in addition, is false. 5 people were injured per the SPC reports for that day. You cannot delete an article on the grounds of simply being a WP:STUB. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 06:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or merge. Although there are reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a news site. Events must have lasting effects on a large scope to be considered notable. This event doesn't look like it'll last the news cycle.--SGCM (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now Keep Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Change to merge – ~~Per WP:NOTABILITY.~~ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge - ~~derecho is a notable event that was covered extensively and ravaged parts of the NE United States, and although currently it is only sitting on 2 sources, this can be expanded.~~ While article has detail, only 2 references and minimal aftereffects hold it up, so it should be merged with another page where it is sufficient. TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But were the effects lasting, to the degree that it had "effects on the views and behaviors of society"? As WP:EVENT states, a storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable. There was widespread coverage, but Wikipedia is not a news site.--SGCM (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:GNG stuff with significant coverage get article, WP is not a parer encyclopedia, a lot of info does not do any harm. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not always. We have a specific guideline for the notability of events. Significant coverage does not always mean a subject warrants an article. As WP:NOT says, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it's still an encyclopedia, and it can't include every minor news event with wide coverage. Doing no harm does not matter, and is considered an argument to avoid.--SGCM (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only reason why WP:EVENT says is to prevent sports games from getting articles as stated here "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[3] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all". I honestly don't see any reason why WP can include somewhat minor events. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:EVENT does include weather events. WP:EFFECT specifically mentions natural disasters, which makes it especially germane to this discussion. I understand your position, but the current convention, established by the community, is that minor events are not considered notable.--SGCM (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for understanding. It is worth noting that this storm will get multiple reports from the NCDC in about 3-4 months and liekly other from the National Weather Service around that time, maybe sooner. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Per WP:PRESERVE we should merge to a higher level article such as Summer heat wave of 2012 derecho series rather than deleting this. Warden (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge may be a good idea. I don't think the storm was large enough to be independently notable, but I don't object to a merge.--SGCM (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Summer heat wave of 2012 derecho series, although that article is going to need some work and expanding as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable. Was invented mainly as a media vehicle to push AGW propaganda. Belchfire-TALK 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. No lasting significance. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sounds like the best idea. That would preserve attribution and allow for reasonable search terms. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is best idea. Just add more sources, that's all I say. It WAS an official SERIAL derecho. The only reason there were way less injuries was because people were more prepared after the June derecho, which affected the same region. NWRGeek (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It is a part of whole and not a significant event by itself. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons mentioned earlier : people were injured and damage reported. Moreover, any derecho is by definition a significant and uncommon meteorological event. Sincerely, --Numero4 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But with such a small article that doesn't look like it'll grow, why not merge it into a bigger article about the season's derechos, similar to what we do with tornadoes? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 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} 02:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adhey Kangal[edit]

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

The author removed the proposed deletion tag I added so here we are at AfD. Aside from an IMDb link, I haven't found sources to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Indeed a notable film produced by AVM Productions. A suspense thriller in a regional language of India. A search through Google books yields [7], [8], [9]. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This brand new article was proposed for deletion 14 hours after being contributed to the project... yes as a then unsourced stub. The expansion and sourcing provided by User:Vensatry has resulted in a suitable article to serve the project. And no... we do not expect a 45-year-old, waaaaaay pre-internet Tamil film to have the same type of ongoing and persistant coverage as might something far more recent. Kudos to User:Vensatry! Thank you for your efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. —Hahc 21 01:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Waśków[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sport bio cruft is a plaque on Wikipedia; it seems that some people want to stub an article on everyone who ever got into anything resembling a professional sport event. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 11:11, 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 Speedy Keep - nomination withdrawn. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line echo wave pattern[edit]

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

This page makes absolutely no sense. There are several grammar errors, the page does not include a single source, and I have never even heard of a Line echo wave pattern. It was created by a user with a history of creating pages that were deleted. United States Man (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OBSCURE and WP:POORLY. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your not knowing of it has no bearing whatsoever on its existence. LEWPs are very real and very common^[1]. I was shocked that we didn't already have a page on this. Page makes complete and total sense. Brief, maybe, but definitely understandable. There is not one single grammatical error in the entire stub of an article I just barely got started today. As for me, my past has no bearing on the validity of this article per policy. I can reference a couple of sources if you want. This should've been brought up on the talk page, not taken to AfD. Also, I'm going on vacation today for a week, so I will most likely not be available to participate in the discussion, if any, this week. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 05:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up -- I sourced a NWS source and added an image from that source. More can be added. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 05:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please remain civil, everyone. Here is a search on NOAA which shows that LEWP is indeed a well-defined technical term in meteorology. This one is a nice example which we can probably use in the article as NOAA images are public domain (someone please confirm?). There is no shortage of sources. I have added a few references to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know the article creator has had a history of creating controversial articles (and I've historically been on the Deletion side of those AFDs), but this article should be on Wikipedia. It's referenced (now), and easily passes WP:GNG. As for the poor grammar, that's not a reason to delete the article; just fix it. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a lot of work has been done and I may have been a bit overzealous in nominating it for deletion. Therefore I will no longer push the deletion. United States Man (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you withdraw this nomination? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. United States Man (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://www.crh.noaa.gov/iwx/?n=severestorms_2011apr19

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:43, 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 Compounds of zinc. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zinc Compounds and Properties[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief list with two items, neither of which add any new information to Wikipedia. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Compounds of zinc and the template (which i just placed there) at the bottom of the article are sufficient, and are standard format for listing compounds.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Compounds of zinc per the above. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 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} 02:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical predictions for the 19th century[edit]

