< 23 May	25 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 deleted as hoax. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jomel Amado[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced biography CyanGardevoir 23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed on both counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Steven (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 01:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Text is copied and pasted from Leo Echegaray with the name replaced. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IWebsiteMaker[edit]

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

Lack of assertion of notability, almost entirely promotional in tone, all but one "reference" refers to press release or similar promo material (the other is a one page review on a minor site) Ubcule (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The article's referencing consists of press releases and unreliable web site. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough WP:RS to verify, thus fails WP:GNG. Also google is not able to help. →TSU ^tp* 15:09, 30 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dancilla[edit]

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

I found no coverage in multiple searches. This website is non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable third-party sources - fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. →B music ian 01:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Unfortunately this rather impressive (for those who are interested in folk dance) website failed to become fully notable, even if the efforts are commendable. - Altenmann >t 18:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS. There is no rank stated and no hits at gnews or notable-hits at google. Thus this is not WP:N and fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 15:12, 30 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Cates[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Appeared in some notable TV shows, but only in small roles. Searches find no independent reliable sources to verify notability. Michitaro (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No significant body of work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found, and roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 20:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no WP:RS which makes it fail WP:GNG. Google is also not showing enough notable results. →TSU ^tp* 04:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has interesting and budding career so far (he was in the pilot of a 2010 TV show that wasn't picked up) but he is not there yet - see WP:UPANDCOMING. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 31 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Marquez[edit]

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

Porn performer of no discernible significance. All claimed awards/noms are in scene/group categories, which by consensus do not significantly contribute to notability. Name is relatively common, but all GNews/GBooks hits appear spurious or triviaL, Article includes no substantial biographical content. No references satisfying WP:RS provide any substantive information concerning the article subject beyond database listings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sarah (talk) 17:04, 15 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, v/r - T P 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only line of the bio section, which is the reason for this article is unsourced now that the broken now WP:RS has been removed! Since this is WP:BLP the remainging sentence is subject to immediate removal and once that happen this will be eligible for removeal for a Speedy on no contentBO; talk 05:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of in-depth-coverage available on Google. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 31 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. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 01:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sahg[edit]

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

With no references at all a claim to a top 40 hit is nothing but a claim. Article was originally prodded by me but reprodded without making any improvements to the source situation. meco (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the chart claim is verified, does that meet your WP:HEY standard? Chubbles (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered supplying that I wouldn't have had to AfD the article. __meco (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, then. Supplied. Chubbles (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. __meco (talk) 23:38, 24 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Tash[edit]

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

Autobiography of a musician which was created after several more promotional articles were speedily deleted. Still doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Psychonaut (talk) 20:30, 24 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 03:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar El Or[edit]

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

I checked google News archives and the only mention I found of the subject was her being quoted in a news article. Nothing covering her substantially and all existing references in the article are primary sources. Fails WP:N due to lack of WP:RS. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holding a named chair at a major university is a technical WP:PROF pass, but besides that, her books have been reviewed in a number of journals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as per Roscelese. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do book reviews in journals make someone notable? They are reviews of her books, not articles about her. If someone appears in a movie that Roger Ebert writes a review of, does that make that person notable? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, holding a named chair doesn't mean much if there are no reliable sources about her. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes an author notable because they are the author's books. If the author didn't write them, there would be no reviews. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is an author as well. You seem to have missed WP:AUTHOR - "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Scholarly journals recognizing her books is significant critical attention. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources about her as well - [1], [2], [3], and more in Google Books. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- obvious WP:PROF notability clear with named chair and reviews of books in important journals. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Roscelese →TSU ^tp* 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Meets WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Named chair at major university always meets WP:PROF. Authors are made notable by substantial publications about their work, which are generally book reviews. All professionals are notable because of their professions., not the incidental details of their biographies and private lives. Authors for their books, musicians for their musics, athletes for their performance, scientists for their science. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some may become notable for their private lifves, but that's usually a veru minor factor for anyone with a professional career.

