< 11 May	13 May >

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. Premature to the extend to qualify as misinformation and also unattributed to the userpage it is based upon. Tikiwont (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No such video game, source used is not reliable and creator edited my user page--Cheetah255 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Deacon[edit]

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

Article seems to be written by the subject. Subject has previously been a professor in a Cardiff college and claims currently to be a professor at a small campus of the University of Wales (though I can't find evidence of this). He is possibly still a local elected councillor (I can't find proof). He claims to have appeared on local TV during election campaigns but, though this is believable, I can't find any proof of it or in what capacity he appeared. Overall this article seems to read like an unsourced online CV for an academic and political activist. Does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales of this nomination. Sionk (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of referencing has been mainly dealt with as required by WP:GNG. References to a local councillor have now been included. References to lectureship at Trinity St David are not yet in because they have not updated their web site with this information but when this is done it will be referenced. Subject was not a professor at a college but a University in Cardiff. Reference to TV election appearance included. Other references are now included. Article is a biography more accurately sourced than before. Biographies are similar to cvs but not the same, as commentator needs to examine the clear differences between them with respect to their comment. With respect to the WP:ACADEMIC category: Professor Deacon held a Chair at University of Wales Institute Cardiff. That was the highest level appointed academic post at the university. He is an elected Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Higher Education Academy. Subject was Chair of the Parliament for Wales Campaign, which campaigned for and led to the introduction of both the Welsh Assembly and primary law making powers. This was a significant national role outside of academia. This was a notable Welsh political and historic campaign group. The comments on some aspects of referencing on TV and radio appearances are not possible because these programmes do not list all contributors to the programmes on a daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdeacon (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The new references help towards verification. WP:GNG requires evidence of multiple examples of reliable in-depth coverage that is independent of the subject. However, if you can provide proof that you(?) held a recognised Chair post at UWIC or elsewhere, that may be sufficient to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Sionk (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a reference (3) which provides online evidence from Cardiff Metropolitan University that the subject held a chair there. Once the web site is operational for Trinity St David that will also be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdeacon (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to read the opinions of other editors. I'm not sure reference (3) confirms that a chair position is held. Of the remaining sources, none of them are in-depth, reliable and independent. The article seems overly self-promotional. Sionk (talk) 14:50, 29 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am reluctant to !vote here, but like Sionk I remain unconvinced that the notability test has been passed. I do accept that Dr (Prof) Deacon is known within members of the academic community interested in the history of Liberal politics in Britain, and Wales in particular, but chiefly it seems through his post as convenor of the British Liberal Political Studies Group of the Political Studies Association, rather than as having, say, authored a seminal study on the topic. He is known within Welsh Liberal Democrat circles, but not as taking a prominent part in leadership or policy formulation. He held a post as professor at Cardiff School of Education which is a constituent part of Cardiff Metropolitan University, and I accept that ref (3) in the current article is sufficient evidence of that, but it would seem to have been for at most a period of one academic year and I am having difficulty in relating that to the rest of his academic career. In many cases the creation of a personal professorial post is a very singular honour, evidence of an outstanding contribution in their field, and more than sufficient to satisfy WP's notability requirements. The shortness of tenure would then be irrelevant. But I have to say frankly to the author of this article that the paucity of any evidence that this was a substantive post, the circumstances or grounds on which it was awarded, or any of the normal incidental material that would normally accompany a Google search on an academic satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria is a major impediment to my supporting the keeping of the article. That is not to question the accuracy of the article, or denying what he has actually achieved, but Wikipedia is not simply a directory of Welsh academics or political activists. --AJHingston (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I don't see him notable as an academic. A one year post to a personal chair is I think essentially a Visiting appointment, and nobody could possible call University of Wales a major research university, even before the government closed it down. Checking his books on worldcat, one of them has 138 copies in UK libraries, which is pretty good, because worldcat does not cover most uk public libraries. If 3rd party reviews can be found, he'll be probably notable as WP:AUTHOR. His notability otherwise is as a political figure, but he does not help that he has apparently held no formal office. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 6 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 12 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Most Populous metropolitan areas in Peru[edit]

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

Sourced by unreliable material and he makes an original research with primary sources, in the source of population do not talk about metropolitan areas, and the user make a sum to his understanding, has several errors. This is an original research, It does not have enough references, and in fact there are unreliable, even one of them is a blog. only the references of some metropolitan areas are verifiable, with regard to the "population" of the same this is not verifiable, about the same article in other languages, all were created by the same IP, there seems to be making a claim that information like true or trustworthy Cmonzonc (talk) 03:55, 5 May 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 May 5. Snotbot t • c » 04:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, it is sourced by unreliable material. I noticed other country articles were getting these things included, so I did not mention anything about it. However, now that the sources are being challenged, it certainly is a good time to get rid of this thing. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can tell, most of the sources used are government planning documents and official census estimates. I agree that some of the population estimates could be better sourced--they seem to rely on newspaper accounts--but that's what editing is for. This page does need a specific cut-off point or benchmark for inclusion, though (e.g. "List of Metropolitan areas in Peru with Populations above 500,000" or something).TCSaint (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How many recognized metropolitan areas are there in Peru? Why not make this a comprehensive list that is sortable by population, rather than having an arbitrary cut-off? postdlf (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In Perú exists only three metropolitan areas, in Perú to be an metropolitan area the urban conglomeration must have more than half a million inhabitants and count with a metropolitan development plan, the metropolitan areas not adjusts to the circunscripcion of the "distritos". A part of the population of the "distrito" can be in or can be out of the metropolitan area, the author of the article is not consider the real metropolitan area, is consider all the popoulation districts assuming that the entire population of the "distrito" is in the metropolitan area, this is bad and convert the article in an original research. According to Wikipedia is not possible make a synthesis or assumptions about census information, which is a primary source. In this case only talk about "distritos", and not exists source which says that a particular metropolitan area has a certain amount of people.--Cmonzonc (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So convert this to Metropolitan areas of Peru to explain the classification and describe the three MAs; remove everything that's not officially a metropolitan area; and create a List of distritos of Peru with a sortable population column. Would that work? postdlf (talk) 00:24, 7 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 12 May 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, →B music ian 03:17, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational[edit]

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

Non-notable beauty pageant. Ridernyc (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided other than the pageant's own web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please read WP:NRVE, where it's stated, ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe no other sources are included in the article right now but a web search does show third party verification and interest, it needs work but could be worth saving. Zarcadia (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A little dubious about its notability, but as Zarcadia pointed out, a web search shows some coverage. Curiously, I want to point out that a book search leads to this, which in its description cites Wikipedia, contrary to critical reception of Wikipedia. Just a curious point I want to make. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 18:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some publishers have made a business out of reprinting Wikipedia articles in book form, which is allowed under our license, but isn't a good deal for their customers because they could just look up the same information on Wikipedia itself for no charge. See this search for other examples from the same publisher; see also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#Icon Group International. Wikipedia does get cited by more respectable publishers, though; see this search for examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Some sources:

"Belarusian student became the first vice-miss to Miss Supranational". Telegraf.by. September 7, 2009. Retrieved May 5, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) (in Russian)
"Thu May dress at the Miss Supranational". Thanh Nien News. August 25, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2012. (in Vietnamese)
"Vietnamese finishes third at Miss Supranational". Thanh Nien News. September 3, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited did not provide critical analysis of the event, and the materials contained in the news reports were extracted from the Miss Supranational website. As per WP:SPIP, even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.--Arielle Leira (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The pageant is not notable yet as per WP:GNG. WP:WHYN states article requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources (that provide critical analysis of the event). Routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage.--Arielle Leira (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources I have provided aren't coverage of the types stated above. While some of the articles are short, they are third-party sources unaffiliated with Miss Supranational. They certainly aren't "tabloid journalism". Rather, they are human interest and societal articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 16 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources:

"Thu May comes third at Miss Supranational 2011". Yuoitrenews.vn. August 27, 2011. Retrieved May 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"Vietnam ranked successful at beauty pageants". Yuoitrenews.vn. December 30, 2011. Retrieved May 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the sources I have presented in the above comments, the topic is meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - non of the Top4 big pageants but still notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 18 May 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. Sandstein 05:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masreliez[edit]

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

The sources provided do not provide any indication that the Masreliez family have any significant notability in Sweden or France. Suggest deleting entirely, or possible merge into Curt Masreliez who appears to be the only notable member of this family. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salimfadhley, am I to assume that you have read Swedish art historian Göran Alm's Swedish-language monograph on the Masreliez family (referred to in the article) and that this study of the subject has lead you to the conclusion that the family isn't notable? Because that is what your nomination is implying. (For the record, I have added two articles on members of the Masreliez family previously missing here: Adrien Masreliez and Jean Baptiste Masreliez. The Swedish dictionary of national biography has articles on these two, on Louis Masreliez, and a separate article on the family as a whole, which includes a few lines on 20th-century family member Curt Masreliez, among others. I will admit to never having heard of Curt until today, but a merge of anything to his article seems like a remarkably bad idea.) --Hegvald (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the ISBN of the monograph? I am unable to find the book. Note that whether the individuals are notable does not mean we should have an article on the surname. It's also not clear whether the article is about the family of artists of French origin and of a Swedish line of descent or about individuals with the surname. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not clear? Once you have four related individuals, three verey closely related, who have articles an article on the family is justified as a form of disambiguation & to avoid confusion, and we have very many such articles. It is not necessary to demonstrate notability specifically for the family as a group, although in this case this can be done anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't discussing a disambiguation page of individuals. It is necessary to demonstrate notability specifically for the family as a group. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that; there are hundreds of pages on noble families and titles of nobility that are just lists of individuals. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If those articles go to AfD they will have to demonstrate notability as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN is already there and appears to be correct. I see no reason to have an article on the surname, but there is no reason not to have one on this particular family. Any unrelated Masreliezes can be left out. As far as I can tell no unrelated ones are in there at the moment. --Hegvald (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I thought that I just want to clarify what this particular article is covering. It seems a bad idea to try and cover both in the same article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see this has been clarified: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's is covered in the runeberg.org source, I am unable to read swedish: [2], does it specifically say he is a member of the Masreliez family? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a scan of a Swedish Who's Who (sv:Vem är det?) from 1969 and it is not the type of publication that would mention someone's distant ancestry. But as I mentioned above, the article in the Swedish dictionary of national biography (Svenskt biografiskt lexikon) mentions Curt as being a member of the family. --Hegvald (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Who's who" source should probably be switched with the Svenskt biografiskt lexikon. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well Hegvald pretty much covers all aspects of why it should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hegwald. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing without providing any reasoning does not have any weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there are enough sources yet to demonstrate notability. It seems a swedish or french speaker is in the best position to locate the sources. I found one mention: [3] (only a one line mention though). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are any of the source texts available in English? WP:NOENG is the relevant section of WP:V which deals with disputes concerning non-English sources. In this case the article does not have a single English-language source - it's very difficult to verify the notability of this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All you have to do is ask someone who reads the language in question (Swedish in this case) to check relevant sources. WP:NOENG just gives a preference to English sources when available and of equal quality. As for the notability of the subject, it is not really in question and never was. --Hegvald (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A google snippet - about on the family name in books: "Encyclopedia of interior design: M-Z.: Volume 2,

books.google.co.ukJoanna Banham, Leanda Shrimpton - 1997 - 696 pages - Snippet view Masreliez was born in Paris into a prominent family of French sculptors and carvers. His father, Adrien Masreliez, arrived in Stockholm in 1748 to work at the Royal Palace, where he became the foremost carver of ornament." - In fact there are plenty of sources, like this, if you bother to look. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Banham book is the same source as I showed above (it gives a one line mention), if you bother to look. The other source you linked doesn't mention the family just an individual. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two individuals, if you bother to read it! Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice, and it's irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources, notable family. A while ago I was involved in an edit war with a banned user over a "C. Johan Masreliez" [4]. I do not know if this person is also mentioned in the sources as a member of this family. More knowledgeable editors should look into this. This person is also the reason that this topic was discussed on the fringe noticeboard a few times, initiated by the same banned user, who is evading his ban to delete the mention of this person. And it is again the same banned user who initiated yet another fringe noticeboard discussion, which led the proposer to believe this AFD is necessary. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is exactly that there is not plenty of sources. Aside: I am unsure why you inserted unsourced content about a living person in the first place [5] (which appears to have led to your edit war). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was undoing previous reverts by the banned user. In my book banned = banned and not "oh the banned user raises valid points on the talk page and his revert also makes sense, so I am going to contínue his work, because being banned means _he_ cannot do all the necessary work on WP, so somebody has to do it for him". This is not a personal attack. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this all seems rather bizarre. We have a few (somewhat dubious) sources which mention this name but in no significant depth. We have a small number of notable individuals of this family, some of whom may have their own pages. The name itself is not notable, it's the family. I propose that we make a template for the family and just include this on the relevant pages. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre yourself! Several of the sources are not at all dubious, and some quite lengthy, and several individuals do have their own pages. Templates should be reserved for more significant cases; the notability threshold for a template should be MUCH MUCH higher than for an article. I would certainly support the deletion of any template created. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the initiator of this Masreliez-article, I have been notified of and invited to comment on this AfD discussion. First on the issue: I have added Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (SBL) as a reliable source on the Swedish family line and on the members listed there, as it garantees that listed persons ”have done significant contributions within all areas of soceity and culture”, which should do for Wikipedia as well. For a short mentioning of a person in a family article I question the need of similar notability requirements as for a separate wp article on the person. Next on the long time edit war: The banned Vanished user (former SA and other alias) has started edit wars in many articles from several IP-socks. When my trying to draw attention to this fact, it cost me a warning for "outing" harassment, stating his user name, which turned out also to be his real name. This came to involve two other Swedish wp-users and lead to my block, which I have given up appealing to all-mighty administrators on. That's why I have to sign with my IP. / 89.160.124.74 (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SBL appears to give sources about individuals and not the family. Note that the above editor is ban evading. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP above has been blocked as a ban evader. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for semi-protecting the article during this debate, but it looks like the usual vandal/sock is acting up again. IPs are welcome to comment here or at the article talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Salimfadhley had clearly already made up his mind before starting the nomination. He declares all sources "somewhat dubious" and now appears to be in the process of concocting some crazy conspiracy theory to explain why he is being opposed in the discussion. Ironically, Salimfadhley probably believes that he is fighting the good fight against fringe science (in this case personified by an obscure latter-day member of this family, an engineer with an eccentric cosmology of his own, if I've understood the issue correctly), but at this point, he has stepped firmly into the fringe himself. The importance of the Masreliez family in the 18th century is not something any mainstream scholar of Swedish art history would dispute, although they may give different relative weight to them compared to a few of their contemporaries. But the only way to show this is to reference publications such as the book by Göran Alm, a well-known expert on 18th century Swedish architecture and interiors, who writes: "For more than half a century, the French artist family Masreliez dominated the creation of Swedish interiors. A comparable family dominance can only be found in the three generations [of the] Tessin [family]", Franskt blev svenskt, p. 185, translated from the Swedish). But since Salimfadhley, with no apparent background in the general area of Swedish art, history or culture, has already declared Alm's book "somewhat dubious", we are at a point where further exchange of views on this subject becomes meaningless. --Hegvald (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basing your whole keep vote on an Ad hominem on the nominator is hardly persuasive. The sources on this topic are almost non-existent or fail to go into much detail (the above source has already been mentioned in this AfD). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable to try to wage a campaign against a subject from a noticeboard that is subject-wise completely unrelated? Is it acceptable to claim that people with opposing (and in fact better-informed) views are representing a "fringe view" when one hasn't even informed oneself about the subject before making the nomination in the first place? (As an aside, I haven't actually voted "keep". I usually don't do so with articles that I find unsalvageable. The article is rubbish and I would be happy to see it go. But not if it means a precedent against a new article.) --Hegvald (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary We have a small handful of sources which have appeared during the course of the AfD. I think whether GNG has been met is not clear. I will summarize the current sources for the closing admin:

1 line: Shrimpton, editor Joanna Banham ; picture editor Leanda (1997). Encyclopedia of interior design. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. p. 791. ISBN 9781884964190.

1 Paragraph in the Dictionary of Swedish National Biography [6] trans: [7]

A 190 page book on the topic: Franskt blev svenskt: den franska könstnärsfamiljen Masreliez i Sverige under 1700-talet by a publisher called signum ISBN 9187896060, 9789187896064, author Göran Alm

a small mention at the bottom of the page here: [8]. I'm not sure how reliable this self-published website is.