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

Really, you can't have predictions from something that happened in the past. String Theory¹¹ 04:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reason the ref tags don't work is that these tables have been copy-pasted from four different articles - List of solar eclipses in the 19th century, List of 19th-century lunar eclipses, Transit of Mercury, and Transit of Venus. So basically, this article's redundant; it merely duplicates information available elsewhere on Wikipedia. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork per WP:DEL-REASON and DoctorKubla. It may be useful to have a Lists of astronomical events index page, but this isn't it. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carvajal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he will play for Bayer Leverkusen. This is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and not grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how this is speculation when the deal has already gone through? [10] [11] are both from Leverkusen's official website. Morhange (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That he's signed for Leverkusen is not speculation, but that he will actually play any matches for them is. WP:NSPORT explicitly says that players who have signed but not played for a fully pro club are not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ya, he may play for Leverkusen soon but none the less as of this moment he fails NFOOTY and 100% fails GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, his transfer fee was 5 million euros. So let's keep it for now and if he completely fails to appear for Leverkusen's first team, we can delete the article.

http://www.soccerway.com/players/daniel-carvajal-ramos/145430/

None of this has any bearing on notability, and if deleted, the article can be restored at the click of a button. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be quickly restored if he ever plays for Leverkusen. Number 5 7 08:59, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Direction's second studio album[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL. Half of the information is about the group's history, and any relevant information (such as the tour) is already covered in the One Direction article. A relevant article with the album's name etc. can be created at the appropriate time. Till 03:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The bulk of the article is background information. Additionally, there's no source what-so-ever to show that the 2013 World Tour is in support of this upcoming album. So, without both of those things, the article is a few mentions of recording the album, which can be found or placed on their main article. Statυs (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS: No title, no track listing and no release date. Information about this future album should remain at the artist's article until all of those have been verified. Cliff Smith 18:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what is the point of deleting if your going to have to create it over again. What is speculative about this article. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you read WP:NALBUMS. Cliff Smith 19:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already read it this entire article is backed by third party reliable sources as per guideline there are no blogs or fansite refs. This article has been up for since 27 June 2012, a month and two days and now its being tagged for deletion. Let me ponder why ow I know why this is why Till didn't seem to have problem with this article as long as it was on her creation list, and since it isn;t anymore she/he has problem with it. There is nothing speculative on this article if so point it to me AdabowtheSecond (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has already been pointed out to you—WP:CRYSTAL. And nobody is disputing that the sources are unreliable. There is no title, confirmed tracks, release date, etc. thus violates policy. Till 00:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a load of BS, I should've let you keep it on your creation list so you could have better chances of getting Autopatrolled. I'm so sorry you feel the need to tag it for deletion after a month. No editor tagged it for deletion when I launched not even SplashScreen, I wonder why? This article is not claiming anything---only confirmed information is on this article. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow can we stop please, bringing up things from the past and other stuff isn't going to help your case. Here on Wikipedia there are policies that must be followed i.e. CRYSTAL --> Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for the future, for all we know the album could be canceled in the next month! Not only that, but this article is just a re-write of the group's history and some nonsense commentary from the band about the untitled, unfinished album. What needs to be said can be done in the main One Direction article until a title, release date etc. is confirmed. Till 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        All I'm saying is you would not have tagged this for deletion if it still was on your creation list. While I do note your concern, they have already shot the artwork for the album. Information will released "soon" Styles said in an audio message on twitter. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it was a redirect when I created it, it was you who wrote the article. And "soon" isn't a time specific. Till 02:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very little of this is actually based on the album, it is mostly background. There is no tracklisting, singles, prospective release date, etc. Article will be encyclopedic later, however, at the very earliest when tracklisting and prospective release date are available as well as when the first single is released. Toa Nidhiki05 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bring down the hammer. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Any important info can be put in One Direction's main page. No need to fully delete though. --Shadow (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - it's WP:HAMMERtime. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Like previously mentioned, if deleted it's only going to have to get created a second time around. However, like also previously mentioned it does violate the policy in the fact that hardly anything is confirmed, yet. 16:46, 1 August 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.93.69 (talk)
Keep or Redirect There is no need to delete the article because like others have said, another one will be re-created in the future anyway. Furthermore, all the information is properly sourced but if there isn't enough for it to be "notable" then I would suggest merging any noteworthy material into their main page and redirecting this page to that page. JayJ47 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The One Direction article already covers the important bits in this article (--> the bits that are actually about the album). Till 08:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article should still be redirected though. It's pointless to fully delete when it's going to be created in less than 3 months. --Shadow (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't know that, hence WP:CRYSTAL. Till 03:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead single is said to be receiving airplay this weekend on BBC Radio, its top secret although my sources never fail at least till now AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El emigrante (short story)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable fiction from an author with no article. A Google search on "Luis Felipe Lomeli" "The Emigrant" shows only 4 results, three of them Wikipedia related. No significant claims of notability or reliable references. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. There's nothing out there except for things that, like Mike said, are Wikipedia related. There's absolutely nothing out there to show that this piece of flash fiction is notable. As for claims of a world record, that is debatable because there could be other pieces out there that are even shorter and even if there's multiple independent and reliable sources to back up claims of it being the shortest FF ever, that claim to fame in itself isn't enough to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search under the terms below and was unable to find anything to show that this is notable. I did see where the piece was briefly touched upon in a passing mention on a few sites, but never in a way that would show notability. (In other words, that the source went into more detail about the flash fiction other than saying it exists and is considered to be the shortest FF.) I do see where the author himself could merit an article here on Wikipedia and if someone wants to create it, I'd endorse a redirect to the author's article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But a google search on "Luis Felipe Lomeli" "el emigrante", shows 430 entries! A google seach on "Luis Felipe Lomeli" "el emigrante": 230 entries! Some of those in French, Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Russian, etc... He is a Mexican writer, of course not so much entries will be found in English. And it is a world record.