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States CG[edit]

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

Entirely unneeded list. Duplicates numerous articles. PROD declined by article creator without explanation. Safiel (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as major edit in progress. It seems that the creator is trying to improve the various lists of US Navy ships and is making temporary articles to hold the partially rewritten pages. Could somebody who knows show him how to do that in his sandbox, please? Dricherby (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing and userfying I will close this and move the list to the user's sandbox. Safiel (talk) 20:35, 24 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. As HTD comments that "this seems to be (rightfully) swinging on the "delete" side", I am assuming that negates the 'keep' that user said before. As such, I find the consensus is to delete. I am happy to restore the article as a contested PROD upon request PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Talk 'N Text Tropang Texters Imports[edit]

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

Nothing but a list of people who have played import for a Philippine sports team. No context establishing any notability, no sources. Delete. JIP | Talk 11:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't we have similar lists for sports teams playing elsewhere? The main article of this one, and where this list should be merged with was deleted on a prod. I suggest that be revived (preferably titled as "Talk 'N Text Tropang Texters all-time roster"), and I'll do the sourcing. The Talk 'N Text Tropang Texters are not just a "Philippine sports team", they are champions of three of the last five tournaments of the Philippine Basketball Association, the country's most popular sports league. It's like deleting Los Angeles Lakers all-time roster. –H T D 15:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but convert to an all-time roster article as Howard the Duck suggests, assuming reliable sources exist (there are no references listed in the current article). Rikster2 (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No basis for why a list of a basketball team's import players is notable enough for a stand-alone article, even a championship team; see WP:LISTN, WP:SALAT. The same list is already here, which is probably a better place for it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:57, 24 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, Rcsprinter (warn) 19:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't expand in any way upon Talk 'N Text Tropang Texters#Imports. The notability of the team is irrelevant if a sub-article is a simple reiteration of information already contained on its main page. WP:WHENSPLIT was not taken into account when this article was created. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this seems to be (rightfully) swinging on the "delete" side, perhaps the mother article that was deleted via prod ought to be revived. I dunno how it looked like but it could be salvageable, then this list can be merged there an be expanded from there. –H T D 17:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD rationale was "Uncited, unecessary list of uncertain things or persons". I'm not prejudiced against recreation but that seems a clear case where sources should be found prior to publication in mainspace. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably can't do that when it's deleted... –H T D 02:52, 26 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of successful coups d'état[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR

Wikipedia is not a directory KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is not a directory. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant: the first two sentences of it say, "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." This list meets WP:LSC on grounds that every entry is individually notable. Dricherby (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are stronger reasons to articulate for deletion--the above two !voters have it essentially correct--but even so, those would be primarily arguments for cleanup and sourcing, rather than removal of the list as inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this page is actually a directory. The article needs some routine cleanp, not deletion →B music ian 01:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs improvement such as more clearly defined criteria as to what makes a coup "successful", more wikilinks, and better sourcing. But those issues can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly viable topic for a list, and the nomination seems to be a case of WP:VAGUEWAVE given that no specific concerns are raised. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, completely meritless and substanceless VAGUEWAVE nomination, not his only one pending nor the only one in which he couldn't even be bothered to use basic punctuation. It is unacceptable for an experienced editor to so lazily spit out an AFD so as to just create work for others in responding and closing it, and he should be blocked for disruption if he does it again. postdlf (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The punctuation skills of the nominator are irrelevant and complaining about them could in itself be considered disruptive. Dricherby (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to the time and effort he took to post this. He's not a newbie, and as his fanciful signature should attest, he's not without basic skills here, so I do not believe he is unable to use a period. WP:ADHOM is irrelevant because I am not addressing his conduct here as a way to defend the merits of the list, but because I find his conduct unacceptable in and of itself. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The time and effort taken to post this are shown by the lack of justification for deletion, beyond a link to a policy. Since they did not affect the clarity of his communication, his punctuation skills are no more relevant than his hairstyle. Dricherby (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep unless the nominator is willing to explain why he feels the article does not conform to policies/guidelines. The nomination is currently WP:JUSTALINK. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:11, 27 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. No clear consensus to delete, despite relisting. The article clearly needs work, but should not be deleted at this time PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese Canadian Association of Toronto[edit]