I think the crux of the AfD is whether a single short book provides significant coverage or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be enough. Not that this is all there is, but it should be enough for Wikipedia. That this is not all there is would be clear to you from the bibliographies in the already-mentioned sources. --Hegvald (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the source doesn't directly discuss the family in detail it does not help towards notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It very clearly does! The great majority of "kept" notability AFDs have far less than this! Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a kept AfD could have less than significant coverage in one reliable source unless something other than WP:GNG was fufilled. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Schroeder[edit]

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

This is an unsourced BLP about an MMA fighter who doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT#Fighters. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject appears to have fought only a single bout in a notable organization (12 years ago). The article contains no sources other than Sherdog's record of his fight history. --TreyGeek (talk)
Delete Between the lack of sources and the failure to meet any notability criteria, the vote to delete seems obvious. Astudent0 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not have a professional body of work sufficient to meet the notability criteria. Stormbay (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability in the article or discovered by discussion participants via WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayoc Kali[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable martial art. There's no indication of why this art is notable and the only source refers to people wanting to revolt against Spain. The article says this is a historical Philippine martial art that was developed in 1980 in Queens, New York. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all - a historical martial art developed in 1980? Or maybe the rules were codified in 1980? Either way, I failed to find enough reliable coverage for the sport. At least arnis has reliable coverage and is notable because it's the Philippine national sport, but this one? No. I'm not sure if this is related to arnis, but if it is, then any reliably sourced material can be merged either to arnis or Filipino martial arts. Oh wait - there aren't any sources! I'm willing to reconsider if sources are found, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find independent reliable sources to show this is a notable martial art and the article gives no sources at all that mention this art. It certainly doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources and I don't see anything that shows this art is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 18 May 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) →B music ian 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's kickboxing in Australia[edit]

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

There's no indication of why this topic is notable and the only source is 2 pages from a book on women in Australian sports--neither of which I believe shows notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic is notable. Sources are out there to help it be improved. A few examples sources have been included. The women's sport has been subject to federal litigation. Google News archive search shows over 100 results when searching for women kickboxing Australia. There are additional book sources and academic papers on the topic. Does article need work? Yes. Is that relevant to its notability when sources out there exist to help it easily pass WP:GNG? No. --LauraHale (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sports are generally considered notable. Seems to be plenty of sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week KeepWith respect to martial arts there is definatly not enough for notability but the legal controversy makes it notable in the larger context of Australian sport. I wonder if the best approach is to produce an article on Kickboxing in Australia which does not exist at the moment and merge. The picture has to go.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As women make up a small percentage of kickboxers in Australia, most of an article about kickboxing in Australia would focus on men and a detailed section on women would be WP:UNDUE. Create and merge into such an article isn't a solution. More sources continue to be available that just haven't been used. We're not talking about one competitor but a number of competitors, international events in the country, Australian female competitors abroad, the importance of minority participation in the sport, etc. --LauraHale (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question is whether women's kickboxing in Australia is notable, not whether there are any female kickboxers in Australia. Claiming notability because a fighter once fought an American is a huge stretch to me. I agree with Peter that the banning is of more significance, but it was only in 1 state. Many states in the U.S. still ban MMA and full contact kickboxing, even for males. I know a number of fighters who have never competed in their home state. If there are some Australian women who have won international kickboxing titles, I would find that more convincing. I did like Peter's suggestion of a "Kickboxing in Australia" article or perhaps a "Women's Kickboxing" one. I will also say that the current version of the article is a huge improvement over the 1 source, couple sentence version that I put up for AfD. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the article to "Women's Kickboxing" and expanding it is a very good idea. there already is a List of female kickboxers each with their own article for a good start.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N appears to be met here. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite a few sources are listed here already, and this also has have television coverage. At least one Australian Woman is prominent in the sport, so it is worth having an article on this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Its an organised sport in Australia, with events on the international stage, with sources to back it up John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:00, 18 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urban Christian Fiction Authors[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication of which, if any, of these people really are notable authors. Not clear if the genre is well defined enough for such a list to be meaningful. The genre has no article of its own, just a small section in Christian novel which is not clear enough to define it for me. Referenced to what seems to be the publisher's website "Urban Christian" promoting books by the authors listed. (For LOLz, check out their "About Us" page.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the entries appears to be notable. Urban Christian fiction doesn't have a page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the authors have articles, and don't seem notable. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be entirely nonnotable because (1) The genre urban Christian fiction is not defined and (2) Not one of the authors is linked, 18:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete A list that doesn't link to anything on Wikipedia seems rather pointless. Further, as all the authors are listed on the same website, the one that is used as a reference, and that website sells their books, this appears to be a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename dropping "urban" form the title; then link all names and pune of NN authors -- "urban" Christian fiction is presumably a subset of "Christian fiction". One function of list articles is to identify where articles are needed. Such a list should only include notable authors, and they should be linked. If this is duplicating some other list, then merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian fiction authors already exists. If any of the authors here are notable, and not yet included, then merging them there is worthwhile. I doubt it is more than a very few of them though. In theory, red links for authors who are notable but who have no article yet should be OK and help to flag up the need for an article but, in practice, once you allow some red links you open the door for lots of non-notable red links to be added, so it is something to be wary of. It would be better to make a stub for any that are notable. One or two sentences, one RS reference and a stub tag is enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:31, 15 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Kaoru Nakamaru[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. Princess Kaoru Nakamaru refers to a personal website as a source. Associated with conspiracies, shadow governments, 2012 doomsday, and a psychic who can speak with the reptilian aliens. She speaks about some 5th dimension, Noodle, and secret societies. The matter of 'Princess' is well also another matter entirely. Its on the Japanese Wiki [9] and numerous Youtube videos. Seems entirely fake. Actually so much of the information (even in the stub) is wrong, no claim to notability or meetings with kings and leaders or being a journalist. Mere self-promotion of these claims, no evidence to support them. Found a book which refers to Nakamaru stating that (Nakamaru's knows) the daughter of Princess Masako (of Japan) never occurred and used changeling for when the time came. [10] Other more fringe matters are abundant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawing the nomination. Completely rewritten, verifiable sources added. Page move done, article is basically new. Barnstar given to Michitaro for endeavoring in this work. May the Japanese Wiki use this as a guide for restoring the subjects article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Heres's some further redux on this subject: Nakamaru was born in China as the daughter of Shigeko/Naruko(?) Nakajima (中島成子) a nurse for Japanese Red Cross, and a Chinese father named Han Jingdong. Her mother claimed to be a descendant of Tatsukichirō Horikawa (ja:堀川辰吉郎), who himself was rumored to be an illegitimate child of Emperor Meiji and a woman named Kotoko Chikusa. The credibility of these claims is highly questionable, and they don't appear in particularly reliable sources. If this article is kept because it represents a notable fringe personality, it should be retitled without "Princess," and the subject should not be called "Princess" in the prose aside from describing her claim of descent. Virtually nobody is legally a princess because of descent from Emperor Meiji; it's impossible through illegitimate lines or females. JFHJr (㊟) 22:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Her activities in and with North Korea seem to be more or less accurately related on her website. Here's a handful that mostly corroborate the claims, though I'm unconvinced it's substantial coverage, or that the events are important at all: DPRK work, DPRK again, journalism, "commère"/journalism again ("commère" is indicative of low journalistic quality), and TV guide indicating broadcast in the USA. She's WP:FRINGE, but she's not a hoax. JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of claims, but no reliable third-party sourcing to verify notability or justify a Wikipedia article on the subject. --DAJF (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much of what she claims is likely false, but it is true she was a nation-wide television personality in the 1970s. She did have her own show that was broadcast around Japan in which she interviewed global personalities. See for instance this TV guide from 1973. She's probably a loon, but probably a notable one. Michitaro (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Japanese Wikipedia does not have her. I would tend to think she would be covered there if she were that notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ja:中丸薫. Whether she's covered in another Wiki isn't very relevant anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 19:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She does not appear to be the same individual listed in JFHJr's post, she neither claims that position in her bio or on the Sun page (they differ in accounts and history) Typically one would cite this claim on their own biography and the only thing I can find is a different date and year for this North Korea one as a 'guest of state'. Your source says 1993. This Nakamaru says she went in 1996. [11] Thus we are not discussing the same individual it seems. It appears that your results are just looking for the name popping up in various places, its similar to citing 'John Smith' in any book. This is why I put it up for deletion, absolutely nothing checks out against the sources. You may have a TV guide that has her own Follow The Sun organization. Said she was invited to the former Soviet Union in 1989... but it didn't break up to 1991. And helped stop the US military from attacking Iraq in 1998. It gets worse from there with her American Biographical Institute entry which is a paid-inclusion vanity biographical publisher. Whose awards are denounced as scams. Same for the UK based International Biographical Centre. Considering the fact she says she's been to 160+ countries and met with the leaders of those countries, I find it hard to believe in light of the evidence against. We need more reliable sources. She claims honors throughout all of journalism. She claims to have wrote 40 books, some which as used as 'handbooks on foreign policy'. Yet I cannot find one under the ISBN author search. The claim of Princess comes up in some sources as minor mentions, usually as a colorful character, the roving TV journalist from London? Other issues of the TV guide (the PBS one) is well... not really notable or verifiable because it seems to have been a public access thing. If she was really important and famous, met these leaders and gotten these awards (the Sadat one doesn't even match up with the paper either), wouldn't there be reliable independent coverage of this? Anyone who claims to have interviewed President Regan, Ford would be notable and it should be covered. Same goes for North Korea's line of leaders, Egypt and Iraq. Even preventing a 1998 US air-bombing in Iraq would be verifiable right? The issue of vanity publishers and awards do not help for credibility. Let alone the fact the information in the two sources of her bio change almost all the key information about dates and important events. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding credibility of this subject overall — conflicting information supports this conclusion. Many claims she makes are objectively incredible, especially her own importance and fame. However I'm quite sure this is the same person as in the links I provided above, and the same as the one that Michitaro discussed. The name is not a "John Smith." That said, I don't think any of what the links show actually indicates she is notable. JFHJr (㊟) 20:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is the one and the same person. She seems to be presenting herself differently depending on the audience. As for her books, a WorldCat search shows she has published dozens of books from some of the major publishers in Japan: Tokuma Shoten, Gakken, Kodansha, Bungei Shunju, etc. (See also here.) Some of her early books are held by major universities, like this one. Again, I can agree she is a crazy person who makes lots of unbelievable claims, but I'm afraid she is a notable crazy person. Michitaro (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few links to help. First, Shukan Shincho table of contents (2004/8/26) with the article: "Nakamaru Kaoru, the "Grandchild of Emperor Meiji," reported as a fake by a Korean newspaper" (and Japanese tabloids don't do a report on such a person unless they're notable); an Oricon database link listing some recent TV appearances, including one on "Asa made nama terebi," a famous TV debate program in which she appeared to debate the imperial family system (I found a lot of blog entries on this appearance, such as here); a David Bowie fan site with a link to her interview with Bowie; a DVD set of one her interview programs (the sample is her interviewing Calvin Klein); a photo of her with Gaddafi (who knows where from, though). Just a few things I could find in a few minutes of net searching. My impression was that she was a straight, notable journalist until the 1990s and a good search of older Japanese publications will find records of that and confirm her TV work. Its after that she goes off the looney deep end. Michitaro (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mixture of fake and real is troubling, but incredible claims require incredible evidence. Not one source attributes her to preventing war, yet she claims it. If she really is notable then do we leave it as a stub or do we actually put back in these fringe theories she supports? I still see conflicting information about the reports, but I'm concerned about her meeting with Henry Ford as well. Didn't Henry Ford die in 1947? I wonder about the verifiability of these claims of meeting so many world leaders on a personal level. According her statements she also had the video broadcast across Japan and the world from within North Korea when Il-Sung died, yet I see no attribution. Anyone find it? The vanity press issues set off red flags for me, being touted as honors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are charged first with determining whether she is notable. Personally, I am inclined to say yes. Before she became a purveyor of conspiracy theories and made grandiose claims about her lineage and her activities, she was a well-known TV personality and journalist. That, I think, is provable. That I think is sufficient to prevent deletion of the article. What the article actually says is another matter. There, I think we just have to enforce Wikipedia policy about RS: everything said about her activities needs reliable sources--which cannot include anything she herself produces. For now, I can imagine a short stub mentioning her journalistic background, keeping only to things we know for sure (the TV Tokyo show, Bowie, Calvin Klein, etc.), and finishing with a note about the controversy about her claims over being related to the Meiji Emperor. The title of this stub, of course, could not have "Princess" in it, because that is not proven. Michitaro (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with this: even if all her claims were true, she still could not be a Japanese princess. In modern history, the title has never run matrilineally or to illegitimate children, and since WW2 it has become incredibly restricted. No reliable third party sources call her a princess. So if keep, then MOVE to Kaoru Nakamaru and DELETE the page in question; it shouldn't even redirect.

Secondly, there's a serious insufficiency with notability guidelines as to journalists; this is a recurring theme at AfD. From past AfD discussions, it seems to require a sort of WP:WRITER-meets-WP:PROFESSOR-and-WP:ANYBIO, though journalists are not necessarily known for either creativity nor academia. But it seems appropriate to factor the subject's duration and impact in the field of media, as well as enduring coverage; objective negative factors include non-anchor, local-only, and segment/backpage-only, but a lack of negative factors can't really indicate notability either. At any rate, a journalist's notability would require substantial coverage in several, or passing coverage in many, reliable sources. Not every national TV show is encyclopedically notable.

I'm convinced this subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or other existing bases for notability; note that Michitaro's comments about having published books, or even having anchored, have no bearing on notability currently. Interviewing important people doesn't necessarily make one notable. And thankfully, plenty of non-notable loons (even perhaps fairly known among 120 million of 7 billion people) are well-published and fail GNG, ANYBIO, and WRITER because there's nothing encyclopedic to say. But I'm on the fence about notability as a journalist, since I've previously found consensus against my deletion proposals for what I considered borderline at best. Plus, I know notability guidelines don't get re-written here, so I'll !vote and just work with whatever result.

As for the possibly encyclopedic contents: it's possible to biography this subject by putting into prose a list of her national broadcasts, international broadcasts, and her notable interviews (not notable interviewees). It could include her claim to descent from Emperor Meiji if it's so much as commented in reliable sources, but otherwise between WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS, that and the subject's other more outlandish claims are right out. I believe everything Michitaro says. But it needs that reliable third-party coverage. I'm even willing evaluate if it's produced in Japanese, scanned e-mailed microfiche prints or whatnot (特筆性があったらきっと存在するんで). But a tabloid reporting her secondhand as "fake" (偽者) isn't doing it. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Well, move and delete, per above. I'm on the fence as to notability as a journalist and author. I hoped to find a reliable source giving her more recent claims some straight-faced treatment; that would be alright. I hope this is listed on journalism, television, and Japan projects; I'd be interested to see the views of participants there. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There shouldn't be a "guessing game" as to the notability. The third party references are non-existent or missing. If they appear in the article before Afd closes, I will revisit the debate. Stormbay (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but with the proviso that "Princess" be dropped). This was no guessing game. Third party references exist. If people are still not satisfied, please do this search. This is a keyword search for her name at CiNii, the periodical index put together by the National Institute of Informatics, a government sponsored agency. This only covers mainstream, mostly intellectual periodicals and comes up with 28 hits, mostly articles by her in major magazines like Bungei Shunju, but also including several articles on her in journals like Shukan Shincho. I also did a Magazine Plus search and came up with 40 hits, including more in magazines like Shincho 45 about her. Given her recent loonyness, and the fact that she was a TV personality, one would expect that she would be covered more in the popular press, which are less covered by these databases. If people want, I can go to the library and search the Oya Soichi Bunko index, the main index for popular periodicals in Japan. JFHJr does pose important questions about the problems of judging the notability of journalists. I would suggest in this case treating her not only as a journalist, but as a TV personality (her main claim to fame was her interview TV shows), in which case WP:ENT might be relevant. Japan, after all, tends to turn many people into "tarento". In that case, criterion 1 might be applicable: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Given that she has hosted multiple national TV shows, that might fit here. Michitaro (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ in its current state, at least. Right now, we have serious concerns that basic aspects of the biography of this living person are even verifiable. The article is a one-sentence stub sourced only to her personal website. This is no state in which we can retain a mainspace article in accordance with WP:BLP. Now, Michitaro's comments do raise the possibility that a policy-compliant article about her could be written, but we can't retain the aforementioned stub on this basis. I recommend that Michitaro, or anyone else interested in the subject, write a userspace draft of a serious, policy-compliant article that is thoroughly referenced to reliable published sourced, and then move that back to main space (where, if deemed necessary, it can again be made subject to a deletion discussion). Sandstein 05:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following Michitaro's meritorious rewrite mentioned below, changing opinion to provisional keep. We now have a practically new, sourced article, whose references I can't check because I can't read Japanese, but which at any rate would need a new deletion discussion because most of this discussion no longer applies to it. Sandstein 06:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Former revisions stated that she is the granddaughter of the Japanese Emperor, spending her early childhood in the Forbidden City in China. Impossible and utter nonsense. Therefore the current stub has no credibility and should be deleted. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the suggestion of Sandstein, I have largely rewritten the article using reliable sources, including a Newsweek profile from 1974 (which I copied from the library), which did call her the Edward R. Murrow of Japan. I have eliminated "Princess" from the article title, and only mentioned her claims of ancestry as a matter that is publicly disputed. Suggestions on further changes are welcome. Michitaro (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kudos to Michitaro on a "meritorious rewrite" indeed, and to Sandstein for his lucid and fair-minded comments - a truly inspiring demonstration of what makes Wikipedia go. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imunuri (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following a complete re-write I propose (as nominator) this be closed. All the fake information has been removed, the page has been moved so the fake honorific is gone and that the disputed nature of that claim is noted. I'm glad we have actual sources for the actual career points. It avoids the fact of 'Henry Ford' interview which I believe (at least that Henry Ford I think of first) died in 1947 and it also keeps out some of the more controversial aspects she has been associated with. I'm not against some of the 'Youtube' comments or other cited material (if it can be cited properly), but the article deserves to stay at this point. Very good job Michitaro. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 23 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Seminary of Christian Ministries[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation which fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sounds entirely like an advertisement, no references, irrelevant/non-notable fact and heavy NPOV. Previously speedy deleted by User:Panyd, re-created 3 times by User talk:W.bayola. Prods deleted without actual action. Mainly no sources that can be found to make it pass WP:GNG, and perhaps the creator has COI (not that I can prove that). θvξrmagξ^contribs 19:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fully accredited accredited tertiary institution. St Anselm (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accredited tertiary institution. There's not as much English-language coverage on the web as I would like, but it is after all in the Philippines. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A great majority of Philippine coverage is in English. If there's no English coverage, don't expect coverage on other local languages. –H T D 13:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but the web coverage I do see suggests there's more stuff offline. And we tend to keep US equivalents of this institution, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- 202.124.73.133 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I dunno if the government licenses this institution, as it is purely a religious one, and the government officially doesn't mess around with curricula of seminaries and the like. That means we don't know if it's accredited by the government other than being registered in the SEC (if it is indeed registered). –H T D 16:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As with the Graduate school also under discussion currently, this is an accredited tertiary insttiution. Unfortunately, the number of students is not clear, but I would suggest that all such institutions offering muliple courses are parobably notable, just as we seem to have accepted that all High Schools are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Among the thousands of Google hits is some local coverage, and material on their involvement with Bible translation activities. And if US high schools are notable, than this surely is. -- 202.124.75.204 (talk) 09:51, 16 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Graduate School[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation which fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also written in an entirely advertisement style. Seems like the creator might also have conflict of interest, but I can't verify that... θvξrmagξ^contribs 18:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, and also it's a stub. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fully accredited accredited tertiary institution. We don't delete stubs just because they're stubs. St Anselm (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accredited tertiary institution. There's not as much English-language coverage on the web as I would like, but it is after all in the Philippines. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A great majority of Philippine coverage is in English. If there's no English coverage, don't expect coverage on other local languages. –H T D 13:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but the web coverage I do see suggests there's more stuff offline. And we tend to keep US equivalents of this institution, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- 202.124.73.133 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This appears to be the graduate school to go with a theological seminary. Unfortunately, it is not clear how many students they have. The lack of coverage is probably due to the relatively un developed state on the Internet in the Phillippines. The fact that the article is a stub implies that it should be expanded, not deleted. If the tone is too like an advert, editing ought to be able to correct the style. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The internet is pretty much developed over here; not as developed as it is the West but pretty much developed nevertheless. I'd probably accept the argument that there could be more offline sources (such as local newspapers), but since this is a Metro Manila-based institution, the lack of online sources is damning. –H T D 16:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As mentioned, pinoy internets is not underdeveloped. Do not mistake the Philippines for a third world country. It is no Burma. θvξrmagξ^contribs 17:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It still is a third world country, but there are places where internet access is very prevalent. The city where this school is located is one of them. –H T D 12:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The material is there on the web if you look properly, as in this list of NGOs, various local government sites, and some news coverage. It's on a list of CHED-accredited colleges, but that's gone offline, and the archive on scribd is not really a WP:RS. -- 202.124.73.30 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 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) →B music ian 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorwise[edit]

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

Non-notable software. West Eddy (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mainly found press releases. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I recalled the name from articles on my primary technology news site, and the database was covered in several articles. It also seems to be mentioned in more recent books on databases (e.g., [12], [13], [14]) along with other major software, all of which have corresponding articles on Wikipedia. Nageh (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. Major product from a well-known vendor, apparently the leader in its niche, coverage from major IT news sources. JulesH (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note: In 2010, the VectorWise technology was acquired by Ingres Corporation. Ingres Corporation later rebranded to Actian Corporation in 2011. Addition sources are available using search terms with these company names.