Also, the page already exists in Wikipedia (and not by this contributor) in Español, Francaise and Catalá. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okigbo (talk • contribs) 04:06, 28 July 2012‎

Having a page in another language does not always mean that something is notable. It could just mean that someone has added the page and it has yet to be deleted. As far as sources go in other languages, I do see that there are more that come up, but what I'm seeing so far tends to be mostly brief mentions in various sources. There's nothing (so far) that goes in depth about the piece, mostly brief mentions. There's some blog entries that mention the piece as well, but blogs do not count towards notability unless they're by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, meaning that they would be someone that is regularly quoted for books, magazines, and the like. The coverage in other languages just seems to be too brief to merit an entry for the flash fiction. Besides that, even if the author himself is notable, that does not guarantee that all of his works would be. Very few authors are considered to be so notable that all of their work would become automatically notable by default.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability and sourcing requirements and the fact that the book won numerous awards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: probably the most notable 4-word story of all time, discussed by many sources. I disagree with Blofeld's move to Ella sigue de viaje. The 4-word story is more notable than the book that contains it, my view. The book did win an award, and one of the other stories in the book did too, so the book is notable. I left the book article and re-launched the 4-word story article - probably totally messed up edit history. Never mind... Aymatth2 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lot of the article said things like "the book overall won xxx prize and the twelve stories of the book etc" so that was my reasoning. But as you've added more weight to the short shory then it's also a valid separate article in its own right, I agree.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the amazing sourcing found by everyone. I'm really impressed!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated the article at Template:Did you know nominations/El Emigrante & Luis Felipe Lomelí. The hook is a natural. It will sit there until this AfD is cleared. I don't think there is any controversy... Aymatth2 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Astrological Studies[edit]

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

For an institution that has purportedly existed for over 60 years there is very little coverage in the news archives [12] except the occasional mention in relation to a notable astrologer. Fringe books [13] only give a passing mention. Note that organizations are required to be independently notable per WP:ORG. Considering the additional requirements for fringe theories per WP:FRINGE: A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory, this also be applied in this case. So in summary, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:OR and appears to inherently fall afoul of WP:FRINGE due to the lack of critical sources and critiques. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The organization seems to be notable. The article cites a several different solid-looking sources, I find plenty of ghits on a diverse variety of websites, and this newspaper article helps me to conclude that a lot of people who make a living in astrology hold credentials from this outfit. Astrology is notable per WP:FRINGE, and this organization/school seems to be notable within the astrology arena. The fact that I don't believe in the validity of astrology does not justify excluding the topic from Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solid looking isn't the same as solid sources. For example, the above newspaper article does mention the topic, but it's a passing mention, not even a dedicated sentence to it, see the requirements of WP:GNG. Also note that astrology (but it's a subtopic of a fringe theory concept) itself isn't the topic of this AfD, what we do note is the lack of mainstream (or any) coverage of this organization. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:GNG says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." A mainstream newspaper article that says that two of the UK's leading astrologers got their training at this institution is more than passing, trivial mention. If that were the only source, it would be insufficient to establish notability, but there are many other sources (such as the ones cited in the article) of similar value. Collectively, they indicate notability. Not every notable topic has been the subject of a monograph published by a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage means in detail, see WP:GNG: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references are fine, the organisation is notable and established, has a long history and wide reach, and there are plenty of independent references. Also see no neutrality issues with the content of the page so don't understand the justification of that tag either -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORG are quite clear. pointing at a google search and claiming there are independent sources isn't enough. I suggest you re-read the requirements. Specifically significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are independent of the subject - the subject of the page is the Faculty of Astrological Studies. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was focusing on the significant coverage part, i.e non-trivial mentions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you describe content like this, this, or this as trivial. The latter is from the biography of Coronation Street Actor William Roache. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latter source is exactly what a trivial mention is; it's a passing mention. I can't see the first source, the preview of the specific page linked is unavailable. The middle source, Psychics and Mediums in canada only makes a single claim for which it has dubious reliability: "The Fas program is undeniably rigorous", other than just trivial mentions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links are working fine as far as I can see, the middle source talks at length about someone's experience with the Faculty, and William Roache's discussion of it is a point of notability. I mirror Warden's sentiment - I have given my reasoning and demonstrated the validity of it to the point where I don't feel that further justification is necessary. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great telling us about some policy, but that has no relevance to this AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the policy seems quite obvious. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, keep votes must show how a notability guideline is met. You have failed to do that quite obviously.LibStar (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have addressed the issue of the notability guideline above. Rather than repeat their point, I chose to address a more important question of policy. Your demand that I should approach the matter in a particular way is improper as you do not control this discussion. Warden (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long established organisation, prominent in its field, associated with numerous notable individuals, and with more than sufficient coverage in third party sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which third party sources give significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages and pages of results on Google Books which demonstrate considerable third party coverage. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another example of WP's walled garden of astrology articles that focus on ancillary aspects of astrology that are notable only in-universe but not to the rest of the world. The rationals to !vote keep above are specious. Firstly, NOTCENSORED has absolutely nothing to do with this as deleting an article on notability concerns is not censorship and we delete articles every day. Secondly, as Wolfie has pointed out, while there are mentions of this organization there is no significant coverage. Most refs mention it in passing. Lastly, pointing to google search results does absolutely nothing to establish notability because it's impossible to understand the context of the reporting, see WP:GOOGLE. Serious encyclopedias do not cover minor aspects of pseudoscience, i.e. the fringe of the fringe. Covering astrology is fine, covering every astrology organization not so much and not unless they have significant mainstream coverage. Sædon^talk 22:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure precisely what you mean by "Another example of WP's walled garden of astrology articles that focus on ancillary aspects of astrology that are notable only in-universe but not to the rest of the world. " but it is true of the vast majority of WP articles that they would only ever be of interest to a small proportion of people, often in a very narrow field. This is irrelevant to notability policies (thankfully, for it helps to explain the richness of WP).Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that there is a WP:Walled garden of articles relating to astrology that are only of interest to astrologers and WP is not an astrological encyclopedia. As astrology is a WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topic and WP is a mainstream encyclopedia, we don't cover topics that don't have mainstream sourcing. Sædon^talk 22:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of your links are to notablity policies, and astrology is in any case clearly a notable topic for WP so the point is otiose. And I repeat, most articles in WP will be of primary interest to only a small group of people (unless the subject for some reason happens to be in the news) - completely irrelevant to our notablity policy. Your stance in this AfD seems to be a reflection of your attitude towards astrology, which is concerning. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an AFD for astrology this is an AFD for an astrological organization, see WP:ORGSIG - astrology being notable doesn't lead to astrological organizations being notable unless they have received significant coverage in independent sources. I don't accept your premise that most articles are of interest to only a small group of people but either way you are missing my point which is not who is interested in it but who has covered it. If there's no mainstream coverage then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, period. Please keep your comments regarding your suspicions of my motivations to yourself, I'm not the slightest bit interested in what you find concerning and there's no good reason to make it personal; the closer will either accept my arguments or not without regard to my motivation. Sædon^talk 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange because just a few lines higher up on this page you have written "As astrology is a WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topic and WP is a mainstream encyclopedia, we don't cover topics that don't have mainstream sourcing".