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

No indication or evidence of notability, article reads like the club's bulletin board. Previously prodded, removed by another editor with no improvements made. PK T(alk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 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) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. 1st reference is a self-reference, and the remaining ones only announce the events, not proving notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:01, 22 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, v/r - T P 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ I agree that this is a poorly-written brochure-like article but the topic appears notable to me based upon the coverage I am seeing. I have added a ((find sources)) at the top of this AfD for the organization's Chinese name and it's giving me dozens of Google News hits, two Google Books hits, and one Google Scholar hit. I can't read Chinese but using Google Translate to read The Epoch Times (an international print newspaper) link in the article appears to show that it's generally discussing the organization, the election of its officers, and other details of a meeting, not just announcing a future event. There are many hits like this one in the Central Daily News that are from Taiwanese or other international sources. So it appears to me that it has achieved coverage requirements for general notability and in addition per the WP:ORG criteria for non-commercial organizations it has attracted international attention. Though, the article probably ought to be cropped down near to stub level unless there's some really in-depth secondary sourcing. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:02, 24 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, —Hue Sat Lum 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INHERITORS (game)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. Does not meet general notability guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertisement for a non-notable product that doesn't even exist yet, created by somebody who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia and who deleted both the ((advert)) tag and the WP:PROD without comment. Dricherby (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advert, clear original research, Conflict of Interest, fails WP:GNG, no sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL ... and egad THE SHOUTING. I'd also say this meets CSD G11! -Rushyo ^Talk 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of importance. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Subject also makes no credible claim to importance. Both A7 and G11 can apply to this article. →B music ian 01:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Since A7 includes web content but explicitly excludes software, would A7 actually apply? -Rushyo ^Talk 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an internet game, not software. SL93 (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the distinction? The article says that Flash player is needed, so the user plays the game by the browser downloading software (the Flash code) and executing it. Dricherby (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet videos require the same thing, but they aren't software either. SL93 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of videos, I would argue that you're downloading a small piece of software and a big chunk of data to be played by that software. The software there is just a means to an end. But, in the case of a game, I don't see any difference between downloading a standalone application and running it outside the browser, versus downloading a Flash application and running it in the browser. But, in any case, only one reason is needed for a speedy delete and G11 seems to fit. Dricherby (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this could have A7ed and if not A7, G11 was also eligible. It is unsourced, promotional and not-notable →TSU ^tp* 04:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no sources, is an advert. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:15, 31 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 Withdrawn. The awards don't do much for me notability wise, but between the one news article and this review I think it just about does it source-wise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (webcomic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'll just copy what I said at GAR:

First of all, it is very lacking in secondary sources. Nearly every source is to the strip itself. And of the sources that aren't:

This site is a retailer that sells the comic — not a reliable source.
This and this are other people's webcomics, only verifying that those two comics (which are not notable in their own right) gave a shout out to Jack.

The other sources are the artist's VCL gallery, and listings from the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and Ursa Major awards. There is years of consensus saying that Ursa Major and Web Cartoonists' Choice are not enough for WP:WEB — see among others, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_and_Mab's_Furry_Adventures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination) — these discussions have all shown a well established consensus that WCCA is not enough to meet WP:WEB. And given that Ursa Major Awards' article was AFD'd 2 years ago, I'd say it's not a notable award either. The previous AFD from 2010 resulted in "keep" due to everyone clamoring that WCCA was notable, but it's still quite obvious through the other AFDs listed here that WCCA is not enough to satisfy WP:WEB. Furthermore, the last AFD did not acknowledge the utter lack of reliable sources; even if something meets WP:WEB, it can still fail WP:GNG due to a lack of sources.

Even back in 2007, the nomination was called into question ("I'm unsure how this has got to GA - it is completely lacking in reliable sources and the referencing is thin - largely references to awards sites and the comic itself. This is particularly noticeable in the themes and reception sections which should be heavily referenced to reliable third party sources and they aren't."), but nothing ever came of it.