The topic has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources:

The Register – Ingres' VectorWise rises to answer Microsoft
Information Week – Ingres Unveils VectorWise Database Engine
Incisive Financial Publishing – Ingres launches VectorWise database engine
(Short article) The Wall Street Journal – Database-Software Firm Tries 'Action Apps'

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in several independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 01:11, 13 May 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. The only content left in the article after the list is removed is an announcement that the page will list the 100. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Time 100[edit]

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

Copyright violation, speedy declined by User:Runningonbrains, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#Copyright and lists. As this is still an unambiguous copyright violation, it needs to be quickly deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral It's been blanked, it's good. The subject is obviously notable. We don't just AfD things that have copyright issues, we try to find ways to fix those issues. Otherwise CCI would be an easy job, because they'd just have to delete everything. Silver seren^C 18:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article titled on 2012 Time 100 deleted for this concern, so why not for this 2011 Time 100, 2010 Time 100 and so on articles? We try to find ways to fix those issues!--Aashaa (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure we can host the list itself, but we can surely write an article about the list noting its reception by the public and the media. Them From Space 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Well known annual list which meets WP:NLIST. Revdel the copyright version. Referenced discussion of the complete list from reliable sources. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, individual entries who have articles and are independently sourced can be included. Article list should be alphabetical, preferably sortable, including positions only if independently sourced, too (could be same independent reference as entry). That's a lot of work, but would only be a complete list if. Dru of Id (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Moonriddengirl, we can't even use a partial list, as the list itself is copyrighted. What we have to do is turn the independently sourced items into prose. It would actually be fairly easy to work that into a few sections, such as with one about the Gala and the speeches various awardees made (Colbert's and Clinton's). Silver seren^C 04:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their creative content of positioning on the list consists of taking a non-random group of 100 people, applying their own criteria, and giving them a non-random number from 1 to 100. Our filter of "article first" precludes a derivitive work, unless we had articles on absolutely none of these individuals prior to their list (we've said many of these people were notable before Time did), and an independenttly sourced alphabetical list or individuals we have articles on, with or without position would be a mere presentation of facts listed in other references, and does not approach the creative content level of musical compositions, lyrics, and written works which have separately been challenged and upheld. The facts are citable in individual articles; those we have articles on can be acknowledged as having been positioned on the list. Dru of Id (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTPEOPLE addresses only whether or not people can be included on lists per WP:BLP. It does not touch on the copyright status of the list. The fact that you would be clustering them in one place solely and demonstrably because they are on this list makes that unworkable, I'm afraid. Certainly we can have as many articles on these people as we like, but we wouldn't be including them in the article if they weren't on the list. Likewise, we can have songs on all of the people and events discussed in "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" without any fear whatsoever of infringing on that song, but we can only bring them into the article on the song to discuss under fair use - and the more of them we have, the more likely we are to fail the fair use test. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the list, then merge and redirect to Time 100. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" of the topic. Most of the sources are of the type "X appeared in the list". This is mindlessly appending a news articles to each item of the list in order to say that it's cited, a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCATALOG. We don't add content just because it's verifiable. Those sources are really about the mentioned people and they belong in their article, not in the article about the list.

Where is the critical analysis that allows us to write an encyclopedic article about specifically the 2012 list? Two of the sources make critical commentary about the selection criteria across several yearsfew women, no fatherhoods, ballot-stuffing in online voting, which means that they really belong to Time 100. Only one source makes actual commentary about the 2012 list: , old media vs social media.

In summary: if you remove all the NOTNEWS and NOTCATALOG stuff, you are left with a few sentences at most, which can be merged to Time 100. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I agree completely with Enric Naval. The 2012 list in itself is not notable, there are no sources about this list, just scattered mentions that "John Doe was on the 2012 list". As such, this list does not meet WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see anything in the existing references nor could I find any others which make the 2012 list notable on its own. Each list should achieve notability on its own to have its own article. Even then, great care needs to be taken to avoid infringing on the copyright. Individual mentions of who is on the list (if properly sourced) can go in the respective biographies. Any other mentions or commentary on the 2012 list can be merged into the main article. WTucker (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a merger, as suggested above, for the few non copyvio sentences would be the best outcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, clear case of copyright in lists, but it's still a valid search term. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. There's nothing left after blanking the offending material, but maybe we can redirect it to a more neutral name. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:50, 13 May 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 Restored to redirect without prejudice to ongoing RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 7#Physics major. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Physics major[edit]

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

Bit of a weird situation here, so bear with me. Several days ago, there was an xkcd comic which contained a joke that on Wikipedia "physics major" was just a redirect to engineer (see here). It wasn't actually a redirect, however, but merely a redlink — with the result that after a quick attempt by a diligent Wikipedian to forestall the inevitable by creating a new redirect to physics education, a bunch of xkcd fans started trying to change the redirect target to engineer. The real Wikipedians in turn redirected it back to physics education, the xkcders redirected it to engineer instead, and on and so forth, and eventually our side wisely pageprotected it — but another user then objected to the physics education redirect on the grounds that the target was mostly about physics education in general and only contained limited content about the university/college-level aspect itself, thus resulting in the title's current form.
I'm not aware of any other instance on Wikipedia where we have an article about "subject education" and then a separate article about "subject major" which just gives a one-line definition of the term and then links to the broader article on subject education; in every single case I've investigated so far, "subject major" either doesn't exist at all, or exists only as a redirect to a broader article on subject education. Accordingly, this isn't useful in its current form, but since I don't know what the right answer is I thought I should bring it here for a broader discussion about how to handle it.
So my question is:

Should we just delete this and salt it?
Should we keep this as a protected redirect to physics education?
Or does this title have the potential to be salvaged as a real, substantive and properly referenced article about postsecondary physics education, which should consequently stand on its own separately from the main one?

No !vote; I'm too confused to have an opinion yet. The only thing I'm entirely sure of is that we don't need it in this form. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as protected redirect (perhaps to Physics education#Physics_education_in_American_universities rather than to the top of the page). Plausible search term, the fact that other content exists in the target article is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's since come to my attention that there was already a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_7#Physics_major about the title's original form as a redirect to physics education, which was initiated before the title was converted to its current form. There's no point in having two simultaneous discussions operating at cross purposes to each other, so I'd suggest consolidating them into one — but would it be preferable to close this discussion and continue that one, or to close that one and continue here? (Given the title's current form as a standalone article, I think it makes more sense to keep the AFD going forward instead of the RFD, but I don't want to impose that without bringing it up for discussion first.) Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Physics education and protect redirect. The physics education article could stand some improvement, but that's a reason to improve it rather than to split the topic of physics major into a separate article, or to allow xkcd fans to make it an inappropriate redirect. (I'm a fan of xkcd myself, but apparently some of the strip's fans take it a bit too literally.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Physics education. The article currently has no content (it's comprised of a short one-line sentence), and the topic can easily be covered in the Physics education article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Physics education, and save this AfD discussion for the benefit of some future researcher studying the impact of comics. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Physics education and protect, as per the multiple suggestions above. -- Chronulator (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article or salt. I'm the one who converted it from a redirect to a stub article. I should note that I discussed that change on the talk page and got one comment for and one non-constructive comment, which I interpreted as close enough to a consensus, before I proceeded. But I'm glad to see a more vigorous discussion here. My reasoning:
- Firstly, I mostly thought of it this way: if we need to have something there, in order to apply protection, we might as well make it useful, even if only in a small way. I wasn't aware of the salting option at the time. I think that's a good idea as well. I have trouble thinking up a scenario in which someone searching for physics major would be looking for the material in that article.
- If we are going to have something and want to to be useful, how to do that? I'm not sure why someone would enter through Physics major, so I wanted to make it work for various possible reasons. I think of it almost like a disambiguation page, except it's not really that, it just a "which aspect to do you want to know more about" page. Maybe that's going off being creative beyond WP guidelines, but the situation is unusual, as explained in the introduction to this section. I'm interested if anyone can point me to a policy page that specifically addresses this type of, what should I call it, forked redirect? I've looked some at the pages WP:disambiguation, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:stub, but haven't really found something that seems to hit the nail on the head.
  Example of how it might be useful: Someone outside the US reads a cultural reference to physics majors behaving a certain way. Being unsure of what a physics major is (a leading physicist?) that person types that into google or the wikipedia search box. What that reader really needs to find is the Academic major article. They get the stub which directs them to the right place for that. You might argue that all the needed was a dictionary entry and that doesn't belong here, but they might have wanted more, which is why they might look in WP, such as an explanation of how majors work in the US. Others who might find the Physics education or Physics articles useful find pointers to those. I'm not sure what the scenario is for those--maybe someone considering a physics major who doesn't find what they really want but does find the Physics article a useful starting point.
- I do not see this purpose on the list of purposes for a redirect at WP:redirect.

There seems to be an emerging consensus for the redirect, but I'm having trouble understanding the rationale for that. Is that really the content someone typing "physics major" would be looking for? It seems almost like we are doing that just to have something other than Engineer to redirect to. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with the Physics education article is my suggestion, since the content in this article does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please note that the Physics education article does not actually tell the reader what a physics major is. Neither does the Academic major article, unless you know the topic of physics. The Engineer article is however even less useful to someone looking up "physics major". O8h7w (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close this discussion. The page was changed from a redirect to a rather pointless permastub dictionary definition in an attempt to sidestep the pre-existing RfD debate. It has been returned to redirect status (where it parallels redirects such as English major) and the RfD is still running its course. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 14 May 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.

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 differences in opinion here are based on whether there should instead be an article on a different song with the same title. I will not consider whether or not that is a good idea, but note that all the alternatives offered to deletion (redirecting to one or another movie, disambiguating between the movies, or writing an article on a different song instead) involve discarding the current content for lack of sufficient notability. Any of these options may very well be viable, and deleting the current article does not prevent any of those alternatives from being carried out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Ladka Hai Allah[edit]

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

* Soul of K3G * Say Shava Shava * Suraj Hua Maddham * You Are My Soniya * Bole Chudiyan

Song does not pass notablity of WP:NSONG BollyJeff || talk 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or Redirect to the movie article. Same goes in all, You could have listed all together. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you list them together? Can they be linked now? BollyJeff || talk 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know the process, something like this I have seen before. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 06:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna do now, you will have to probably delete all individual AfDs and redirect them here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No redirect: Non-notable song. No redirect also. The article space if occupied by this title should be for the song of same name from film Hum Kisi Se Kum Nahin which is i think is more notable than the K3G song. (Responses given on separate AfDs for other articles.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, replace with content about the other notable song and possibly disambiguate it. The dab title should be redirected to the film's soundtrack article, something like Yeh Ladka Hai Allah (K3G song) and the other should have a page if it meets the notability criteria. Secret of success (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna say that. But couldn't find much stuff online. Although the old song is popular (& better), it being old doesn't have any online material. Some books on RD might have it. But then other songs of that film are much more popular than this one (Kya Hua Tera Wada, Bachana Ae Haseeno, Chand Mera Dil, Mil Gaya Humko Saathi, etc.) and i assume they would crowd this one. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So could we make this a disambig page that just lists both films? BollyJeff || talk 17:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could be done. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to a dab. two songs with the movies name could be mentioned. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to film page. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we redirect, "which film" is the problem here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:' and merge content o the film's page. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not worth having separate article. Song neither has been recognized internationally like "Rakkama Kaiya Thattu" from Thalapathi nor known for any other things. Rather other song articles should also be deleted from the same album under WP:NSONG than mere redirect. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 19:12, 18 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinelander High School[edit]

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

No independent sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in line with Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). A Gggole search shows that there are plenty of sources about this school, some about this contest in which they appear to be regular finalists, but many more about the normal operation of a school institution notable in its community. AllyD (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and add them... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may do. But in the context of the discussion here, see WP:BEFORE sections C and D. AllyD (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leaving aside the overwhelming precedent that we keep articles about high schools like this one, did the nominator make even a slight effort to check for sources? [15]--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you know that there are sources, why didn't you add them? Happy editing, mate! Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusionists and deletionists over the years have worked a grand compromise on schools articles, which I support. High schools are essentially "in" if their existence can be verified; elementary schools are essentially "out," unless truly exceptional. This system ends any need to moot semi-bad-faith deletion nominations of "rival" high schools, or endless rounds of source sifting for the tens or hundreds of thousands of elementary schools around the globe. Deletionists give a little, inclusionists give a little, and the wheels go round and round... There is an underlying logic to this: comprehensive biographies will generally name a high school — which should be a blue link, not a red link; but not an elementary school. Moreover, high schools are apt to be in the news with sports teams, dramatic and musical presentations, etc. and thus can reasonably be assumed to meet GNG as the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in so-called reliable sources. Therefore, keep, per longstanding consensus and standard practice. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read all secondary schools are notable.--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 03:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources available to meet WP:GNG. We delete when the sources are not available not because they have not been added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:44, 19 May 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. Arguments that she is notable, including the various sources provided here and in the article, are more convincing than arguments that she is not notable. -Scottywong | chat _ 18:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Pandey[edit]

This non-notable person has no significant achievement in her self proclaimed modelling career. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. She is definitely one of the most prominent persons in the Indian media- print, internet,including videos. All this makes her famous. Being famous has nothing to do with being significant. A lot of people search for her and this page can be made better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netfunk (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Netfunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Sadly, "achievement" is not the same as "notability"; Poonam Pandey is a likely search target and this article will almost certainly become better-sourced (sources are plentiful if relatively vacuous). --→gab 24dot grab← 16:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If it was just the calendar and the appearance on Fear Factor, I'd go with a delete, but the coverage about the false claims of a movie appearance are the tipping point for me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete.But the coverage was about "false claims". doesn't it make this person a non-significant or non-notable actor or model? it weakens her notability.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill model and "reality show" contestant. The stuff about false claims is just a third bite at the apple of 15 minutes of fame (pardon the mixed metaphor). Bearian (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill and lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are the delete votes above based upon even the most cursory of searches, such as using the Google News link above in this AfD discussion? Topic passes WP:GNG per [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hit count doesn't demonstrate notability. None of those provide the kind of significant coverage WP:BIO is looking for. As another editor points out above, these are brief stories about false claims. If there were some in depth coverage out there, I'd be willing to change my !vote. Until then this looks like a reality show contestent interested only in attention. Wikipedia is not here to further that cause.--RadioFan (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My !vote doesn't discuss Google hit numbers, because hit counts typically don't confer much toward topic notability. Each source in my !vote above is entirely about Poonam Pandey's career, actions and events, and some of them are not "brief"; rather, they are mostly "medium-sized", although a few are short. They certainly are not all stories about false claims, as suggested in the comment above. Did the person commenting directly above this comment actually read the articles? This topic also passes WP:BASIC, which states (in part) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." "Trivial coverage" in the WP:GNG policy refers to the notion of passing mentions in articles, (from GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.") which these articles are not comprised of. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My comment addresses the significance of each of the links you provide above. I and others in this AFD do not agree that these demonstrate significant coverage. This coupled with the fact that this scant coverage is about apparently false claims of notability makes it difficult for this subject to pass WP:BIO at this time.--RadioFan (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian and RadioFan. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, clearly meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Why are we still having this discussion? JulesH (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet the GNG with sources already present in article. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most downloaded model according to google and has enough coverage in media to pass notability-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:13, 14 May 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 (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durham College of San Antonio[edit]

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

I suspect this article is a hoax. It appears to be a copy of this revision (or thereabouts) of the Santa Fe University of Art and Design article, with a few choice headings and phrases altered. I can't find any sources about a "Durham College of San Antonio", although there does appear to have been a "Durham Business College". I also can't find any Google results for some of the key phrases in the article, such as "Seret Montez Theatre", "Brother Durham of Mary", etc. These would be very likely to bring up Google hits if this was a real school. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also, the coordinates point to Texas Christian University in Fort Worth - not even the right city. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then clean up. I've found a few sources [26], [27], plus other paywalled articles in the Google News archives, that lead me to believe that this school existed. (The San Antonio newspaper itself is not in the Google News archives.) The article content itself may be problematic but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you're right. I'm not so sure about the closedcollege.com site, but the newspaper mention is probably good enough for proof of existence. I also found a reference to the college in this paywalled news archive (Google search), which looks pretty convincing to me. I think I'll stub the article and keep just the basic information that we know from these few sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:39, 13 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Company of Yale[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thirty-year-old college glee club. Refs offered are primary and to a couple of unrelated, post-college projects by former members. Web searches find primary hits and a few trivial showtime listings, at their and other colleges. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hobbes. I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 17:59, 17 May 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. Seems like this person is ... interesting enough to warrant substantial editor and reader interest, but may fail our notability standards. There's no clear consensus yet, and perhaps a renomination after the upcoming US elections can settle this. Sandstein 05:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Larose[edit]