And "mainstream" coverage is a bogus and completely subjective yardstick. Do you mean that all topics need to be mentioned in the mainstream media? 'Surely not!?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:VALID. We don't cover aspects of fringe theories that aren't covered by mainstream sources. Further, if it's not got significant coverage in mainstream sources, how could it be worthy of note? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strange, you're just misunderstanding me. Astrology is a pseudoscience with a large history and impact upon the world and it has mainstream sourcing. Notice that we don't use astrology journals and the like on the main astrology page to establish notability of the subject; we can point to dozens of books and articles to substantiate the article. This organization does not have mainstream sourcing. It doesn't matter that it's an organization related to a notable topic; for a subject to have an article on WP it needs to be covered specifically as is explained on WP:CORP. Sædon^talk 00:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your last sentence before. To answer your question, I am not suggesting that all topics need to be mentioned in the mainstream media; I never mentioned the media at all. What I'm saying is that all articles need to be covered by mainstream sources in general. That could be newsmedia, scholarly journals, books published by respected academic publishers, etc. This is WP 101, see WP:IRS. Sædon^talk 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This 'mainstream' test which you keep referring to is not a part of WP policy, it is your own test, and is a wholly subjective one at that (presumably it means - a source I agree with). I had also never heard of such a thing as a "mainstream book" before. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policies and guidelines which have been linked in this discussion, you will see this do discuss the mainstream and mainstream sources/scholarship etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zachariel. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply not notable. Practically no coverage in reliable independent sources, and what precious little there is is scant or tangential. In spite of the cries of WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES above, no reliable sources have so far been produced, and my own Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up nothing that would come even close to satisfying our notability requirements. Even in the unreliable in-universe sources provided, mention is not substantial. Clearly fails to meet the requirements of our notability policies. Cries of WP:CENSORSHIP are a strawman argument. Articles on fringe topics are certainly welcome on WP if they are based on reliable independent sources. Unfortunately, no such sources exist in this case. The topic is mentioned only in in-universe fringe sources which clearly fail WP:RS, and even then, coverage is far from substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as Astrology in the Modern World and the Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology seem quite satisfactory, being from respectable publishers. Your characterisation of the matter as in-universe seems quite tendentious and contrary to policy. We cover all sorts of topics which some consider to be fanciful or false. Belief in astrology is as common in the general population as belief in religion, politics, economics and other fields that are dubious or disputed. We should no more delete this than we should delete an article about a religious institution such as a seminary. Warden (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. To give an example, we have a very large number of articles on Scientology-related topics. A bizarre and sinister cult/money making scam masquerading as a religion which I would personally like to see banned. But a topic of notability nonetheless which requires proper coverage by this project.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the Scientology topics which we cover are notable because there is mainstream coverage, we don't make Scientology sub-articles with just in-universe Scientology sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Mainstream coverage' and 'in-universe' are not policy requirements and are subjective to the point of being meaningless. The requirement is merely that sources which establish notability not be directly connected to the subject. An encyclopedia of astrology or a book on astrology are perfectly acceptable sources.