I know there's a shiny green circle with an X on it, but as I've proven above, the pass to GA was very off base. The same thing happened with Zig Zag (character) about 4 years ago — it had a fishy GA and was promptly AFD'd without reassessing the GA first. The awards are not notable per WP:WEB. I looked all over, trying various strings such as "Jack + webcomic", "Jack + David Hopkins" and couldn't find any reliable sources.

tl;dr: This webcomic is not notable, the GA was b0rked, and this webcomic's awards are not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After going through the available references, I have to agree with the nominator. Most links are to the website of the comic, and the awards are given by fan sites, or are given by very minor, non-notable groups. I was unable to find good references trying several google searches.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 12:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick search ("Jack" + "David Hopkins" + "Grim Reaper") and found this news article, which I see has been republished in multiple other newspapers. [4] [5] [6] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Look, it's not that WCCA and Ursa Major Awards don't count, it's that neither of these awards by themselves satisfy WP:WEB. Together, with the news article, they certainly count as reliable sources that do the job just fine. Veled (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional -- This isn't the first time I've pointed out that you've already tried to nominate this article for deletion, nor the first time that you've done so despite the decision last time resulting in a keep. Remember that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is NOT grounds for deletion. Veled (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT at all. It's a consensus from past several AFDs that WCCA and Ursa Major are not enough to satisfy WP:WEB. Other users made that decision per consensus, not me. The article is decent, but we need multiple sources and that's just one. You really seem to have a vendetta against me, and a desire to fight every webcomic AFD to the death. Funny how, until I started AFD'ing them, you'd barely touched the project in years, and now you're coming out of the woodwork... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you go on deletion and "aggressive merge" sprees, which get other editors riled up, especially when they only find out after the articles are deleted. Last Res0rt and The Whiteboard disappeared this week, with no notification to Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry, which had these articles tagged. I asked you to for such notification just a few months ago. You just redirected another article to this very article which you seek to delete, without making any attempt to discuss the article beforehand, merge content from that article into this article, or notify editors here or in its WikiProjects that it would effectively be deleted as well. The only way anyone would know is if they had that specific article watchlisted. Part of the reason we have WikiProjects is to prevent editors having to do that if they want to be aware of issues which could affect the project, like the loss of articles - especially a GA. GreenReaper (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice your notification. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seeing Paul Erik's quick search above of news sources, I tried a Google Scholar search for "David Hopkins jack webcomic" and found only one mention in The Grim Reaper, Working Stiff: The Man, the Myth, the Everyday, footnote 4 on page 13: "webcomics like JACK by David Hopkins ... this simply serves as an abbreviated list of those instances which are most familiar to the widest audience.". Finding nothing more, I did notice a long review by Larry Cruz at [7] who described it as "one of the most awful comics in history", "awful", "crap", "epic repulsiveness", and so forth (I only scanned the review). That site's author appears to be an independent reviewer of webcomics, and is mentioned here as a way to find webcomics, and several wikipedia webcomic articles use his reviews for references. -84user (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Webcomic Overlook reliable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming anything about Webcomic Overlook's reliability, other than he appears to be a bona fide independent reviewer of webcomics. I have no reason to believe he is making up the existence of the comic, which he also mentions here when explaining the difficulty of finding another comic named Jack ("hard to find on Google, given the prominence of David Hopkins’ Jack"). -84user (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep anything called "Jack" is going to be a real chore to find sources for, but the News Tribune article found by Paul Erik above looks good. That plus two minor awards and a (fan made) video game leads me to believe this just passes the notability bar, though any one of those alone wouldn't be enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 26 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 snow close No support from other than nominator Nobody Ent 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassinated people[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTDIR WIkipedia is not a list KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator does not appear to understand what a directory is. This isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_successful_coups_d'état, nominated by the same person, WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant and the list meets WP:LSC as a list on a single topic, all of whose entries are notable. Dricherby (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article isn't a directory. Passes WP:LSC. →B music ian 01:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable people grouped together with a notable attribute. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This is a good list of people on here. This is considered a list people, in a specific country, who were assassinated and killed in that country. However, This should NOT be a directory for people, but a simple list of people on who were assassinated. So overall stating this, I would agree with you all. It should be moved, or modified in a different form. The article would be best cleaned up and there should be a silver lock if needed. Vmkcheat —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, doesn't fall under notdirectory. Can't see any issues here. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Complements Category:Assassinated people (cf. WP:NOTDUP). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not going to lie as this article is a massive unsourced mess with no defining criteria on "assassination". It is a valid encyclopedic topic however, as the topic of people assassinated clearly meets WP:GNG, and with a misleading argument for deletion as WP:NOTDIR is mainly used for business/local lists with dubious notability, not lists like this. Cleanup should be discussed on the talk page though as it may get listed for deletion again if this list stays as a massive mess. Secret ^account 03:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nonsensical and meritless AFD. The nominator couldn't even be bothered to add basic punctuation to his "rationale", let alone anything of substance. This is so far below basic standards of thoughtfulness and effort for an experienced editor as to be insulting, particularly when he doesn't bother to elaborate or respond to any of the commenters. If he spits out this kind of garbage AFD again, he should be blocked for disruption. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The punctuation skills of the nominator are irrelevant. Dricherby (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to the time and effort he took to post this. He's not a newbie, and as his fanciful signature should attest, he's not without basic skills here. WP:ADHOM is irrelevant because I am not addressing his conduct here as a way to defend the merits of the list, but because I find his conduct unacceptable in and of itself. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment First,Postdlf, as a sysop, you should be aware of WP:CIV which is policy. But, let me spell it out for you.