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

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Seems to not meet WP:POLITICIAN but the many sources suggest that he probably meets WP:BIO for his work other than directly running for office. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Switching to delete There are fewer sources than I thought and most of the sources that do exist seem to not have much information. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As he is a political activist and billionaire; he was recently the central figure of an episode of The Colbert Report (May 3), which ought to give him some media attention/notability, mostly from his massive super pacs that rival Colbert's. Royal Mate1 23:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any evidence that he's a billionaire other than his own say so? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only notability is as frequent write-in candidate and as founder of dozens or hundreds of SuperPACs, which media sources suggest have not brought in significant money.
Keep since this article can provide information hopefully more useful than simply referring to "that one guy from Florida who made all those Super PACs". He does seem like a trivial, possibly eccentric person, but his activities are somewhat noteworthy as a case study at least in the context of discussing topics such as ballot access, Super PAC formation, etc. RCS ^talk 11:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not actually fail WP:POLITICIAN, as far as I can tell. There are plenty of sources covering him in a basic Google search. And they are all rather in depth, considering the big point about him is that no one can find him. — trlkly 16:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability,". The person is not elected and AfD case law has used the elected/unelected status as a keep/delete test. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This individual isn't "just ... an unelected candidate for political office". He's done some very unusual things that have garnered news coverage. That's hardly the same thing as someone who ran for office once and was never heard from again. RCS ^talk 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "basic google search" giving a set of results is not a test for whether there should be an article on the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but it seems like a reasonable defense against the charge of a lack of sources, which has been mentioned as a reason for deletion. RCS ^talk 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I would say he does fail WP:POLITICIAN. He's never been elected to public office, and he has never been regarded as a serious candidate. That leaves the GNG. He has gained some notoriety for the number of PACs, Super-PACs and political parties he has created, but that is only good for an occasional mention in the news and on the Colbert Report (and sorry, but being mentioned by John Stewart or Stephen Colbert does not establish notability by itself). He has a certain annoyance factor (forcing special elections, overburdening state agencies with paperwork, causing the state legislature to ban one person heading more than one political party at a time), but I don't think that activity has generated the kind of coverage need to establish notability for a Wikipedia article. -- Donald Albury 11:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know about your constituency, but where I live, people as mysterious as this have found their way into elected office more and more recently. Furthermore, long-standing convention that the public should know certain things about those who run for public office is suddenly tossed out with the bath water, only to be replaced with "official websites" and free chili feeds. Next thing you know, this attitude is enshrined in law, under cover of "identity theft" or any other boogeyman lying about. It doesn't help that there are people out there for whom about as much is known, yet have been elected to office. We're talking people who have Wikipedia articles and are deemed notable by virtue of the office they were elected to. Typically, their articles amount to little more than the passably-pseudo-advertisement-what-is-this-shit-level article we're discussing here.

The primary challenger to my U.S. Representative in this year's election is someone who began her political career in the 1960s, just like the incumbent. Since she's trying to portray herself as Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington in this campaign, information on her early political activities isn't exactly easily available. How willing are you to go through microfilm of newspapers from 1972? I found a few relevant details, but ultimately was more concerned about wasting a lot of time, considering that her campaign has gained approximately zero traction.

I'm certainly a lot more open to politicial biographies on Wikipedia than a lot of editors appear to be. However, the direction of a lot of these articles would suggest that we're supposedly all doing this to help the careers of people who recognize their own notability, but otherwise struggle to remain relevant. I watched that bit on The Colbert Report and left with the impression that Larose wasn't a real person, but a character created by Colbert to illustrate that people like this exist in American politics. Of course, I didn't care enough one way or the other to do any searches and find that out.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to say that you did not care enough about Larose to do a search to learn more about him, and yet you left the longest comment on the deletion page for his Wikipedia article. This seems contradictory to me. It also seems unclear why you think this should be deleted. Most of this response is irrelevant and seems more about a general distaste with local politics. 76.20.13.102 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a very simple reason, I heard about him and came to Wikipedia to see if it had more information. He's notable enough to warrant my search for information on him despite being a New Yorker and not a Floridean where he actually plays a(n apparently negligible) role in the politics. I would say the article ought to be expanded upon.67.87.168.207 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the arguments for deletion seem to be that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. However, his notability is not as a politician, but as an organizer of an incredible number of political action committees and parties, and because he is under investigation for a mind-boggling 2000 counts of breaking election laws. Comparing Larose against WP:POLITICIAN is misguided. This article should be removed from the list of politician-related deletion discussions, as it does not fit there. 76.20.13.102 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, not notable. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:37, 17 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The result was delete. Largely a matter of WP:BLP1E joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have had two simultaneous closes - so I've appended the one that hit second to the first and removed the second set of templates, in order to not break formatting. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Sean Harris (pastor)[edit]

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

I declined this speedy deletion and gave the article a little time to be improved, but I cannot see any notability here. The only claim to significance is a controversial sermon Harris made at the beginning of May regarding the treatment of homosexuality in children. I cannot find any evidence that Harris is notable beyond this one event, and hence fails WP:BLP1E. Moreover, he struggles to pass the WP:GNG, as I cannot find sustained, long-term coverage of him. Finally, because he is only notable for his controversial sermon, that is the focus of the article. This raised significant problems with WP:NPOV, which is especially problematic, as this is a WP:BLP. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E. He is not notable as a pastor (the church seems a relatively ordinary one) or as a soldier (recipient of the Bronze Star Medal). St Anselm (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic case of failing WP:BLP1E, but I won't preach to the choir. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I do think the Usual Caveats apply, however; if the pastor makes further comments that receive national attention, or if coverage of his activities / congregation / comments increases, then an article might end up being appropriate. But, at present? Not so much. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Zippy and others. My speedy nom was premature, but it's clear now that there are not enough sources on the Pastor to make him notable beyond the event, and the NPOV problems that led to my speedy nom are still there. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:56, 15 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction (band)[edit]

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

Up-and-coming band; "they're gonna release their own album soon!". Fails WP:MUSIC as I read it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. They are not quite there yet. In their defense, they have played at South by Southwest and on a BBC radio show. On the other hand, I see no evidence they have yet to release their debut CD, nor that they have ever headlined in a national tour. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also Wikipedia:Usual Caveats. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. They have gotten some notice for a couple of singles, including a TV advert and BBC radio appearances. First album supposed to be released end of summer. I've added a couple of cites to the article, and I'd give long odds that they'll at least be able to edge into the sufficiently notable zone within a year. But maybe not. If they pack it in, open a butty shop, and are never heard from again, then no. So, not yet. If anyone's interested enough, then WP:USERFY or WP:Article Incubator would be good alternatives. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:33, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A glorious day, short film[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:NF. Basically a student film that has been entered in a YouTube festival, but has not won anything so far. No independent sources to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NF. IF this ever gets wide coverage, an article might be considered... but for now, nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substantial reliable sourcing offered in the article = zero. Substantial reliable sourcing offered on the web = zero. Go away. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No notability at all. Not verifiable. This is the film version of WP:GARAGE, and needs to be deleted immediately. NJ Wine (talk) 04:59, 19 May 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) →B music ian 03:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direct 8[edit]

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

This is unsourced article about a commercial entity. Notablity has never been demonstrated not is tis article sourced . Since its creation it has no significant content . It has required ongoing maintenance work as well as a CPVIO involvements in its history. Its inclusion is considered more harmful than beneficial and the AdF request - with a speedy prejedice BO; talk 14:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, per WP:SNOW and lack of WP:BEFORE. Multiple easy-to-find significant secondary sources: Le Parisien, 20 Minutes, Le Figaro, Le Point, La Croix... Cavarrone (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable secondary sources are available that are comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Also, importantly, per WP:NRVE, ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." See also: WP:IMPERFECT, "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required." Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage shown by Cavarrone. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some sources:

(in French) Direct 8 devient une « vraie » concurrente
(in French) Direct 8, Nicolas, les femmes et le coup de ciseau - 20minutes.fr
(in French) Direct 8 s'offre l'équipe de France Espoirs, actualité Médias 2.0 : Le Point
(in French) Direct 8 : la chaîne du direct - télévision - la-Croix.com
(in French) Programmes TV - «Direct 8 est devenue un média de masse» - Divertissement - Le Figaro TV

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:20, 13 May 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse. Sandstein 05:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Point Area Catholic Schools[edit]

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

Advertisement. No independent sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger The article should be merger into the article about Pacelli High School in Stevens Point-thank you-RFD (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this article is probably not notable. It should be merged into Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_La_Crosse#Diocesan_institutions which discusses schools in that diocese. NJ Wine (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support NJ Wines's suggestion abour merging this article with the La Crosse Diocese. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:40, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwoods Community Secondary School[edit]

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

No independent sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been around since 2008 and would have been deleted if it was non-notable back then. Other articles about Wisconsin schools (Rhinelander High School and TAGOS Leadership Academy) that may have similar issues were not deleted after their creation several years ago. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that other stuff exists, but that is no argument to keep this article. Every article has to prove its own notability with independent, reliable sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On another page that you had requested for deletion, Necrothesp, who has been an administrator for several years, stated that all secondary schools are notable. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 20:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per standard practice for secondary schools of confirmed existence. See my comments above in the Rhinelander HS challenge for underlying rationale of this opinion. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- just an essay, no policy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. We delete when sources are not available not because they have not been added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do wild and add them, if you really have them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:57, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lad Lake[edit]

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

No independent sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close - This source, already in the article prior to the nomination for deletion, is an independent source that "proves" notability:

Hess, Corrinne (July 25, 2010). Lad Lake wants boarding school The Business Journal of Milwaukee. Accessed May 2012.

Did the nominator even bother to read the source already in the article? This doesn't seem to be the case. This nomination is a waste of everyone's time; the nominator apparently didn't even take the time to read a source already in the article. I worry about the integrity of this nomination; what are the motives for it? Does deleting notable topics improve the encyclopedia? No. Why was this article nominated? Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. The first one is their own website. The second one is a Crystal Ball-affair... By the way,that was back in 2010. The mentioned paper is silent about the boarding school, as are the school reports 2009 and 2010. So skip the boarding school as a failed project (unless you can find sources I couldn't find) Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also (added to the article):

Hansen, Herb (November 29, 1953). "Lad Lake – Where a Boy Finds Friends and Home". The Milwaukee Sentinel. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Gladfelter, David D. (September 3, 1962). "Lad Lake Will Recall 60 Years". The Milwaukee Sentinel. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charitable institution of long standing, passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:12, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Christian School (Williams Bay, Wisconsin)[edit]

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

No independent sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know the nominator disagrees with the rationale, as I've had this discussion with him before, but clear consensus is that all verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When properly sourced, yes. But as you can see in the history it is in fact selfpromo and advertising. That is why I want independent and reliable sourced to prove that this school is notable. The RFC some time ago was clear enough that proving that a school exists was not enough. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per standard practice for high schools of confirmed existence. Consider this an early stub, tag for more sources, move along. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the above. See also Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an essay, not a policy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. We delete when sources are not available not because they have not been added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then be bold and add the sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:19, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming e Academy of Virtual Education[edit]

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

Advertisement. No independent sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, Night of the Big Wind, but how many of these schools have you requested deletion for? --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 23:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I worked on this about four years ago. It's a real high school, and passes both the relevant high school notability guideline we have, and well as my own standards. I am surprised that the nominator didn't check online sources or links to user pages, ahem, before nominating this article for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. In a very short time, I found and added some citations (although one appears to be a press release that was on Yahoo news). I am sure this can be built up more with a bit of effort. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – sufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. We delete when sources are not available not because they have not been added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Suggest speedy close as keep, as original nominator Issues with sourcing and advertising style are solved. Worthy article now. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:12, 19 May 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, strong, clear, and unanimous consensus (apart from the nom) that this is an appropriate stand-alone article, particularly per WP:SPINOFF/WP:ARTICLESIZE. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage bibliography[edit]

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

This is an absurd directory of works and TV appearances by someone of limited impact. Wikipedia is not a catalogue. The biographical information is available elsewhere on Wikipedia. His important contributions are mentioned in his biography. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also the feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1.

Keep, modeled after the Featured List by Koavf (talk · contribs), the page George Orwell bibliography. I'm planning to work on this to get it to Featured List quality, and WP:FLC Director The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has helpfully agreed to act as mentor. — Cirt (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has numerous lists and many are not in as good a shape or as informative as this one. MarnetteD | Talk 14:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep speaking purely on objective terms. I've got no clue about Dan Savage or whether the nominator's assessment of "limited impact" is right or wrong, but I took a lengthy look at the main article which itself is a weighty tome. For me, creating a content fork full of this "notable" (i.e. he has an article, so he's notable, right?) man's works seems perfectly acceptable to me. In my life, Rudyard Kipling has had "limited impact" but he's got an article and a list of works, the existence of either I would not dispute. By way of clarity, I've been asked to comment here by Cirt which I do entirely without any bias. It's a little unusual to see this being nominated for deletion right on the back of an Arbcom amendment allowing Cirt to work on it with my assistance. Could be a coincidence but that doesn't seem to be the way Wikipedia works. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the arbcom decision. This is not a subpage. It is a separate list, and should meet the criteria of lists, which is independent notability of the group being listed. Even if it were a subpage, there is nothing of significance in this list that is not already mentioned in the primary article. The works of Dan Savage are properly summerised on the bio page, are adequately listed in the navbox and category.
When I say "limited impact", I am not meaning the subjective impact on your life or someone elses life, but limited impact as a collection of works by an author. I havent looked at all of the items in Category:Bibliographies by author, however I see mostly names about which I could find bibliographies in scholarly sources. That is the independent test of the impact of an author. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well WP:SPINOFF says "This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure." Still not sure why the original nomination was so heavily biased, the very existence of this list immediately declared as being "absurd". The list is indeed standalone and does, indeed, meet the criteria. Perhaps, as a show of honesty, you could say exactly what it doesn't meet? It's notable, it's referenced using reliable sources, it wouldn't be a good idea to reinvest it into the parent article for WP:SIZE concerns... where is the genuine criterion for deletion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the page is in good shape on the way to Featured List status, the subject is a notable figure, and this page is very to similar to other Wikipedia Bibliography pages, many of which are not up to the quality this one is. Not sure what you're getting at with "limited impact". – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a vindictive, bad-faith nomination. The old rev by Cirt is an attempt to create an FL along the lines of mine--his article needs work in terms of reproducing biographical material, but even if this was purely a list itself, it would be notable. I struggle to understand how someone could have made this nomination other than to be spiteful to Cirt and I can't come up with a reason. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koavf, your article about George Orwell bibliography meets the criteria for such articles, and is a lovely article which should be emulated, however I dont think it should be emulated for every author who has ever published a few books and appeared on TV. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced bibliography of works by a notable author. I am puzzled by the existence of this discussion. LadyofShalott 18:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable works of notable author, all cited. ~~"Wikipedia is not a catalogue", is not a "Wikipedia is not" topic, and~~ "limited impact" is not a measure of WP:Notability. Admin should try to do better with their NPOV language for deletion noms, and watch the use of words like "absurd" in a deletion nomination. Dkriegls (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists, there should be independent, reliable sources discussing the works of Dan Savage as a group. Perhaps the books under Further reading provide that support, but if so I can't access the relevant parts. If someone were to explicitly provide the sources as footnotes, I'd be happy to vote "keep". I strongly recommend finding those sources: they would provide the knockout argument. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @RockMagnetist (talk · contribs), there are a few already cited in the article that give some good info from independent, reliable secondary sources discussing the works of Dan Savage as a group. Here are some of them:

Rapp, Linda (2006). "Savage, Dan". In Summers, Claude J. (ed.). glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. Chicago, Illinois: glbtq, Inc. Retrieved May 31, 2011.
Murphy, Eileen (May 9, 2001). "Dan Savage Takes Editorial Reins at The Stranger". Industry News. , Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. Retrieved May 31, 2011.
Works by or about Dan Savage in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Hope that's helpful to you! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the first two references are enough to establish notability. I'm not sure about the third - can anyone be searched that way? I recommend you cite these references after the first sentence of the bibliography. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've added those cites after the first sentence of the bibliography, per this helpful suggestion by RockMagnetist (talk · contribs), above. See diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bibliographies of notable writers ate generally legitimate spinouts, requiring no demonstration of independent notability (and trying to parse notability between writers and their writings is generally pointless). That said, this article is bloated with far more biographical content and commentary than is standard prace for bibliographic lists, and the table formatting renders much of the content almost unreadable -- it's ridiculous for for paragraph-length content in cells to be displayed on lines of three or four words. A substantial revamp is called for, but not deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful supplement to the biography of a notable writer. Jamming this material into the bio would bog it down. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep - Savage is not a Faulkner or Hemingway, and sometimes his smart mouth outruns his brains, but I think it would be lovely if industrious editors did produce detailed, exhaustive bibliographies like this one on other writers. What a great research tool for both scholars and for general readers: a well-done contribution to organized, easily accessible knowledge that Wikipedia is uniquely able to make. Love him or hate him, why would anyone want to restrict access to knowledge? It's not like we have to pay for more paper and ink, you know. This page should set the standard for other bibliography pages to emulate, and kudos to whoever is creating it. Enuff said. Textorus (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Bibliographies for authors who have published many works are perfectly valid spin-off articles; they are roughly equivalent to the discographies and filmographies that so regularly appear at FLC. As a featured list director who is vigilant in monitoring whether lists meet the criterion regarding stand-alone lists, I think there are enough works published by this author to justify a list, although I grant it's not as clear-cut as for Orwell. Maybe the biographical content should be cut down, but that's a content issue and not a reason for outright deletion. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I second what you say both about discographies/filmographies as well as cutting down the biography section, both of which flashed through my mind but I failed to include in my comment above. Textorus (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "absurd" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOT has never precluded bibliographies/discographies/lists of work in biographies. So we're left with a claim that this isn't a spinout. *puzzled look* I don't see a basis given for that claim, but if the argument is one of article history, I don't agree. Even if the spinout criteria were meant to be read that pedantically (and they're not), merging the articles would produce an article which the guideline WP:Article Size would ask us to immediately split, and the biblio would be the natural fracture point. Which would leave us back where we started. Any putative argument that we should merge this just to split it again would be either pointless or pointed. As an aside: I see a number of articles about authors, scholars, artists and musicians whose bibliographies, discographies and lists of work could be more harmoniously presented to our reader in segregated splits. In many cases, particularly with respect to less notable creators, the lists tend to unduly dominate the prose, but deleting said lists subtracts value from the reader. We should split lists of work more often, in my view. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Pointless or pointed" Excellent, Joe! I like it! •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with the nominator, above, that every author does not need a list of his/her works as a separate article. Given the SIZE concerns at the main article and the quality referencing of this one, however, I believe it's appropriate in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work on the list and Dan Savage is one of the most popular writers in the United States, so I'm surprised to see this list come up for deletion. I think this can probably be closed now..per snow keep? Sarah (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me, certainly - and there are no Delete !votes after 3 days. But I've commented already. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or withdraw this proposal. Clearly, this article has references to be verified. AFD is not a substitute for cleanup and talk page (I have linked to an essay, but you get the idea). Alternatively, you can discuss this in one of involved WikiProjects next time, or try WP:peer review. WP:article size applies to well-written bibliographies and pages about persons. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 15 May 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. As with many other backlogged discussions where there is a majority for deletion but several who argue for retention as well, this one is a somewhat tough call, but after reviewing the arguments I see no consensus for deletion, nor any argument that strongly compels deletion on policy based grounds. Joe decker provided an argument early in the discussion showing that Mrs. Heche has been the subject of full article reviews, addressing her specifically. Whether this is truly sufficient for notability is open for discussion, but I could not see anyone addressing this point. Note also that the WP:NOTINHERITED link frequently cited is a subsection of the WP:ATA essay (not a guideline or policy) that warns against superficial arguments that "She's related to someone famous, so she should have an article". Looking through the discussion, I got the impression that the keep votes had more substance to their arguments than that. Many based their thoughts on notability as an author, not merely as a relative to a famous actress. In addition, many of the delete votes suggested moving parts of the content to the article on the actress, this would be a merge, not a deletion. That option is not precluded by this AFD result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Heche[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have significant coverage to warrant inclusion per WP:BASIC. Only claim to fame is relation to Anne Heche, which is an invalid reason for inclusion per WP:ITSA. West Eddy (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and propose sanctioning Lionelt. This is yet another one of Lionelt's obvious hatchet jobs where he uses a non-notable biography as a coatrack to obscure his usual anti-homosexual POV pushing. As a heterosexual, I am aghast that he is still allowed to edit here. If this were about race, politics, or sex, he would have been blocked a long time ago, but because he's bashing gays, it is somehow not a problem. Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You always know how to put a smile on my face X-O-X-O – Lionel ^(talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Proposed decision. Quickly. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'll be sure to rush right over there. HAHAHAHA!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, you cite an essay, WP:COATRACK, which lacks the strength in this discussion of a guideline or policy, but which I still believe makes some valid points that deserve respect. Would you address the following advice from that essay, please? "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources." Have you attempted to do so? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full-article reviews of her two books, one in the Chicago Sun Times, the other in the Christian Post, evidence notability in my view via WP:GNG, ~~quite a bit of coverage in "Call me Crazy" by her daughter,~~ This Daily Herald piece and the CBN piece give me additional confidence in my judgment. Notability is not inherited automatically via policy, but sometimes it leads towards notability in the real world, and so may or may not be the case here, through the subject's activism and authorship. Possible POV issues, even egregious ones, should be dealt with via normal editing and/or getting assistance at the POV noticeboard; concerns about problematic editors should similarly be taken to the appropriate noticeboard, neither is, per Wikipedia policy, a valid rationale for article deletion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article is a stub. Evenso it has enough sources to pass WP:BASIC. We don't delete articles just because we don't like the subject or the editor who creates the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead section states that "Heche is a psychotherapist, part-time college professor and activist". Is she notable for any of those things? Or is she only notable for being the mother of actress Anne Heche, and are you using that connection to build a coatrack stub to push your anti-gay agenda? Let's look at the sources and find out: 1) The Chicago Sun-Times article (which I have full access to on HighBeam) is about Heche's "fundamentalist Christian message that people don't have to be gay" as published in her memoir, The Truth Comes Out. So, this is a source about her book, and the message of the book. The only reason she's being reviewed is because she's the mother of the famous actress, not because she is a notable psychotherapist, college professor, or activist. 2) A link to a book review on the Christianexaminer.com focusing specifically on her anti-gay message. 3) A link to an interview on The 700 Club about her book promoting her anti-gay message. 4) A link to a book review of The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality in The Christian Post promoting her anti-gay message. 5) A link to Derfner's book to support the statement "Heche has been a speaker for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX)". So what do we have? Four book reviews of two different books published by three partisan sources pushing an anti-gay POV. Where are the reliable sources about Nancy Heche? That's right, there aren't any. This is yet another, Lionelt-approved coatrack stub, pushing the fundamentalist, anti-gay POV while hiding behind a so-called biography. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per joe decker; BLP requires more sources and may need rewording to satisfy NPOV. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? Are there any biographical sources about Nancy Heche? No, because she's only notable for being Anne Heche's mom and for trying to pray the gay away. If she wasn't Anne Heche's mom, we wouldn't be having this discussion because nobody would have given her any press time. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your commentary, I'll add that one to my care's box. I have simply stated that the article requires more reliable sources - as does hundreds - if not thousands of article's on Wikipedia. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Anne Heche's mom would not be notable solely because she is in related to the famous actor. Notability is not inherited. I don't think anyone is asserting she would qualify under WP:ACADEMIC. However, she is an author, and it seems there are references that deal with her, beyond saying she is the mom of of a famous actor. That is sufficient to justify having an article about her. Geo Swan (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. I'm not seeing anything notable here except for "Hey everybody! Anne Heche's mom wants to pray the gay away!" So yes, she inherited her notability from Anne Heche, and it is important to note that her book reviews are, for the most part from self-interested parties who want to pray the gay away. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you going to badger every editor who votes Keep?– Lionel ^(talk) 20:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - He has not badgered any editor. He has engaged in the deletion discussion by addressing their arguments; a discussion of the merits of keeping this article. Please retract your comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a sentence or two in Anne Heche, which already has a section on her family. Non-notable individual who gets discussed a lot in unreliable media that either wants to promote her fringe views or that feeds on celebrity scandal, but not enough real coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. I share Viriditas's suspicion of the purpose behind the article's creation; it's little more than a collection of anti-gay quotes and quotes promoting fringe scientific theories about "curing" gays. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- We shouldn't impose a higher burden on establishing the notability of individuals who hold views that differ from ours.
So Ms Heche is not a gay-positive individual? Who says this is a fringe view? How many of the individuals who vied for the Republican nomination for the US Presidency hold the same or similiar views on homosexuality? I'll accept it is a minority view, but it is at least an order of magnitude too common to be a frienge view.
We should all aim to be be sufficiently fair that that we can draft a neutrally written article that fairly gives the appropriate amount of coverage to views we disagree with. As I read this article I didn't see any glaring lapses from WP:NPOV.
I remind everyone that, if an article is on a notable topic, then perceived lapses from WP:NPOV are supposed to be addressed through wikitags, discussion on the article's talk page, and attempts to replace wording regarded as biased with more neutral wording. Our deletion policies are pretty clear -- noone is supposed to argue for the deletion of articles due to a concern over bias. Geo Swan (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've managed to miss the point altogether. The user who created the biography of Nancy Heche often creates articles and adds content focused solely on criticizing homosexuals; it is editorial bias that is the problem here, not the bias of the subject. The fact remains, the subject is notable only as the mother of a famous actress. There are no sources about Heche's mother aside from reviews of her books pushed by anti-gay sources. This biography is nothing but a coatrack for POV pushing; it is not nor could it be a well sourced encyclopedia article about a notable person. Up above, I pointed Lionelt to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Proposed decision because I see no difference between his edits about homosexuals and Noleander's previous edits about Jews. In both cases, these editors went out of their way to criticize and portray each group in a negative manner. In this particular case, Lionelt is using the coatrack strategy to "hide" his POV pushing behind what appears to be a legitimate subject, in this case, a biography. But when one looks closer, one finds there is nothing to say except "Nancy Heche is the mother of a famous actress and doesn't like homosexuals". While that might be fine for Conservapedia, that's just not good enough for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The stub has enough sources to pass WP:BASIC and you know it, pal. Your pathetic attempt to personalize this AFD and make it about my editing philosophy is a BIG FAIL, dude, ha. Just drop the stick already...– Lionel ^(talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - WRT the assertion that the original author of this article has a history of creating biased stubs intended to push an anti-gay agenda. This assertion is (1) irrelevant; (2) a serious lapse from our policies and conventions on civility and collegial decision making.
    It is irrelevant because a perceived bias is not a valid reason to argue for the deletion of an article. If a topic is notable then we address the bias, we don't jump to deletion.
  - You assert above Nancy Heche "appears to be a legitimate subject" -- but without seeming willing to consider that Heche IS a legitimate subject. Everyone has a mother. 99.x percent of those mothers are not notable, but Nancy Heche and her daughter Anne Heche have differed, wildly, on what their home was like while the children were growing up.
  - I spent over an hour last night looking at the individual references offered by the google book search above. Eighty to ninety percent seem to be by fellow conservative Christians who are supportive of Nancy Heche. Some portion of those fellow conservate Christians accept, at face value, that entreaties to God, via Nancy's prayers, succeeded in turning Anne back to heterosex.
    Critics, on the other hand, criticize mother Nancy for failing to apologize for, or even acknowledge, that she failed to protect her children from sexual abuse from her husband. Critics challenge how she can represent herself as an examplar of family values without acknowledging parents have a responsibility to protect their vulnerable children from abuse by other family members.
    So, no, the assertion, above, "There are no sources about Heche's mother aside from reviews of her books pushed by anti-gay sources..." is not correct. Nancy Heche has done more than go on record as disapproving of homosexuality. She has claimed appeals to God through prayer can turn gay people back to heterosexuality. She is far more prominent than you are willing to acknowledge.
    There are a lot of topics that I think are nonsense. Homeopathy and Iridology are two of them. But I don't try to suppress coverage of them -- I merely expect that fans -- and critics -- of these fields will make sure their work on these topics fully complies with our policies, and uses reliable sources, refrains from original research, and is written from a neutral point of view.
  - Personally, I don't agree that homosexuality needs to be "fixed", that gay people shouldn't be parents, that prayer has any value in improving the lives of the faithful other, perhaps, in feeling better through accepting with some grace life circumstances they can't alter. But I wouldn't try to push my POV. I wouldn't try to push my POV by agreeing to suppress appropriate coverage of the views of those who disagree with me. And I am not comfortable with attempts to editorialize and introduce bias to promote or denigrate positions on topics where I have a POV.
    I re-read the article again, today. Although, apparently, you and I hold similar personal interpretations of Nancy Heche's views I see no bias.
    If, for the sake of argument, I overlooked that bias, I am going to repeat that our policies state this bias you perceive is not grounds for deletion. If you can't be specific as to how this article pushes a bias, as opposed to appropriately covers notable views, written from a neutral point of view, then I would suggest you consider withdrawing your claims of bias. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Geo Swan, thank you, although we certainly disagree on the POV issue, we're in firm agreement that this is not the venue for addressing editor behavior, nor is editor behavior an argument for deletion. (I will not address questions of editor behavior further unless and until they are brought up in an appropriate forum.) I can't speak for the editor you were replying to, but I know I do see problems in the article, and I will be happy to enumerate an incomplete list:
      1. Source selection We see many sources, and some discussion, from the point of view of Nancy's view of Anne, but nothing going the other way. When *I* look for sources, I see sources that describe Nancy in a variety of lights, and our article as proving an WP:UNDUE weight to the positive. A neutral article certainly could have made use of sources such as Anne's book (which probably has more coverage of Nancy than all the other sources combined), as well as newspaper articles such as [28], [29], [30], and so on. Similarly, quotes are provided only from complementary sources, while many other views are available.
      2. Neutrality on estrangement Anne writes that she believes Nancy overlooked her husband's alleged molestation of Anne. It's impossible, in my view, for a neutral discussion of how the two came to be estranged to omit this topic--it is part of the "story" of their estrangement to the extent that that estrangement belongs in the article at all.
      3. Pseudoscience That Nancy Heche believes in the ability of prayer to change orientation is not in dispute, however, leaving that sentence in an article without the context of scientific consensus on the question is contrary to WP:PSCI.
      4. Pejoratives As I've observed in other discussions, the use of the word 'homosexual', as a noun in Wikipedia's voice, in the case where that person themselves uses 'gay' is in plain violation of MOS:IDENTITY. As 'homosexual' (noun) is considered generally considered pejorative, it also violates WP:NPOV. (I'm pointing at the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Activism section violates this, although most other uses are in Nancy's voice and are entirely within policy.)
      5. Promotion of a particular religious view The article claims the Bible's proscription of "love towards homosexuals" as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, and that promotes a particular, religious POV, one that is disputed by other sources as to the meaning of the Bible. We must take special care, and I realize this example is fairly subtle, to distinguish our voice from that of the people we describe.
      Whether you agree with these points or not doesn't really matter in this discussion, save to say that even believing everything I've just said, I see no policy argument for deletion. All of this could be addressed via normal editing, which would be the only argument that I can see that would, under policy, permit deletion here. On that, you are, in my view, spot on. Thanks. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a valid place to use NOT INHERITED. I do not know if the article is used to promote her views in the sense of urging acceptance of them, but it is certainly being used to present them. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable except because of her daughter, and notability is not inherited. No substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Agree with others that this article is exclusively a soapbox for an obscure activist with no claim to notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a platform for activists. The article contains nothing of encyclopedic value, and can be deleted in its entirety. There really isn't anything to merge anywhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with Viriditas and DGG, above. This subject fails WP:GNG (lacks multiple reliable sources substantially treating her with any depth), as well as WP:ANYBIO. Notability can't be WP:INHERITED, and doesn't inhere without more extensive coverage. Any information about this subject that might be encyclopedic would have a place in the Anne Heche article, which is why any coverage of this subject would exist at all. Compare Ann Dunham, who has her own significant, in-depth coverage. Here, by contrast, the handful of unsubstantial coverage beside cites to the subject's memoir are not convincing. JFHJr (㊟) 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject certainly appears to have the minimum of coverage required to satisfy the GNG. Worldcat shows extensive library holdings of her writing and coverage in scholarly periodicals [31][32], corroborating the evidence of notability. There's way too much irrelevant heat in this discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, using a biographical article as a coatrack for her opinions by citing sources about her book is not an indicator of the notability of an author. She hasn't been the subject of the secondary sources, her books have, and those sources have focused on her anti-gay opinions because they themselves are pushing them as part of their agenda, which does not necessarily make them intellectually independent or independent of the subject, but rather invested in the outcome, i.e. anti-homosexuality. To that end, the subject doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's utter nonsense, having no resemblance to a logical argument. It also requires us to believe that The New York Times is "pushing" an anti-gay agenda, which will come as a huge surprise to anyone who reads its editorial page. As well as Anne Heche pushing an anti-gay agenda by writing about her mother in her own autobiography. You disapprove of the article subject. We get it. You don't need to post illogical harangues in response to anyone who either doesn't share your disapproval or doesn't want Wikipedia to suppress coverage of those they disapprove of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't taken the time yet to dig into the sources so I can place my argument to one side or another... but I gotta say that if we're really going to take someone's daughter's autobiography as a source indicating their reliability, then we might as well toss WP:INHERITED out the window for anyone whose child wrote an autobiography. I mean, who doesn't mention their mom in their autobiography? We can't put Anne Heche forward as a source that is independent of her mother. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see HW as having made that argument, but I find I appear to have done so, and have struck a clause from my discussion on the basis of your point. Cheers, --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        HW made that argument when he appealed to Anna writing about her mother in her autobiography. Further the NYT article he mentions, is about Anne Heche, not her mother.[33] Notability isn't inherited. He also distracted from his mistake by falsely transposing that argument with a separate one, compounding it with several personal attacks. The NYT article in question clearly calls Nancy Heche a "homophobic mother", so HW's claim that the NYT is "pushing" an anti-gay agenda is not just a weak straw man, it shows intellectual dishonesty on HW's part. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough about HW. FWIW, I don't share your interpretation of WP:INHERITED, although I believe that there is a plausible ambiguity there due to a single (in my view, misstated) line in it. In my view INHERITED largely is a rule of construction equivalent to "A is notable does not imply that relative(A) is notable". You seem to interpret it as suggesting that we make it harder to prove notability via WP:GNG by eliminating from consideration any source that relates to a relationship with another notable topic". I believe the existence of Billy Carter demonstrates that my interpretation is more generally accurate, although, to be sure, Nancy Heche is no Billy Carter. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, I would love it if you answered my question up above about why you feel that this article can not reach NPOV via normal editing. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:GNG. It hangs on the coattails of a notable daughter to some extent and needs some in-depth source(s). Stormbay (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do you think an article needs before its notable? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just added ~~another~~ 2 more references. For those who are counting, the article now has 9 10 footnotes. Frankly. I don't see how an argument against notability has any merit at this point.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — WP:LOTSOFSOURCES! JFHJr (㊟) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't apply here. That refers to "trivial mentions." Nancy Heche is the main topic of the sources in the article.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of some of the sources, perhaps; she is clearly not the main topic of the New York Times source, the Derfner source, nor the Engaging Your World source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JFHJr and DGG. Notability is not inherited. She is mentioned in the press only because of her daughter, not because of her "activism". Relevant info should be merged into Anne Heche article.--В и к и T 23:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability independent of her daughter - all citations given feature her in the context of being Anne Heche's mother. Any viable information vis-à-vis their relationship should be briefly summarised in Anne Heche#Family. The article's contributors have added a lot of words to this debate but (IMHO) failed to address the valid points raised by those in favour of deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:20, 23 May 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 Saagara Sangamam. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salangai Oli[edit]