BTW - Scientology articles are frequently lacking even third party sources. Take a look at Rundown (Scientology), Implant (Scientology), Assist (Scientology), Doctrine of Exchange and many others.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are all start class articles and have been tagged with substantial issues for 3+ years (1 has a single reference, another has some non-universe sources (Rundown)). I couldn't find a single good article, B class article, C class article or a featured article that is only covered by Scientology sources that I can see from this list [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources link to seemed to contain in-depth coverage (one gave a google copyright error, probably because of where I'm browsing from). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been identified in the discussion above which have not yet been added to the article. For example, see Astrology in the Modern World. That page discusses the change in emphasis from teaching in person to teaching by correspondence. This is significant detail and, as the content is about the method of teaching rather then the content of the teaching, the issue of the validity of astrology is quite irrelevant. Warden (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on that link I get "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book" Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found zero gnews sources for this organization, which means notability looks very weak since it reportedly exists for over 60 years. A book search yields more results, but this are mostly astrologers mentioning that they obtained a diploma from this "school", so these are not really independent sources. WP:ORG puts the bar rather high for companies and organizations, and I don't think we should put it any lower for astrological organizations. We don't keep articles about some exchange traded companies with 100s of employees, because they are not in the news. And here we are going to keep the article about a fringe organization that has never been in the news, just because some astrologers make mention of it in their book. Really? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google news isn't much use for British newspapers before 1990. Even so, the news search link above does not give zero results; we see items such as "The Faculty of Astrological Studies, Britain's foremost teaching body in the subject, is celebrating its 50th birthday today... ". That comes from The Observer which is quite a reputable newspaper but Google only sees it because it was reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Warden (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I first clicked on the ordinary search and then on "News" in the sidemenu. It tells me: "No results found for "Faculty of Astrological Studies" -wikipedia." . Here is the url of my search: [15]. Where does this difference come from? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That search only covers the last 30 days. You need to click on "archives" in the side menu to get a full search, or simply click on the word "news" in the searches automatically linked in the nomination statement above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, searching google is more tricky than I thought. Still, the 31 gnews hits that come up appear to be mostly passing mentions rather than the in depth coverage we need. Is that enough? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention is one which is tangential. The coverage in this case is significant and detailed. As a further example, the Times Educational Supplement, which is a major educational journal in the UK, states "The Faculty of Astrological Studies, founded in 1948, is one of the oldest organisations teaching astrology and is regarded as one of the major educating bodies in the astrological world. " and goes on to explain how the institution is developing its qualifications. Such examples testify directly to the importance and notability of this institution. Warden (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, getting a few more like that and we would slowly be getting there. But I would hope the quality sources being found will be added to the article, because as was pointed out before, right now the article is only giving in-universe sources. It would probably be good to get some RfC on that in a proper place. I think this is a problem we see in topics directly related to matters of belief or opinion. If a certain topic is only mentioned in in-universe publications (e.g. astrology books), then do we consider this "independent" sources for the purpose of establishing notability? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most specialist topics, such as mathematics, are only covered in specialist publications and so the "walled-garden" complaint is too facile to be useful. But sources such as The Observer and the Times Educational Supplement are not especially focussed upon astrology and so the point is moot here. Warden (talk) 12:34, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLacks the significant coveraqe in reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure of which of the current sources are reliable. One would expect that a 60-year-old organization would have gotten the attention of the British papers periodically, and that has happened to a degree: see [16], [17], and [18]. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all trivial and tangential mentions, less than a sentence in length. We reqire SUBSTANTIAL discussion in independent reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see this discussion still rumbling on. The FAS is described in this book as one of the West's most influential astrological societies: [19].Rangoon11 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extremely brief and tangential mention in an unreliable source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So amongst the small number of astrology societies it can't even lay claim to being the most influential? The book has dubious reliability from the puffery it gives and only contains one and a half sentences on FAS. Not significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that there are a small number? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – I do find a few references that are independent of the subject of Astrology itself (e.g. this book), confirming that the institution exists. But I couldn't find anything substantive from a topic-independent source; it's mainly statements saying, to the effect that person X earned a degree from the Faculty of Astrological Studies. However, there is this from perhaps a borderline source, which has some details. I'd probably say the article is borderline notable. It's at least not particularly controversial, so mainly astrological-oriented sources may be sufficient. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Either keep it and rewrite it with clearer structure and source or delete it until the mechanism is clear, systematic and reliable sources can be found. -- RexRowan Talk 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am puzzled as to why this article keeps getting relisted again and again. Clearly this makes deletion far more likely (in my view a consensus for keep was in any case established in the first discussion). It is not right that this article keeps getting endlessly relisted and is being forced to achieve a higher hurdle than most other articles taken toAfD.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's relisted because, in the view of the uninvolved editor woh relisted, it has yet to reach a consensus. As an involved editor (i.e. one who has !voted and commented), your view on whether a consensus has been reached is not given much wieght. The relisting also gives involved editors more time to research and uncover more reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 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 Redirected -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Hockey Europe[edit]