a.)NOTDIR is policy , that is consensus that wikipedia articles are not be to lists. This is a list,nothing more.
b.)Consensus now needs to be shown that it should stay and WHY so far,that hasn't happened. Most of this is attacks on myself and the nomination. As consensus has decreed Wikipedia articles can't be lists, you should all be showing consensus why it should stay or else it goes. ....that clear enough for you, Postdlf? KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR states "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject". This was pointed out to you in the second keep !vote on this AFD. I don't know how much clearer it can be put. Please think about familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIR. It does not forbid all lists but only lists of "loosely associated topics" and the other sorts of lists that it talks about. Further, I disagree with your statement that "Most of this is attacks on myself and the nomination". The attacks are unfortunate but, most of the comments are statements that the list isn't a directory so doesn't fall under WP:NOTDIR. Dricherby (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) WP:CIVIL does not mean that editors are to be free of criticism for their poor conduct, and I criticized you above for your failure to take the time to post a thoughtful and substantive AFD, because yours is at best WP:JUSTAVOTE and a WP:VAGUEWAVE.
You have now further made a completely preposterous statement that "consensus has decreed Wikipedia articles can't be lists...", which I cannot believe is a good faith interpretation of WP:NOTDIR given that its own introduction says "Wikipedia encompasses many lists..." See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, and Wikipedia:Featured lists, all of which would be curious things to exist on WP if lists should not. You could also see any number of AFDs regarding lists or lists of people that are leaning "keep" or have been already closed as "keep". I don't see how you could not be aware of any of that. Which means either you were so incredibly careless in starting this AFD so as to not take note of any relevant AFDs or to read any relevant guidelines and policies, including the one you cited; or you knew all of this and proceeded instead, making this purely disruption to prove a point if not outright trolling. Either way, this is completely unacceptable. We can take it to WP:ANI if I haven't made my point, but the fact that this AFD (and another list AFD you started at the same time that has already been SNOW-closed) has received no support at all should alone tell you something. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: It's hardly bad faith, NOTDIR is a policy because consensus has declared it to be so. While lists are allowed, not as articles, but (per the text):

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia' that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject.
This is not a list of links to articles, it's simply a list. Per that same policy, that list cannot remain here. This is hardly a pointy nom, nor made in bad faith. It's simply enforcing existing policy. If you disagree with the policy,feel free to post an RFC on it and change it. Otherwise, show a reason why it must stay. Once again, discuss the article, not it's nominator. KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, every single person's name in the list is a link to an article. It is absolutely a list of links to articles. Dricherby (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is either very good trolling or an inability to read and understand policy which is so severe that it warrants topic bans or maybe a block for the good of the project. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia does indeed have lists, as even the nominator has since realized, and there is no such thing as an 'attack' on the nomination; the nom process has been quite rightly criticized. What that might mean about the nominator's character, or politics, or any substantive basis of ad hominem complaints (rather than the "You gave me an owie" whining that wikiwarriors employ to supposedly strengthen their cases), is purely in the minds of those reading it, where WP quite rightly cannot govern. It is a relief to me to see such a clear cut case of insufficiently competent editing and stubborn and contentious contradiction (eg "This is not a list of links to articles, it's simply a list.", which is empirically in error) that AGF has become irrelevant. Anarchangel (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KoshVorlon is now repeatedly trying to hide your commment and that of Suriel's. I don't see an end to this outside of ANI; earlier he was edit-warring regarding the close of his other meritless AFD (see history here). I'm in the middle of something in the real world...can someone else start a thread there? postdlf (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can see, you're both edit warring over hiding a couple of lines of text. That quite simply shouldn't be happening, you both know better. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 13:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:KoshVorlon. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 28 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elbo.ws[edit]