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

This is the tamil dubbed version of Saagara Sangamam, not a remake...the page shares the same info as that WP of the original film. and do not have any special significance. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saagara Sangamam where we are told that the Tamil dubbed version is called Salangai Oli . No need for a duplicate article, even with the dubbed version having a different title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Dubbed version. -—Vensatry _{(Ping me)}
Redirect, as this film would be known by the Telugu title in Andhra Pradesh, and the redirect would benefit Telugu readers. Secret of success (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects serve the reader. I would further advise a pre-emptive redirect of whatever Malayalam title Saagara Sangamam had as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 13 May 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. Sandstein 06:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snafu Comics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Utterly fails WP:WEB. Kept per three "weak keeps" in 2008, based entirely on the presence of one source. The external links include multiple primary sources and two reviews, one of which is user-submitted. Never mind that no one's touched the article since 2008, I'm not seeing notability per WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll see what I can find. I did find one source that mentions the site and its founder at length, but I will say one thing: if this is kept, it's going to need some major cleanup to condense sections that are overly long and drawn out. There's a lot of "fan update" type material than actual encyclopedic content. If it isn't kept, there's going to be an awful lot of redirects that will need to be deleted as well, so just alterting the admins to this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. I'm also going to see if I can find individual reviews for the comics that could be put in a big "reception" type area, although I am already predicting that it'll be hard to find some that would be considered reliable per WP:RS. I'd like to try to keep this since it's noticable, but I don't know how well it fits Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/3299-web-comic-creators-take-charge-.html is ample coverage. The individual comics there might get coverage as well. Dream Focus 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Conditional borderline keep Apart from the references that are already in the article, I couldn't find much else, despite a deep Google search using both regular and news search. Dream Focus' link seems to establish some notability, but I'm not exactly sure of the reliably of the other two sources though. If the article is kept, it would need a lot more sources, some serious cleanup and would need to be trimmed of anything unencyclopedic or unsourced. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

If the two print sources in the article are deemed reliable, then it will just barely be enough to establish notability, for now I'll assume they are. I don't think Dream Focus' link establishes enough notability by itself, but the presence of other sources should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, why? This is one of the most well known webcomic websites on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is famous doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough for an article. In order for something to have a Wikipedia article, it needs to be the subject of reliable, independent coverage. Fame ≠ notability, unless of course reliable sources say so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comics there were nominated for awards, for instance, the PPG one and I believe also the namesake comic. As for being famous, it does have a sizable fanbase (it has millions of search results even). Besides, what more "notability" would you need? Being a webcomic website that gets millions of hits daily should belong here. There are webcomics with articles on here that don't even meet the same criteria as well. You might as well delete several entries on Wikipedia for these reasons then. So I vote to definitely keep this up and, perhaps, do a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the comics are notable then they can have separate articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think DreamFocus' article is a notable reference, so is Snafu Comics winning some things in the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. I read through the guidelines for notability and it does say, toward the bottom under 'not notable content' that it can be kept if there's information that can be verified through independent sources, which we have through the two links provided already. Although I do agree that the article needs tidying up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super-staff (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures
- Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lackadaisy_(3rd_nomination) Article recreated after winning The Eisner

Winning the WCA is not a criterion for inclusion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Times change. Linking to an old discussion where one person agreed with you, and others indicated shock about it not being considered notable by some while other things were, doesn't prove your case. That article was once deleted, as you mentioned at the start of that discussion, but its back now. That discussion is not valid. With the number of Google news archive search results showing people talking about the awards, or mentioning someone won one proving it was the news source felt it significant enough to mention, its obviously a notable award. Dream Focus 19:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the first source in the article, and thus cannot judge it's content. With respect to the second article, I do not believe that one third of a single article from 2007 whose provenance I am unable to clearly discern is sufficient to build an article upon. Do we have previous consensus that Stephanie Mangold / PW are reliable sources with respect to articles of this type? That is to say, are these mentions in this article "standard coverage" of the generic press-release type? As it stands I'm not convinced that this article meets the general inclusion guideline for notability of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Not shown to be signifigant, and what's in that first source anyone? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the first article is from 2007 doesn't deplete its notability. The guidelines say nothing that the notability has to be recent. Besides, it's Publishers Weekly, they're a prestiguous source. Also why can't winning awards specifically for webcomics count as well? Webcomics fall into a different category than newspaper comics, therefore have different types of notable sources. I agree with narutolovehina, having multiple sources should be enough to keep this afloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Scholar provides two links to full copies of Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media here. The first is chapter 1 which summarises the rest of the book and single paragraphs on pages 56 and 61 mention DaveSnafu and refer to his profile in "box 7.1"; and the second is this larger PDF with similar mentions in sections Looking Around and Experimenting and Play, a longer paragraph under Getting Started, two paragraphs under Publishing and Distribution and five paragraphs under section 8.1 Snafu Dave comics. -84user (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - @84User - Thank you for that. This source does appear to tick all of the boxes above, albeit weakly. @173.72 - "prestiguous" is not the same as reliable. It's a trade magazine, with a much smaller and more specific audience, a factor that must be taken into account when gauging notability. There's a reason that the criterion for inclusion is not "Two sources were found." While I sometimes despair of how frequently this point is ignored, can you imagine an article based upon these two sources? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I understand what you mean, but with webcomics, it's tougher to find sources. They're still a rather new medium, even now, so it's not as easy to find published works that can determine complete notability, you know? But at the same time, if you look at other articles in the webcomics category, you might think they most have weak sources. Internet born media has a harder time proving notability but I feel it should be covered here on this site as well. Anyway, combining all of the sources collected, I think this article particularly can stand on its own two feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending acknowledgment of WCCA notability. That said, this article needs updating badly to account for sources so it isn't nominated a 3rd time. I'll wait until this AfD is settled to see what I can do. Veled (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were notable, we should have no trouble finding significant coverage in multiple (more than two) reliable secondary sources for a ten-year-old webcomics site that has published at least 18 webcomics by at least 12 creators. As others have said above, in the four years since the previous AfD only two potential sources that may meet Wikipedia:Notability have been found. The first is "Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media" which uses interviews of young people for ethnographic study. This is a clear example of an interview as a primary source, not a secondary source. Being interviewed along with 12-year-old girls who play Warcraft for such a study is not a sign of notability. The other potential source is a 6 paragraph portion of an article in Publisher's Weekly as part of their comics week. We could debate whether those 6 paragraphs represent significant or merely routine coverage, but if a single six paragraph source is all we can find after a decade of publishing the work of a dozen creators, then this is clearly not notable.Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been other sources found, not just the one interview. And judging from your words, you appear to be in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I read through the guidelines for notability, but it didn't mention that there had to be more than one reliable source... It seems that a combination of different sources can also formulate notability for an article as well. Can anyone clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.247.26 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the work Ngo did on Rumble Pak (comics) add any sort of notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.247.26 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Resig[edit]

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

Possibly NN person. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know about the content of the article itself but a quick glance at the Google Books and Google Scholar searches will tell you that not only is this person a notable author published by the most reputable mainstream computing publishers but even things like his blog posts are frequently cited by other book authors and academic authors in their own works. Unquestionably notable. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow and Speedy keep - "Reasons for a speedy keep decision are… The nominator… fails to advance an argument for deletion." "Possibly NN person" is not a deletion rationale. It's clear that the nominator paid no attention to WP:BEFORE, or they would have found hundreds of Google News hits, Google Books hits, and Google Scholar hits. Hell, just looking at the article's Talk page should have been sufficient. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - The rationale for deletion is a guess, and isn't substantiated. See also: WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noted person, mentioned in a goodly number of news articles and in books, as well as published author in field. Collect (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Northamerica1000. AfD noms need to do WP:BEFORE. --Kvng (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From one hand, we're talking about legendary author of jQuery, from other hand, the discussion would be more valid would it revolve around relevant policy which is Wikipedia:Notability (people). The policy defines an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. What we're looking for is an indication if the person has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. Another point to consider is in depth coverage: if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The question remains open whether or not the current reference coverage, which is based on primary sources satisfy the notability criterion. We have couple of options, after inspecting the article references, we could either improve sourcing or merge the current article as a section into jQuery. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works under the WP notability guidelines. The article itself has nothing to do with notability; a poorly-written or poorly-sourced article does not make its topic non-notable, that is not a factor in determining notability at all. It is the endorsement of the editors of major mainstream computing publishers by staking their firms' reputations on publishing his works and the citation of him, his books, and his blog by other book authors and academic authors that establishes notability, whether he's legendary or not. If at present you believe the only two appropriate courses of action are to improve the article or merge it you should retract your deletion nomination and follow the procedures for one of those. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion would be more productive if you would back your opinion by references to reliable sources discussing the subject, so we could establish whether or not the inclusion criterion was met. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AUTHOR is satisfied by meeting one of:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
It's clear to me that he easily meets all three of these criteria. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No argument, John Resig is an author of jQuery and jQuery is big. I've tried to digg news, google book and schoolar search results. According to my findings what we can appropriately cite to independent secondary sources about the subject is just one sentence: "John Resig is an author of jQuery". And if we apply WP:BLP sourcing standarts that's how this article would look like. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, if someone could cite secondary sources which discuss John Resig in depth. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You are wikilawyering at this point and clumsily trying to split hairs: there doesn't have to be in-depth biographical coverage of an author for the person to be notable and have a Wikipedia article documenting them. Obviously there are bio blurbs distributed by his publishers (even if you're suggesting that he didn't write the books that Google Books search engine hits are reporting he wrote, I'm afraid that sources independent of the topic confirm it), his alma mater could confirm his degree and his parents or the hospital he was born at could confirm his birth date even if those things were "challenged or likely to be challenged", and there's all sorts of analysis and criticism available about his writings and the things he has engineered - y'know, the things he's notable for which should feature prominently in the article. It is absurd to pretend that only primary sources exist for this topic or that guidelines for assessing the notability of topics mandate editorial requirements for every sentence contained in an article about that topic. Sorry but your rationale for deletion is invalid. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have alma mater reliably sourced, though it would be nice if Apress bio blurb would read less like resume. Can you point out other relevant bio blurbs? How about sourcing subject's date of birth, for instance? Publishing reliable info about living persons is quite a valid concern from many reasons. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are welcome to click on the Google Books search link generated by the templates you yourself applied at the top of the AfD, find out who his publishers are, and look up his bios on their web sites. YOU are welcome to do research on him now and add to the article, since you are the one so concerned about the quality of this article that you put the rest of us to doing all this instead of researching him and spending time improving Wikipedia yourself. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Kvng (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now agreeing that he's sufficiently notable? What, then, is your rationale for deletion? If we all agree he's notable, then this is just about the article's content—and that is explicitly not what AFD is for. See WP:NOTCLEANUP ("If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted") and WP:UGLY ("The remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion") as just two examples. Honestly, I don't know why this hasn't already been closed as a Speedy keep. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:36, 16 May 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owal (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BLP would have BLPprod'd but it's too old. Also fails WP:BAND,WP:SOURCES,WP:NOR. Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BAND, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 28 April 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, →B music ian 00:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. I found lots of possible sources at Google news. There's a lot more cruft at Google, but I'm sure someone who reads the Polish language could find and add good sources. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would encourage the closing admin to look at that Google search, it's the same results I got,of the top 3 links 2 are the same site, in polish and not apparently notable or meeting WP:IRS. the 3rd site is an upload site for musics that any amateur musician can use.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral his page on the Polish Wikipedia seems to suggest that some of his songs have charted, but not knowing Polish I have no idea whether the source checks out and/or the chart in question is a notable one (like Billboard) or non-notable (like a student radio chart). Closing admin is free to consider this a delete vote if notability isn't verified by a reliable source by the close of this debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The charts are indeed just a local radio chart, not the national Polish chart. Beyond that, I see nothing. (Also, why wasn't this at just Owal? That name wasn't taken.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Presumably it's just a transfer of the Polish article, where the clarifier was needed because "Owal" is Polish for "Oval". ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 15:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a definite lack of sources. There may be future notability but not at present by my searches. Stormbay (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The chart positions in the Polish article are for local radio in Szczeczin, rather than a national chart - so hardly Billboard, but not exactly student radio either. The length of the discography is quite impressive (not being an expert on the Polish music industry, I've no idea where his releases stand with regard to WP:BAND 5), and this guy's standing in the Szczeczin area appears to be quite significant - taking "Polish hip hop" as a fairly niche area to begin with, and noting verifiability of his standing per his appearances on local radio and its charts, he does seem to pass WP: BAND 7 (has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city). ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 15:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still fails WP:GNG/WP:BAND,this is beyond niche(even if it wasn't it's still too niche),no WP:IRS.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:58, 15 May 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excelsior JET[edit]

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

Non-notable product, fails WP:N and, yes, I did some WP:BEFORE: and 99% of the Ghits are press release type materials or regurgitations thereof. ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 28 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What WikiPedia wants to avoid is puffery and advertising. The entry contains none of that. Everything it says are verifiable facts stated in an emotionally neutral way. I wrote an entry for Jet myself at http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jet.html. I have been using it for years. It is an extremely good product, far better than the entry lets on. As for truth, it is well above the Wiki average. Who is objecting to the WikiPedia entry and why? I suspect some sort of bias is at play -- e.g. a dislike of Russians. Have the people objecting to the entry ever used Jet and Java? If not they not really in a position to judge the entry. Roedy Green —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. no in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N From a historical computer science and a history of Java perspective, this was the first integrated commercial product that allowed decompilation protection, reduced runtime size, pre-runtime and pre-target compilation to lock down the deployment, and performance enhancements equivalent to native C and C++. Equivalent articles include Java JIT, GNU Java, and Java decompilers. The historical influence is fairly far reaching particular to high level programming language design including Java, Oberon, Modula-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbolcer (talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ignore all rules. Of course a java runtime and compiler won't have immediate results in Google News. However, the topic is of encyclopedic relevance, because it documents the history of computing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears undisputed that the required third-party coverage is lacking. Northamerica1000's argument is false because if the topic were important to the history of computing, a reliable source would have documented the software. In the absence of such sources, any assertions about historical relevance are original research. Sandstein 06:35, 23 May 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 Tenkasi. Sandstein 06:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanasa puram[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable locality. To quote the article "This is a very small village in the surrounding of Anai kulam . There are very few houses in Pavanasapuram." -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Tenkasi as the sensible compromise solution. (and merge Anaikulam also, which wasn't noticed, but is no more informative. If anyone finds actual references, they can be re-expanded into articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tenkasi, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tenkasi. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:48, 22 May 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 arguments for deletion are compelling. In the case of a WP:BLP, when as here even a reasonably thorough search fails to yield coverage in reliable sources that would make the article even verifiable, these two policies mandate deletion. This is without prejudice to restoration if reliable sources are found. Sandstein 06:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Achita Pramote[edit]

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

Barely sourced blp (some sort of news archive with no mention, and a dvd review on a blog), and of questionable notability Jac16888 ^Talk 10:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 - released four albums with GMM Grammy, according to article on th.wikipedia. Referencing does need to be fixed. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 29 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are insufficient to assert notability. There appears to be no interest in trying to improve/save it. Stormbay (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC 5, (and the Lord of the Rings thing is a nice notability bonus!) but the article needs to do more to both explain his notability, and provide much better sources. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 15:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything to suggest he has released any albums, never mind two, and it still fails to meet the primary criteria of all blps in that it has zero reliable sources--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's really difficult to find references - I can't speak or read Thai and naming conventions appear to be quite hard to translate/transliterate (the same person (so far as I can tell from different sites using the same album artwork but different artist names!) comes back as Ing, Achita, Archita, Achita Ing, Ing Archita Pramote, Ing Pramote and lots more besides), but these pages are in the Western alphabet and (sort of) English:- http://www.ethaicd.com/show.php?pid=15271; http://www.theorchard.com/release/884385234171/chai-ta-pra-moch/ing-today; http://www.ethaicd.com/show.php?pid=30731. Searches for some of those names also indicate he's strongly linked with something called "A Chai Ta Pra Moch" (I'm guessing this is a group where he's a part-time member or something) also on the same label, who recorded the single "Perfect Sunday" as mentioned in the article (http://www.theorchard.com/artist/122062/releases/) but the Thai article in translation doesn't really explain. In any event, GMM Grammy are a major label, one of the biggest in SE Asia, and so I'd argue he meets WP: MUSIC 5. We just need a Thai speaker to come and tidy this up, the notability and sources seem to be there but we need help on how to find them. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:36, 22 May 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. Sandstein 06:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C-Tools 2.0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/C-Tools 2.0 (2nd nomination)

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

Fixing broken nomination on behalf of Karl.brown (talk · contribs). Apparently Twinkle barfed because the first AfD page (a VfD in 2005) was moved to the article talk page. I'm not sure if this is how it was done back then, but that's another issue. I think the nomination rationale has to do with WP:N but I will ask Karl to re-enter his full rationale. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rationale this software is now dead; very few references can be found, only a few blog posts and routine reviews of the software. If the software was still around and if a major publication had written about it I would say it should be kept, but given it's dead and it seems to have been forgotten, I don't see why wikipedia should keep it. it was proposed for deletion a while ago, as you can see even back then its notability was debatable. --KarlB (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 28 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is ~~permanent~~ WP:NOTTEMPORARY. That a software product is moribund or no longer on the market is not in itself a consideration. It's how much notability it had while it was available. The URL in this book [34] suggests that the American Cancer Society had featured it in one of their online publications. (Attempts to retrieve at archive.org yielded this[35], which links to quite a lot of ACS content related to this product.) I'm not sure if this is significant coverage, but it looks like it's in RS anyway. Yakushima (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've added a number of references, all fished from Wayback Machine, from which several of the ^{[citation needed]}-tagged statements might be substantiated. I reserve judgement on notability, however. Yakushima (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After a little more work, I have a tentative verdict: the call for beta testers from two sources (infoSync World and Gizmodo), together with the TreoCentral review, could get this article over the WP:GNG bar of "significant coverage" in independent, reliable sources. There are other mentions (not "significant") in other independent sources (an oncology journal and a book). Then there's the provenance of the software itself: the American Cancer Society. Is it WP:ADVERTISING if it's for a free product, pro bono, that has undergone peer review by physicians volunteers, a product that's no longer available anyway? Is ACS "unreliable"? Sure, they'll be biased, since they organized the whole project, but it appears they did drink their own koolaid, at least, and so did many others. Yakushima (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm still voting for delete; it may meet the standard for notability, but only barely, most mentions are rather trivial, routine sort of coverage for a new software package; nothing much about how much impact this had. If kept, I would also suggest moving to 'C-Tools' (since 2.0 is just a version, and the most recent version was actually 2.5). --KarlB (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A call for beta testers is not an indication that this product ever saw the light of day. If no references can be found, it should be deleted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per KarlB. References prove its existence, not notability (i.e. effect or legacy on cancer treatment or PDA software). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:17, 22 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Cruz[edit]