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

This is nothing more than an idea from 2009 that never materialized or even went to more concrete planning. If there would ever be a pan-European league, it would very unlikely be under this name. Wild8oar (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although Notability is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered. Among the Wikipedia guidelines to support the deletion, I would mostly foucs on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. E.g. WP:CRYSTAL, point 5: While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.Wild8oar (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am agnostic as to whether or not this article is kept, as long as the content survives. The question is where else to put it. KHL? History of ice hockey? Professional ice hockey? Any other suggestions? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a section in Potential Kontinental Hockey League expansion, which is a one-sentence summary and a link to this article. We could move the relevant content to there. Wild8oar (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now copied the relevant paragraphs of this article to the Potential Kontinental Hockey League expansion article, where it fits in nicely. This makes this article redundant while preserving the content. Wild8oar (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild80ar has already merged the article to Potential Kontinental Hockey League expansion, so the next step is to redirect the current page.--SGCM (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, redirecting this article sounds like a good solution. Can I just do this? Or do we somehow officially have to withdraw the deletion discussion? Wild8oar (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wait til discussion is over. upon closing the discussion, the admin will do the redirection ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect - not appropriate as stand-alone article ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect – maybe it is not necessary to formally vote here. But just in case... The content is already added to Potential Kontinental Hockey League expansion, so this article has become redundant. Wild8oar (talk) 08:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (orate) @ 11:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paisa paisa[edit]

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

Hindi film song that does not claim any notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to De Dana Dan, the parent article. As WP:NSONG states: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." The song has received non-trivial coverage by the Times of India, but that does not establish enough notability to qualify for a separate article.--SGCM (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in subject is about the song "Kyu Paisa Paisa Karti Hai Tu Paise Pe Kyu Marti Hai". The 2006 film Apna Sapna Money Money has a song "Paisa, Kaisa Kaisa Paisa, Sari Khushi Paisa, Sara Jahan Chahe Ye Paisa, Ha Ha Ye Paisa" which is also credited as "Paisa Paisa". There is also Daler Mehndi's "Paisa Waisa Kaisa, Ek Gal Sach Das De, Tenu Pyaar Chahi Da Ke Paisa" Youtube link which is also credited as "Paisa Paisa". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:MUSIC to De Dana Dan#Theme song, where this (now-sourced) song is spoken of in context to that film. One addresses the existance of earlier versions of this song by tightening one's search paramaters to "Paisa paisa" , "De Dana Dan" to then find sources which speak toward this particular version being covered in news media in relationship to De Dana Dan, being released before the film, and being considered a chart hit. I gave the article an overhaul to address earlier issues of its format and lacking use of available sources,[20] and pre-emptively included pertinant information at its target,[21] before coming to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address the other "Paisa paisa"s in your opinion. Why should there be a redirect when there is ambiguity? Just FYI if you don't know already; almost all songs release before the film does. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. ~~I have struck my redirect above.~~ As the song title "Paisa Paisa" has a certain ambiguity, it would be easy enough to set up a disambig page for the term "Paisa paisa" once this AFD is closed. And yes, I have noticed that almost all Indian cinema, whether comedy or drama, offer musical soundtracks that are recorded and released sometimes months before the film even begins shooting. ONCE this AFD is closed, I ~~will~~ could move THIS to overwrite the deleted title. Care to add to it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good! That's a nice proposal of disambiguation page. But i am not sure if we want to go there yet. Many songs share same first lines or at least the credit titles. Creating such page would mean we are open for a lyrical directory. I personally, being fan of songs, would love to have it. Nothing better than a clean well-sourced well-maintained Antakshari guide for me. But thats not what Wikipedia is. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this might affect more than this article, i have dropped a note at INCINE about this. Wikipedia_talk:INCINE#Disambiguation. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Per your note at Incline disagreeing with the facility of the disambig page for this name at this time, I am now back to supporting a cheap redirect of THIS title Paisa paisa to the film in which this version of the song title has sourcable context. We can consider a disambig page for the term "Paisa Paisa" if and when someone tries to create another article on this title for other films or singer or game show. And by the by... a proper disambig page is not a catalog page that would fall under WP:NOTCATALOG, specially in this case where the term "Paisa Paisa" is disambiguable to more that just songs in various films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to redirect it even after you know that readers might be looking for other songs, even after you know that its ambiguous? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a term is declared ambiguous, it is reasonable to have a disambig page that serves readers who search for that term. When I suggested just such a reasonable disambig page you seemed to think it was a good idea, but perhaps premature. Then you went to a different forum, and shot down the suggestion. But your research and then my own show the term "Paisa Paisa" is applicable to more that just a few film songs, and a proper disambig page does not fall under WP:NOT. If you feel a redirect does not serve the reader we can have, per WP:DPAGES and WP:DABNAME, a disambig page that does. IF a disambig page for this ambiguous term is too soon, we can have a redirect. It becomes as simple as deciding which option best serves the reader for this particular term. Pick your poison. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to pick a poison? The subject is not notable for it's own stand alone article. The title has various meanings, just like how almost many words have and hence there is no clear cut redirect. Why should we keep redirect or disambiguation page? Delete is the right answer to it. Just because some user made a stub on it we don't have to keep it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

& what do you mean by shot down the suggestion? Do you agree that we should have disambiguation pages for song articles? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Do as you like. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agreee that the De Dana Dan song "Paisa Paisa" is not notable enough under WP:MUSIC for its own article. Deletion is anticipated and I am not expecting a keep. My first thought was to send simply send readers to where it is already spoken of in context. But when you pointed out the term was ambiguous, I agreed and then opted for a dab page to address the ambiguity and to offer readers information on that ambiguity and where they might find information on whichever Paisa Paisa they might be seeking. By "shot down" I refer to your statement elsewhere where you wrote "I am against it as this would open opportunities for many more songs which share same titles or first few words." What I "think" after researching the term is that we should have a disambuation page that addresses, Paisa Paisa film songs, Paisa Paisa individual songs, and the Paisa Paisa game show... all of which are verifiable if a reader does a seacrh the term "Paisa Paisa". When this AFD closes I will be bold enough to do just that and await an possible MFD for the Paisa Paisa dab page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Think and Grow Rich. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin C. Barnes[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be notable - I can't find reliable sources: the article seems to rely on his inclusion in what a Napoleon Hill self-help book, and a supposed association with Edison that is not confirmed elsewhere. Mcewan (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:11, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Think and Grow Rich. The person, real or not, is a subject in the 1937 book Think and Grow Rich. Topics that are not independently notable should redirect to the parent article.--SGCM (talk) 06:23, 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. few comments after multiple relistings, but clearly non-notable DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Psi Epsilon[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable college club with only 2 chapters. No third party sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. One source confirms that it does exist, but not enough to established notability GrapedApe (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 13. Snotbot t • c » 12:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:10, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Based on description in the article -- newish sorority, only a few chapters -- I don't see anything particularly notable. --Lquilter (talk) 22:36, 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology Training Program – University of Virginia[edit]