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

Proposed deletion removed without explanation. I cannot find anywhere near sufficient sourcing to sustain this article or demonstrate notability, only the barest and most trivial of mentions/name drops, nothing extensive at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced BLP that gives no reason why the subject is notable. Having notable instructors (or instructors of instructors) does not show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP. SL93 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no reliable sources and the only claims to notability are that he has a well known instructor and that he teaches BJJ. Neither claim is sufficient for notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:MANOTE). Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 18 May 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. Sandstein 06:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Sue Bridges[edit]

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

Autobiography by non-notable self-published author. No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, so no evidence that the notability guidelines have been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears at first glance to be another sad autodio, but photo portrays subject as so unattractive that one is compelled to conclude that the entire article is part of an elaborate ruse to expose the subject to widespread ridicule. EEng (talk) 07:14, 12 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan Harchandani[edit]

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

Winning one contest on Facebook is not sufficient notability to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Article is an unreferenced orphan autobiography. Creator already removed ((Prod blp)) and ((db-person)), so it's here at AFD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autobiographical page. Winning one contest on Facebook does not strike me as raising a person to any particular level of notability. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person won the competition for making the poster of a movie, not notable in my opinion-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has now been listed for the full week. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chiria Puštov[edit]

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

Non notable ski jumper. I say Delete. BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i cannot even verify his existence. all google shows is WP mirrors [36]. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. That said, Puštov is still quite young and at the beginning of his career, so the usual caveats apply. If he makes it to the Olympics for Tajikistan, or makes waves in high-profile international competition, then an article might be appropriate. Just not yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for national record. --KzKrann (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is probably just too soon; no relevant Google Books or Google News hits. It would be appropriate to recreate the article if or when this individual's career attracts substantial media attention. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero coverage to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This nomination is not properly listed in the deletion log, I am listing it now. Please consider the timing of this listing when deciding when to close the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time to close thid AfD. Long overdue.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Sugar (a cappella)[edit]

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

Lack of substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Awards are not major, performing lacks coverage. Nothing satisfying WP:BAND. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a clearly notable musical group. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that sufficient sources exist to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Pizza[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage appears to be incidental or trivial. West Eddy (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this based upon a source search, or just based upon the state of the article at the time of the above !vote? Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Here's a source that indicates topic notability:

Masotti, Stefanie (June 17, 2011). "Gabriel Pizza tops Ottawa's Best Pizza list". CTV. Retrieved May 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's more sources, from the article.

Canadian Pizza Magazine – Gabriel Pizza promotes the vote
Ottowa Sun – City, pizza maker team up to promote green bins
Canadian Pizza Magazine – Gabriel Pizza raising money for kid's hospital
Orleans Star Organic reminder

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

week Keep Seem to be enough refs for notability ; they're not as substantial as I would like, but most chains of this size are notable . DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The provided sources do not meet the required standards of notability as they consist primarily of passing mention (the recycling, voting), a "best of" poll, and a fund raising event that the company participated in. None of the articles are about the company, its products, its business or history. Having pizza boxes that are recyclable is nice, getting out the vote is a great civic thing and helping sick kids is admirable, but it doesn't show how the company is notable beyond periphery business practices. The provided references establish verifiability of the chains existence but lack any form of depth and do not confer notability as a pizza chain. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you search for additional sources, or is this !vote above based upon those only presented in this discussion? Perhaps consider source searching for additional reliable sources if you haven't done so already. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Information from: Masotti, Stefanie (June 17, 2011). "Gabriel Pizza tops Ottawa's Best Pizza list". CTV. Retrieved May 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help):

“

Showing that success can be replicated, the many locations of Gabriel Pizza have been voted as Ottawa's Best Pizza – the first chain to win the honour this summer.

The restaurant's 25 locations (with two opening soon) across Eastern Ontario and Quebec began with a spot on St. Joseph Boulevard in Orleans in 1977, before expanding across the eastern end of Ottawa then into Kanata in 2000.

”

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Trivial mention is trivial mention and routine coverage is routine coverage; none of these sources confer notability because of those factors. If you want to save the article, stop using these types of sources and switch up your searches to include an industry trade mag or two from Canada to see if they have any coverage that meets the standard. If this is an up and coming chain, there will be coverage in one or more of them.
Here are some lists that can help you:
If you cannot find any sources about the chain in those sites, then your arguments are still going to be moot. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems fairly notable to me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 29 locations make a company notable. Dream Focus 19:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large number of locations makes it notable.Thriley (talk) 06:24, 19 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Varsity Dodgeball Match[edit]

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

"Annual" event that has happened once, no independent sources found. While I love watching people bean each other with rubber balls, I fail to see how this passes the bar under WP:GNG. My PROD was removed a month ago, but nothing since has established notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not the least evidence of notability , and including a list of all the players on both teams is absurd. We try to avoid the term "vanity article" but I think it applies here. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 May 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, →B music ian 02:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Varsity matches (i.e. between the universities of Oxford and Cambridge) in any sport tend to attract attention in the press, perhaps more than they deserve, but they are still independent sources. This is a new match, but it seems to be an official match, so it is likely to continue. If we delete it now, it is likely to come back after the next match or the one after it. Why not let it stay and see if it develops? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm clear on your reasoning, you believe we should keep it because while it isn't currently notable, it might be notable in the future? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several attempts to delete articles on the Oxford - Cambridge match in less common sports, but they finish up being kept because such events between Oxford and Cambridge are noticed, unlike for events between other UK universities. I am surprised that this event has not attracted notice, and suspect that if you and I were closer to these two universities we would find some sources. It will certainly come back in the future. It has a source that says it did take place and it is interesting material, so I still think this is a weak keep. It needs more sources and it needs cleaning up, but both of these will happen in time. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had sources been readily available, I would have simply added them myself. If you have them, by all means, provide them and allow the sources to speak for themselves. Otherwise, it is speculation that a one time event will ever become noteworthy enough to pass the criteria for inclusion here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think it needs people in the UK, not the USA and Australia, to look for sources. Not all sources are on the internet. You will probably win the day and this will be deleted, but I predict it will be back again, probably after the 2013 match. Varsity matches between Oxford and Cambridge in any sport get a quite unusual amount of notice and that is all we need for notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to be sure, I welcome that day and would be glad to see the article here fully sourced. Until then, we are forced to draw a line in the sand that applies to all articles, and decide which side of the line the article falls on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:NEVENT, if the event is notable in the future, there's no prejustice for recreation. Secret ^account 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. I also don't agree with the suggestion that all sports matches between Oxford and Cambridge get loads of coverage, other than The Boat Race, the rugby and cricket fixtures they get pretty much none, even in the UK (where I reside). The annual football match, for example, isn't even covered in specialist football magazines, let alone the more general press. A match in such an incredibly minor sport as dodgeball definitely won't have received any coverage...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 17 May 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. Without prejudice to a rewrite from scratch as a sourced article, or a restoration for the purpose of merging some names into another list, as has been suggested. Sandstein 06:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker commentary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was previously nominated for deletion in 2006 on grounds that it was original research and unnecessary. Nearly six years later, the article is still completely unsourced (violates WP:SOURCE) and, indeed, the original author has said that it is essentially impossible to source. It does not establish that its subject is notable, beyond its own assertion that snooker commentary is significantly different from other sports commentary and therefore needs its own article (violates WP:NOTABILITY). The article fails to cover snooker commentary in general but is mostly a list of the BBC's current (when?) commentators and unverifiable statements about what they are "perhaps most famous for" (violates WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:WEASEL, WP:ALLEGED). Simply removing the unverifiable material would leave the article essentially empty. Dricherby (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the third and fourth sentences of the nom. When the article was previously nominated for AfD in 2006, much of it consisted of lists of anecdotes and catchphrases from the BBC's snooker broadcasts, which were unsourced. Now that content is gone, leaving the article less colorful but no better sourced. While it is presumably possible to source who were the BBC commentators and when, that would make this article mostly just a list of BBC snooker commentators rather than a discussion of the overall topic of commentary on snooker. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, full of OR, impossible to source the exact topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not as the article currently is - extract the list to List of snooker commentators. Most of the content here is a list of snooker commentators, which would be a valid list and should be easy to source. The rest can go. --Michig (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep US editors may not be aware that snooker has been a massive TV sport in the UK ever since the introduction of colour TV. The commentary has particular technical features which have received comment in a variety of sources - the hushed tones, the tactical insight, &c. - and so it's reasonble that we cover this in some way. Warden (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When the article was previously nominated, it appears that it was kept essentially in the hope that somebody would write a proper article explaining these things, citing reputable sources and so on. In the six years that have passed since then, this has manifestly not happened. How long do we keep hoping? Dricherby (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and basically agree with Michig. (We seem not to have a separate article on this Rob Walker, even though his high television visibility at this time of year means many readers - like me - will be looking for something about him; I'm going to link to this article from the Rob Walker disambiguation page.) Victor Yus (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have just found List of sports announcers which has a snooker section. Some names from there ought to feature here too. Of course one option would be to merge this page into the other list, but I still think it preferable to keep this as a separate article (after some clean-up), as it can include more detail which there would not necessarily be room for on the all-sports list. Victor Yus (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much of the article is a list of notable presenters/commentators, and notable as a list. Televised snooker is notable by the notability rules for TV programs. As for sourcing, many newspapers' sports sections publish reviews of TV sports coverage, which would be a source. I added a couple of refs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone wanting to write a proper article on this subject should look at the available academic sources, such as doi:10.1016/0378-2166(94)90079-5, doi:10.1023/B:IJST.0000037071.39044.cc, doi:10.1177/0961463X95004003005, doi:10.1177/016344396018001005, ISBN 9780761959106 pp. 62–68, ISBN 9780415131247 p. 31 etc. I'm rather surprised that none of these sources mention what seems to me to be the most obvious feature of snooker commentary: the complete absence of correctly used adverbs or past participles. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands, this is just a laundry list of snooker commentators, which is already covered at List of sports announcers#Snooker without all the attendant unsourced OR guff. If someone wants to write a genuine article on the supposedly unique/distinctive aspects of snooker commentary, which are not currently alluded to at all in the article, they may as well start that from scratch -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, both lists contain names and information that the other doesn't. The two should certainly be merged, so the question to discuss is perhaps rather whether the merged list should be part of List of sports announcers or a separate page. As I said before, my take is that there's enough material here (even when the opinion is removed) to justify a separate page. Victor Yus (talk) 10:13, 8 May 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, →B music ian 02:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just an indiscriminate list of snooker commentators without asserting why those particular commentators are notable. JIP | Talk 05:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be more true of List of sports announcers (the snooker section and every other section). And thousands of other Wikipedia lists, for that matter. The article we're discussing here is a bit superior to that, as it does give some references and additional information about the commentators (obviously the main BBC commentators on a significant sport like this are going to be notable, and so on). Victor Yus (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poor article with very few citations. Perhaps there is the beginnings of a suitable encyclopaedia article in there somewhere, but currently it reads like a loose collection of personal observations on a random selection of TV snooker commentators. Content is chiefly POVs and OR that would never be permitted on their personal articles. So why have them here? This article has had long enough to shape up, it's not happening. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I've just started a stub article on Rob Walker (sports announcer), using some of the information and cites from this page. Victor Yus (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I failed to find notability for Rob Walker. This is a separate issue to the AfD so we should discuss it at Talk:Rob_Walker_(sports_announcer), rather than here. Dricherby (talk) 10:42, 13 May 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 not taking Veled's opinion into consideration because it does not address the merits of the actual article, only the merits of the nomination. Among the other contributors, consensus is that the sources are inadequate for retention. Sandstein 06:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Whiteboard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AFD was in 2009, and was kept due to mainly one argument: that it's published in Paintball Games International. However, I find no evidence that Paintball Games International is itself notable, so that argument does not hold much water. The sources are Paintball International itself, a Russian source that apparently publishes the comic as well, and two primary sources.

Searches for "The Whiteboard" + "Paintball" and "The Whiteboard" + "Webcomic" on Google News turned up only false positives. While "it's published in a notable magazine" and "it's been put into book form" are assertations of notability, they just don't cut it if no sources can be found and if the works in which the strip are published aren't notable in their own right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Webcomics really need to have their own notability guidline hammered out. "Conventional" notability doesn't cut it in some cases where very widely-known webcomics (such as this and DD:OFH) don't attract attention in the "conventional press", but are still things that Wikipedia readers are very likely to be looking for as they're well-known in the Internet world. I'm not sure how to hammer that out without opening the floodgates, though; therein lies the rub. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Maybe we can start with actually getting some webcomics-related experts (which will most likely include some creators) involved rather than letting a single user like TenPoundHammer dominate the discussion? Veled (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should webcomics get their own special treatment? Why should they get to circumvent WP:GNG? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the WP:GNG fails here. While "Everybody Knows About It" is (or should be) at WP:ATA, the fact that webcomics such as this and Dominic Deegan apparently fail it despite being some of the best-known webcomics on the Internet points out that there is something not working here. They are things that the average Internet user is very likely to come across and come to Wikipedia seeking the answer to "what is this thing I heard about?", and if they don't find information on them here, even if the removal of that information was in complete compliance with the rules, then Wikipedia is not serving its readers. I won't !vote Keep for the simple reason that I can't articulate a policy-based reason to keep, but I cannot in good consience !vote Delete because of how the situation is as mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, webcomics are a bit different from other media as they tend to be self-published and a press source in their own right. Honestly, the fact we've been arguing about this problem for over five years now with no acceptable resolution beyond "We've pissed off almost all the experts in this topic who should be working on this category" should serve as some kind of clue. Veled (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why any medium should get a free pass that says "No reliable source has written about this, but it's notable because… well, everyone's heard of it!" Completely subjective. I don't follow a lot of webcomics, so I outright haven't heard of a lot of them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... Did you just admit that you have no interest, experience, or knowledge in regards to webcomics? Because I'm pretty sure that may be part of the problem. Veled (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you're the one who crawled out of the woodwork after months of inactivity just to fight tooth and nail over Last Res0rt. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is relevant. Veled (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our current notability requirements. The suggestion above that we develop some sort of alternative "unconventional" notability standards for webcomics so that we can keep articles like this could have some merit, but until we do this falls well short of WP:GNG. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3rd AFD and still no sign of being able to pass GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list of appearences suggest some notability but the comic lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Last time TenpoundHammer sent this to AFD it ended in Keep, because coverage was found. Two magazines with high circulations have published this within them. THe article mentions those two magazines. They were also mentioned in the very first AFD, when DocsMachine made a convincing argument: Paintball Games International editor Anthony Jones requested a special full-page TWB, which was then printed in the special annual issue What Paintball Gear? in 2003. The issue had a print run in excess of 150,000 in both the US and England. Five strips were translated and reprinted in Russia's largest-circulation paintball magazine (the name of which I'm unable to reproduce here) in 2004. Images of both magazines and the TWB strips therein can be viewed here. (Clicking the "O" under each photo brings up the full uncompressed 3.5mb photo.) It's my understanding that the combined circulation of the two magazines is in excess of 200,000 per month. DocsMachine 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Dream Focus 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the magazines don't meet GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says sources have to be reliable, independent, etc. It doesn't say anything about the source itself being notable. If we limit ourselves to only covering stuff that manages to make it into, say, the New York Times, we'd have a freaking sparse wiki here.Veled (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 10:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The magazines are reliable sources. The fact that no one bothered to make an article for them on the English Wikipedia is not relevant. Dream Focus 18:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do these piblications provide any independent coverage of the comic? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep. TPH nominated this last time, no new information has come to light, and is re-nominating it even though it ended in a keep? That's not an argument about the notability of the sources, that's second-guessing the admin who closed the last AfD. Remember, looking at an AfD and going WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid grounds for re-nomination. Veled (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (Edit: I misunderstood the concept of Speedy Keep. My bad.) Veled (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempts to belligerently force these articles to be kept out of process is becoming borderline disruptive. The amount of people saying Delete here shows there are clear issues with this article. Ridernyc (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a speedy keep is, or maybe I should've sourced BWilkins' own remarks a little better? I don't see how I'm keeping anything out of process by participating in the process. Veled (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Out of process? What are you talking about? Sources have been found. The only problem with the article is those trying to delete it didn't bother actually reading it, or they would've seen the reliable sources referenced to in it, and know that it clearly meets WP:GNG Dream Focus 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore this failure to assume good faith. I can assure you I have not only read this article, it's sources, it's previous AFD's, the AN/I thread started in an attempt to end run around these debates, and countless other arguments that are attempts to get thess AFD's closed early without proper process. Focus on the articles and the lack of sourcing and not how they ended up here. This will be my last comment on anything beyond sourcing these articles. Ridernyc (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as per Dream Focus in that it has not only seen print publication itself but also has been reprinted in third-party publications and reviewed by third parties e.g. the Howard Tayler link. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1) "Seen print publication" in this case is a series of self-published books that fall far short of Wikipedia:Notability (books). 2) Merely being "reprinted in third-party publications" (two paintball magazines) does not provide any coverage of the subject that would meet WP:GNG, and "two-time contributor to paintball magazines" widely misses the mark of standards like WP:CREATIVE. 3) "reviewed by third parties e.g. the Howard Tayler link" is just two sentences on a blog. "If you're not already reading The Whiteboard as part of your daily trawl, I hope it's not because you think the comic is only funny to paintballers. I've only paintballed once (an experience I found miserable) and the comic is one of my favorites." There is no significant coverage here at all. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reception in reliable independent sources to WP:verify notability. The reception section is the right kind of information, but definitely not a reliable source. Otherwise we could start using testimonials on peoples' websites to verify notability, which would open a floodgate of garbage articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of ever meeting WP:GNG, nor any evidence that the sources offered by Dream Focus and Veled are significant, reliable coverage needed for GNG. 74.233.245.2 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the Lost Constitution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still a non-notable book; article is still basically a very lengthy (and non-NPOV) re-hash of the book, which has won only one award, that being from a bookseller which specializes in books which advocate the same philosophy. This could be boiled down to a line or two and put back into the author's own article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed the sections that were not neutral (of which most of the article was comprised) and I also added several reviews from reliable law journals and the like. There should be enough at this point to keep the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable book with many reviews in reliable publications. JulesH (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews show the book is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" (WP:NBOOK). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 14 May 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. Borderline, but enough sources and consensus to keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sanders[edit]