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

This is a PhD research program at the University of Virginia. I can find no indication that this program has received coverage in reliable sources to make this individual program of the university meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Whpq (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New citations recently added, including one in ScienceCareers. Article is important in today's challenging economic climate as students seek new career pathways. Glaurie (talk) 6:23, 26 July 2012

Comment - It sounds like you believe this article is important for promoting the UV BTP program. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a vehicle for advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't usually keep articles about academic subunits this small (more typical would be a mention as part of an article about a school within the university) unless there is something exceptional about the program, but the part in the article about it being only one of 19 nationwide tells me that in this case there isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - New program; does not (yet) stand out among other similar programs, so not notable within the class of university biotech programs. --173.48.212.192 (talk) 14:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Cordell[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable; He does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. While I appreciate that the article says he won an award for best documentary, there is no reference and the award may well have been simply an internal college award (especially as he does not even mention any award on his own bio/cv page from his own website). Under general notability he is neither an award winner nor ground-breaking in his field (indeed a search at the Purchase College website does not find him, though it does find other directors that have won awards) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about him. I found this article which mentions an Allen Cordell that might be him, but it isn't significant coverage in any case. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established from WP:RS sources. --Artene50 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all notability tests. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm willing to userfy on request. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball controversies[edit]

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

Ill defined article. What is and what isn't a controversy? WP:OR is also an issue.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ...William 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There have been numerous debates about controversy articles before, but the current consensus is that controversy and criticism articles are allowed for certain topics per WP:CRITICISM, (examples include the Olympics, Commonwealth Games BBC, and Coca-Cola), provided that the article is neutral and has reliable sources.--SGCM (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:LISTPURP. This is a discriminate, well-sourced list article that provides useful information organized in one place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's been a lot of controversy articles in the past (Olympics, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc.), all this article really needs are more WP:RS, but oversl, it provides quite a good amount of info. Zappa O Mati 14:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a mess. It does not define what a controversy is and in fact much of what is on the page are not even controversies. Primarily Original research and the opinions of the writers. There is a difference between a controversy and a scandal, which many of these would be closer to. Article at the moment is a slapshod collection of unrelated events and if this article is allowed to stand i can see this only getting worse. Spanneraol (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actual definition of a controversy, "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion". Actual definition of a scandal, "1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc., 2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed. 3. damage to reputation; public disgrace. 4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip. 5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense". So, under these definitions, Black Sox Scandal should be removed, Pete Rose situation was a scandal, but the debate about him and Shoeless Joe Jackson getting into the Hall of Fame are controversies. Brian Stow incident fits a scandal and is not a controversy. The pine tar incident is not a controversy. So the sections in the article that could fit; Jackie Robinson should be "The color barrier", California Baseball, Steroids, steroid era statistics (maybe), native american mascot names (not purely baseball though), and others that have not been added. Such as: The DH rule, inter-league play, expansion, multiple leagues, contract jumping, the all-star game voting, the single-season home run record (the asterisk *). These are just a few off the top of my head. Maybe a separate list can document the "scandals".Neonblak ^talk - 16:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't scandals also be controversial? They're not exactly mutually exclusive concepts.--SGCM (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then would it be appropriate to rename this page to "Major League Baseball scandals"? Zappa O Mati 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the list borderline violates WP:OR. Definitely violates WP:NPOV. I mean seriously, how could you possibly mention the trivial name change of the Reds (which was more of a face-saving move than controversy) and the Giants and Dodgers moving to California (limited to NY area and this was more of a private franchise business move than a controversy) and not include the asterisk on Maris' record (described as the biggest PR disaster in MLB history). Also, many sources are not in line with WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources, as I see 2 refs from Bleacher Report (completely unreliable) and one from a blog originating from the LA Weekly (a "free weekly tabloid-sized 'alternative weekly'"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a hopeless and indiscriminate mishmash of unrelated events grouped by someone's POV idea of what constitutes a "controversy", therefore falling into the realm of original research by synthesis. Add in that some entries could hardly be considered controversial by a reasonable person (Reds becoming the Redlegs for a time), or not controversial and only tangentally related to MLB itself (Shaw beating), or just flat out made up (Baseball was dropped from the Olympics due to cost and lack of global popularity, not MLB's non participation). There is no set criteria for inclusion, and therefore no actual cohesion to the article. It is basically an ill-defined category in article space. Reso lute 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the only things in MLB history that pops in my mind as controversaries, are the Black Sox Scandle, Drug usage & Pete Rose gambling. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I would love to see a page such as this one, it's unfortunate that the criteria as to what is and is not "controversial" becomes subjective. When minor single game "incidents" get portrayed as full blown MLB controversies, thats a clue that there may be a problem as to how this article is being presented.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The current convention for controversy articles (like Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics) is that incidents describe by reliable sources as controversies are to be included. This helps to prevent problems dealing with subjectivity and original research.--SGCM (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately there are many subtle levels of "controversial". One event may seem more significant to one person based on regional and or team bias than to another person. Minor "single game" or "single play" "controversies" tend to sometimes be overblown by a network of media outlets itching to stand out by looking for juicy stories to report. If this article were to be kept, and I don't think it will, but if it were to be kept, the sections should be restricted to "major" and "lasting" controversies, involving an era of MLB baseball. For instance, instead of a section just on Jackie Robinson, there should be a section on the whole segregation of baseball, that ultimately includes JR breaking the color barrier. Instead of "California baseball" have a section on relocation as a whole. Instead of "Yankees payroll", have a section on breaking the reserve clause and how modern free agency effects salaries. And get rid of anything that is only a single game controversy (Bartman, Stowe, Joyce),. Having those in the article is not helping in this deletion discussion.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Important controversies should be covered in articles on the history of MLB. Notable controversies (major or minor) should each have their own article, with a category so readers can go from one to another. No reason to list a bunch of them on one page like this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the criteria for having this type of article are neutrality and reliable sourcing, this article meets neither. The items that do have sources are more often simple descriptions of the item in question rather than identifying them as controversial -- and indeed, as noted above, that is because a fair number of the items are not, in fact, controversies, but either scandals or single incidents that simply don't rise to the definition of controversy. As they are written, out of fifteen items (currently as of this comment) in the article, only one (steroids) would qualify for inclusion in such an article without shifting the frame of reference, and that one would need a hefty rewrite. Also, as noted above, many of the most important true controversies in MLB history (the designated hitter, playoff expansion, interleague play, instant replay, Bud Selig as commissioner while an owner, contraction, collusion, and on and on and on) are not even included. While an article on MLB controversies could be useful, this just flat out ain't it. Perhaps the page could be moved to a subpage of a willing user so that a legitimately workable page can be developed. -Dewelar (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so the article can be collaboratively worked on until it is ready for primetime. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is what I was getting at. I just couldn't remember the proper voting term. -Dewelar (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone to the article a few times in the past few days with the solemn intent on actually working on the sections in a vain attempt to straighten it up and make it presentable. But every time I do, I realize that the article will probably be deleted anyway, so it's most likely a waste of time.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not a big fan of shouting "indiscriminate" for potentially long lists, but this one is, as there are controversies in baseball every day, from blown calls like the Galaraga incident (albeit not to break up perfect games, but where do we draw the line) to controversial plays (e.g., bunting to try to break up a no hitter, whether successful or not), to larger scale issues like free agency (including but not limited to whether free agency should exist or not) to manager or player decisions that turn out badly (in virtually every game) and numerous player relation issues going back to the 19th century. As further examples, the list mentions the franchise moves to California (apparently for the Giants and Dodgers but for some reason not the Athletics), but virtually every proposed franchise move has been controversial (whether or not the move was made, or even regardless of whether it was a realistic possibility or mere speculation); sadly enough, the color line was probably less controversial than breaking the color line; there were controversies over playing the World Series; numerous gambling controversies besides the Black Sox and Pete Rose; controversies over considering the American League (and earlier leagues) as major leagues; controversies over fights and certain injuries (including the one death); and many more. And it is not clear what constitutes a controversy. For example, I am not sure what was "controversial" about the Steve Bartman incident from a Major League persepctive. Was it that he was escorted from the stadium (before the end of the game by the way)? That fans were mad at him? If any play or event for which a reliable source uses the term "controversy" or "controversial" is eligible for the list, then there would be hundreds of events per year to include. Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Gallaraga incident is actually a good example of the failure of this list, as there is absolutely no controversy there. Everyone, including the umpire himself, admits he blew the call. It was a newsworthy incident, even a noteworthy one. But controversial? Not in the slightest. Reso lute 14:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also another example of what "could" happen with an article like this. Single incidents being consisdered "controversial" on their own merit. Whats really controversial about this incident is MLB's use or in this case non-use of "instant replay", which would have, if IR was in effect, clearly overturned this call. This incident could be used as an example, but hardly as a stand alone controversy.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either userfy or fork. Either this thing needs to be moved out of article space until we can fix it (and yes, I'd be happy to help) or it needs to be fixed now by paring it down to a bare-bones list, with no more than a sentence per entry and wikilinks to each individual controversy. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it smacks less of OR/SYNTH to me and more of recentism. 7/11 of the entries are 1990s or later. There were plenty more notable controversies than some of these. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Controversy" is undefinable. Every time an ump blows a call or a manager stays too long with a pitcher that's gassed, it's controversial, isn't it?!?! Carrite (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Be that as it may, the Article specifies major controversies in the heading, not simply controversies. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Major is pretty POV. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is an OR situation and can likely only ever be an OR situation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DJSasso and others' comments above. This is a subjectively compiled list, unavoidably and incurably mired in original research. Those scandals that satisfy GNG and which otherwise merit stand-alone articles should be linked to the "History of baseball," player biography, and team history articles, as appropriate. I recommend that the closing admin permit the userfication of the article for any WikiProject Baseball editor who desires to make sure no worthwhile content is lost. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take it if that happens. Closing admin can feel free to move it to User:Jorgath/Major League Baseball controversies. If I get it, I'll try to get consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball for what to save for somewhere else and what to outright delete, and then we can implement that consensus. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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