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

She had a cup of coffee in the WNBA five years ago. It's not nearly enough to establish notability. Although WP:ATHLETE states that she is presumed notable by virtue of having appeared in at least one WNBA game, it's obvious in this case that the presumption falls well short of reality. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed to Uncertain I wouldn't object to changing the guideline here, but we still have it, and I think at least this part of it, that appearance on the court in one regular season game is sufficient, has general consensus. I don't realy see the point of challenging it--we have enough to do getting rid of the articles where the people haven't even done that. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the guideline, and I wouldn't have nominated the article if it was someone who had played a few games in the NBA. However, I was a little surprised to see that the one-game proviso applies to WNBA appearances, a league which, in terms of fan interest and level of play, is more on par with the Women's Professional Football League than with, say, the NBA or MLB. In any event, the guideline is just a guideline - by no means are we required to keep the article if the subject hasn't had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I don't see any likelihood that this will ever be improved beyond a three-line stub. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Uncertain. The level of the league might well be another matter; the guideline's assignments of what leagues make someone notable havbe been challenged in various sports, and I don't think there's reallly full consensus on them. The actual level is not a question I can judge, however. But I disagree strongly that the intent or acceptance of the guideline should necessarily to be limited further by GNG. It provides an alternate route. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Comment~~ She did have a career overseas, as well [37], although I don't know if people in Europe care about women's basketball any more than they do in the US. There is some German-language material available (eg, [38]), but I'm not sure how to judge such sources. Zagalejo^^^ 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that there are at least bits and pieces of material out there (Pakhtakorienne has added a little bit more), so I'll say weak keep. Zagalejo^^^ 18:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a weird one for me, but keep without prejudice to deletion if the guideline is changed. She played in the highest-level professional league she was permitted to play in. Period. The fact that the WNBA is considered by many to be a joke is irrelevant as long as the guideline says what it does, and I see no reason to WP:IGNORE it in this case. But if the guideline is changed by consensus (a question I'm currently neutral on) I have no objection to deleting this article once it's changed. The accurate comparison, in my opinion, is the Negro Leagues vs. MLB. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete the article, we wouldn't be ignoring the guideline. It states, "...the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." The guideline only offers a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. The presumption of notability should still be able to hold up under additional scrutiny, and in this case I don't believe that it does. Literally nothing of significance has been written about her. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. While it does meet WP:ATH, the guideline states "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." It also clearly states (bold is from the actual guideline), "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline" If the guideline is still under debate, WP:IAR policy states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Cleaning up an article for which sufficient content reliable sources cannot be identified is an improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 8 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried expanding the article with references. Maybe it is acceptable now? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say that those sources definitely improve it. In my opinion, setting asside WP:NSPORT, the article now clearly passes the WP:GNG threshhold, whereas before it was borderline. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Pakhtakorienne for the effort to add sources to the article. ~~However, I stand by my earlier !vote to delete.~~ I did a English translation[39][40] of the foreign language sources added, but the sources are WP:ROUTINE announcements of a few sentences each of her joining/leaving a team. The WP:GNG requirement of multiple independent sources of significant coverage has not been demonstrated to my expectations.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge to her brother, M. Shadows. This article does not meet WP:GNG per my earlier comments, but the two sentences of existing text can be WP:PRESERVEd by redirecting and merging to her notable brother's article.—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found more stuff to build on Pakhtakorienne's great work. There are clearly enough sources out there to take the article beyond a three line stub and into WP:GNG territory. Also passes WP:NSPORT, as already established. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editors who have been working on this article have done excellent work and should be commended. A lot of the coverage still seems a bit on the trivial side to me, but I've always had the opinion that a lot of trivial coverage is roughly equivalent to significant coverage, so I'm not as anxious to see this article deleted as I was a week ago. Perhaps the athlete guideline had it right all along. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also appreciate the effort, but concur with Bongwarrior about the trivial nature of the latest sources. I note that the sources from University of Hawaii, WNBA, and BBVL are not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, as she has played for each. While they are reliable sources, they cannot be used to establish notability. To alleviate concerns that the article has been WP:BOMBARDed, it would be helpful if specific sources of significant coverage are identified in this AfD in case I have overlooked them. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on the circumstances, these websites can be used to establish notability to show if the subject did play for the league. As for me, Keep until there's more discussion held in WP:NSPORTS what to do with women basketball players who played in the top tier of their sport and looking at the sources it seems like she just passes WP:GNG. Secret ^account 05:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My previous comment was a followup to my !vote that the article did not meet GNG. Non-independent sources are suitable for establishing NSPORTS. Per the guideline, playing at the "top tier" provides a presumption of notability, but ultimately NSPORTS requires GNG to be demonstrated. If anyone wants to discuss specific content in sources for establishing GNG, we can progress beyond WP:POLLing.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note on point of order: notability is presumed, not guaranteed, when the NSPORT (or any other notability guideline) is met. Even if the guideline says that we should presume this person notable because they played in the highest league, if consensus agrees there's a complete lack of other coverage, deletion is an acceptable option. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know, thanks. But most if not all of these sources "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I'm from the UK and know absolutely nothing about basketball but was able to find perfectly adequate coverage of this professional athlete's entire career trajectory. As with all female athletes the sources are of relatively poor quality, but there is a danger we set the bar at a level which would rule out nearly all WNBA players. Or by extension, other professional female athletes. Consensus at NSPORT is very clear that, all things being equal, we should be ruling them in. As DGG suggests above, here is not the place to challenge that consensus. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While noble, there is no WP consensus to provide leniency for articles with trivial coverage to push a greater cause such as gender equality in sports coverage. Coverage needs to exists before WP writes about it.—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus exists, in part, to stop people pretending this sort of coverage is trivial. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with your interpretation. If the goal was to "stop people pretending" it would have labelled it a guarantee and not repeatedly used "presumed" throughout the guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I prefer to stick to the WP:ATH criteria. WNBA players are notable as they are playing in the top women's league in the World. I think drawing (in my opinion) arbitrary lines beyond this standard is asking for trouble. How about we delete guys who had one at bat in MLB? Rikster2 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an MLB player who only had one at-bat does not pass GNG, it should be deleted. (And I am active on WikiProject Baseball). The guideline clearly states, "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." ATH provides a "bright-line guidance" that is applicable in most cases, but the guideline is clear there are exceptions. As Masem stated earlier, the guideline is a presumption and not a guarantee of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you'd be pretty much alone among your WP:Baseball brethren then. Plenty of minor turn of the century ball players got zero media converge as individuals, yet I think everyone listed in the Baseball Encyclopedia has an article at this point. In practice, pretty much every top sports league operates under this guidance. I think the objection to this player stems from it being WOMEN'S basketball and personally I think it shows significant gender bias. Rikster2 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offline references generally cover articles for historical MLB players. It's quite presumptuous to say that other baseball editors would ignore GNG if those offline sources were not eventually found. Is there a presumption that WNBA has the same offline sources? If so, I would be open if anyone wanted to commit to finding those sources in a reasonable time frame (3 months?) It is not a gender bias to state that society to date covers men's basketball more than women's. The bias is in the coverage and the public's interest, not in the statement regarding the state of past and existing coverage. This is not the place to right WP:GREATWRONGS. I assume nobody is implying there is a conscious attempt to be biased in this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

offline resources also cover Sanders' WNBA career in the same depth as some early baseball pioneers. I have at least 6 WNBA registers sitting on a shelf that cover her in the same detail. But whatever, my opinion is registered (and so is yours). Rikster2 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the registers are independent (not affiliated with the WNBA) and have significant coverage (e.g. beyond stats), it would sway my opinion in whether GNG is met or likely to be met.—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they're the same registers I'm thinking of, they're published by The Sporting News. They mostly concentrate on stats, but they do provide some basic biographical details, and one can build reasonably detailed articles by using them. Zagalejo^^^ 23:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She received plenty of coverage in college, WNBA and Europe. I think she meets GNG, even if barely. She's even had a trading card produced. As a side note, there are MANY early MLB players whose entire coverage in independent sources is a regurgitation of their stats. That is no more or less significant. Rikster2 (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, you can find a decent amount of info on many early baseball players if you do some digging through offline newspaper archives and such. Baseball was well-covered by the media from an early date. (Circa 1900, anyway. I won't make any promises about 1870s players.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the bright line notability standards that we've had for athletes do save us a lot of time and anguish. If we started to argue over the notability of every baseball player who has an article, we'd never get much else done, and we'd piss off a lot of people in the process. (It would be the WP:WAF battles all over again.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the general rule is thus: an athlete is presumed notable if she played on at a least one game at the highest level, but prospects and drafts do not count by themselves. Do we have any reliable evidence that she played basketball with WNBA, or did she really just sip coffee from the sidelines? Bearian (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC) :Based on this article, keep, because she played and scored two points. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the keep because ATH has priority over GNG, or because GNG was met? My intent is not to change your !vote, but to determine if WP:ATH's stated requirement for GNG to be met is still reflective of the community's actual practices or is possibly obsolete.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both WP:ATH and WP:GNG are both presumptions of notability, not mandates to keep, and both apply here. Also, the standards rule of interpretation of (legal) rules dictate that the specific rule governs when the general rule is unclear. Finally, WP:ATH is essentially still a very well-respected notability guideline, and unless my reading is way off, consensus has not changed. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. If GNG is met, I would rethink my opinion if specific independent sources that are beyond ROUTINE coverage were identified in this discussion. Being wary of WP:WABBITSEASON, I'm bowing out unless it involves a discussion of specific sources.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 21 May 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. Sandstein 06:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digitata[edit]

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

This, along with pubescens and many, many others (most articles currently in Category:Latin words found in species names that lack legitimate disambiguation entries), have been accumulating over the years as perfect examples of abuses of a disambiguation page. They are Latin terms used in species epithets and in terms of classification and taxonomy, have no meaning when used on their own. Species are never called solely by their species epithet without first naming the genus, thus in the same way you would not list every regional zoo on the Zoo (disambiguation) page even though locally they are called "the zoo," so these species should not be listed on disambiguation pages of the species epithet. NotWith (talk · contribs) (formerly Nono64 (talk · contribs)) has built up an army of these over the years and I find absolutely no redeeming value in the cross-linked dab pages. Disambiguation pages in Category:Latin words found in species names with no real entries other than these species partial title matches should just be deleted. Others should have the list of species removed. Over the years I've tried to engage NotWith/Nono64 in discussion on this matter but the editor almost never replies to any message. Depending on the discussion of this page here, I will compile a list of all similar partial title match disambiguation pages for deletion and submit a second discussion of the large lot to all be deleted, save the ones that have legitimate disambiguation terms. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Dioica, Monoica, Chinense, Asiatica, etc. You get the point. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nonbiologist might not know what term to look for--biological nomenclature confuses those not accustomed to it. They lead to & organize such pages as C. chinensis (disambiguation), which are certainly helpful to any reader who sees the name in the abbreviated form--as biologists often do when they think there is no ambiguity to specialists. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a specialist vs. nonspecialist thing. This is a misuse of disambiguation pages by including partial title matches. But to your point, species epithets are never used on their own, nor are abbreviations of the G. species form used without first spelling out the full genus first. No species is ever referred to by is species epithet alone, meaning that it should never be included on a disambiguation page of the species epithet title. Again, I cannot be emphatic about this enough, I am not bringing this AfD forward because I want to rid Wikipedia of something I think might be useful to nonspecialists (I doubt that assertion that it would be useful), but because of WP:PTM. That's the only reason. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no use in keeping articles such as this one for dab purposes; anyone trying to look up the abbreviated name is going to have a generic initial as well as a specific epithet, and can proceed directly to a dab page such as C. digitata. Unfortunately, too, I can see a problem arising from articles such as this one: if there's no article on a particular species, well-meaning editors might juxtapose the genus article and the specific-epithet dab page, producing the false appearance of a species-level article, e.g. Callirhoe digitata. Between WP:PTM and the potential for misleading Wikilinks, I think WP's better off without articles such as this one. Ammodramus (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 6 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it isn't kept, it should be redirected to Digitata (band). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists of abreviations such as Digitatum_(disambiguation) should be moved to a set index article linked from this disambiguation page, but the disambiguation between the band, the lattin abreviation and the other disambiguation pages is valid and compliant with guidelines. Diego (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's statement that this lacks valid disambiguation entries is now untrue, after the cleanups by NotWith. Anyway, this looks like a valid disambiguation page to me — disambiguation pages are intended for people who know some part of the name of what they're looking for, but not the precise name, and that's what this does, whether or not all of its entries are for species. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of the band entry, but my point still stands. This is exactly what the advice on partial title matches tells us to avoid. So if I don't know the exact name of my local zoo but know it has zoo in the title, I should be able to go to zoo (disambiguation) and expect to find it? Rkitko ^(talk) 11:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Bongiorno[edit]

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

Previously prodded, with the comment " Clear promotional intent: unknow artist, the same user created the same page on it.wiki, en.wiki and fr.wiki. In it.wiki the article has been speedy deleted multiple time and at last the title has been blocked" Now re-created, but the comments appear to still apply. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The speedy deletions were probably for G11, which this article does not comply with. As of now, I can't see any promotional content in this article. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Objectively I can not see the promotional page is not for the cancellation. --Costanzo Costantini (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Objectively: the mere existence of this lemma is the proof of the promotional intent of its author. Both here and in it.wiki, this entry was always been surrounded by a number of authors linked to the artist himself (Costanzo Costantini, Elena d'agostini...). Instead, this is indicative of the level of spam. And above of all, Bongiorno himself isn't absolutely relevant for the italian contemporary art scene. To evaluate what I say, please take a deeper look to the references used in Vito Bongiorno:

This and this one does not speak about Bongiorno, not even mention

This and this one are commercial sites that link to a book of Costantini (the one above who can't see promotion...). To be precise, not a real book, a vanity press booklet of 48 pages.

This is a good source to determine his existence, and the fact that on one occasion he has independently worked as body artist in Fregene. Nothing more than this.

This one, honestly, may be the only element that has a minimum of relevance. But it is a very local and limited event, pretty obscure even just outside the city limits.

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Alexandra Stiefvater[edit]

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

Very nicely formatted page with a number of references, but it doesn't look like this actress is notable. She's had some bit parts here and there and some indie work, but nothing much. References are to her IMDB page, sites affiliated with her, and sites of movies she's appeared in. Only two google news hits and they are just passing mentions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As for the Afd, I'm undecided, but do agree that the referencing in this article is very weak. -- WikHead (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR (her most prominent role appears to be starring in what our film article calls a "Z movie"), and I don't see much coverage out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the roles this person has played do not appear to qualify as "significant roles", the films she produced herself don't seem to be carried anywhere, and her books are self-published. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Kay[edit]

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

Musician of uncertain notability, who's had one very minor semi-hit single and has yet to release an actual album. Furthermore, the only reliable source cited here is a single article in her hometown newspaper, with no evidence provided that she's yet garnered any other media attention that would constitute substantial coverage. (If we allowed every musician who's ever had one article written about them in the local newspaper, we'd have an article on almost every musician on earth. But we don't.) Everything else in this article is cited to invalid sources such as YouTube videos, her own webpage and her one single's page at a digital music store. As always, I'm more than willing to withdraw this nomination if someone can Heymann it up to a reasonable standard, and it's certainly true that with an album forthcoming on a major label she is likely to pass our notability rules in the future — but as currently written, this article ain't there yet and needs to be deleted if it can't yet be significantly improved (obviously without prejudice against recreation if and when she starts getting wider coverage.) Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, charting at #63 on the Canadian Hot 100, a major chart, is sufficient to meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:BAND explicitly states that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept — if it can't be properly referenced to reliable sources, it can still be deleted even if the artist technically meets all of the other criteria. And as I've already noted, there's not a single source here that even comes close to satisfying the requirement that a claim of notability has to be properly sourced to be valid. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference verifying the Cobra Starship collaboration, another assertation of notability. Her career is still brand new, so between the charting single and collaboration with another artist, it might be better to hold off for now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey. I said right in my initial rationale that I'd happily withdraw the nomination if quality sources show up — but I'm not going to "hold off" on anything until that actually happens. We're not after confirmation of mere existence here, but confirmation that she's received substantial coverage in reliable sources — and that requirement hasn't been satisfied just because you can add one very short blog entry which mentions her name in passing exactly once, when the article, as written, is still otherwise sourced almost entirely to YouTube videos. After all, an AFD deletion would not mean that she can never have an article — it would mean that this iteration of the article isn't properly sourced enough to stick around, but a new version which cited stronger sources would still be permissible at a later date. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources including the Prince George Free Press, the Cape Breton Post, AOL Music Canada, and CBC News, in addition to the charting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's more like it. As promised, nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 13 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinectalloons[edit]

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

Completing unfinished nom from someone else. Game seems not to have been made; no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search reveals nothing on game or developer. Only source listed references the Wikipedia page. Claims to be based on Kinectimals which is highly doubtful. Only Microsofts own games are allowed to have Kinect in the title as well.Darwin-rover (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The source referenced in the article is actually a web site that mirrors Wikipedia. Rather circular. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Make the game first, then write the article. UsedBeen20 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anyone is interested, Googling this game dug up this plausible link: "http://www.squidoo.com/kinectalloons-kinect-game" so we do know this isn't some made up game. UsedBeen20 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's as plausible as Wikipedia given that Squidoo is user-generated content. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 19 May 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.