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

I found no coverage in multiple searches. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passes WP:REALLYCOOLNAME but I couldn't find any evidence of notability. Dricherby (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My search turned up nothing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 31 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 via WP:GNG joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seraj A. Salim[edit]

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

A medical student. Won a departmental award as an undergraduate. Says he is the Chairman of the "Afro-European Medical and Research Network Students' Association". There are no reliable sources for anything except he is a student. No mention of the student association on the web except for this page. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even accepting everything claimed without references, he doesn't qualify to stay. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unverified BLP. Article provides no Reliable Source references and I could not find any. I could not even find confirmation that he is a student (nominator says there is a source for that, so maybe I missed it). His facebook page refers to him as "Dr. Salim" suggesting that he has graduated. Article written by a special purpose account. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 27 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muthappa Rai[edit]

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

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Bharathiya 17:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very notable enough as per this and this. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some one is an ex-prisoner for multiple number of times doesn't necessarily qualify him to be in Wikipedia.

So I hereby strongly recommend deleting this article from immediate effect. DELETE Bharathiya 16:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)

Keep: I do not see any reason why the article should not be present on wikipedia, the article needs improvement not deletion sarvajna (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is enough to get it's notability →TSU ^tp* 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* No trusted third party source. We cannot consider it as 'note-worthy' just because the name is there in 3 or 4 film story based news articles or jail release summary. Wiki needs trusted, verifiable third party source. Of course we may have respect or fear or something else for somebody but that does not mean that they should be in Wikipedia!!! Personally I may/can say keep but sorry to challenge its worthiness strictly as per wiki. Plz understand that Wikipedia has its own rules and we all have to abide by it to keep its standards. Provide 3-4 trusted, verifiable third party sources to maintain the Keep status in Wiki or else it should be deleted. DELETE -- Bharathiya 02:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs) you have already made your point clear no need to repeat it sarvajna (talk) 04:54, 31 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. per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral Calculus[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NWEB. No scope for the article to "offer detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance", as no such achievements, impact or significance is claimed. Not "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and has not "won a well-known and independent award". Fails notability. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article creator) I've tracked down a few more sources, which I'll endeavour to include in the article during the period of this discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anyone who knows anything about contemporary elections to the UK Parliament knows about Electoral Calculus. It is one of very few tried and tested forecasting tools, and is very heavily cited online. I realise that Wikipedia is very wary of online phenomena, but honestly, when I see some of the crap (eg. Pokemon) that has an article on Wikipedia (some even GA and FA class) and then I see an AFD on an important topic like Electoral Calculus, it makes me think that the world has gone mad. Electoral Calculus is an absolute gem, easily as notable as UK Polling Report (OMG, I cannot believe that is a redlink) or politicalbetting.com, and approx 10 times more notable than narrow partisan blogs like Liberal Democrat Voice etc, and approx 1000 times more notable than the Newbury Weekly News etc (why on earth do we have so many articles on miniscule local newspapers?)--Mais oui! (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) per WP:GNG. The site is clearly worthy of notice. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. WP:NWEB states Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline [...] (my underlining). Further sources which I don't expect I'll include any time soon are: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] -- Trevj (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an additional piece of information which is important to bear in mind is that this website is very rarely referred to by its official name "Electoral Calculus" by the communities who are interested in this type of thing. It is almost always referred to as simply "Baxter", or occasionally "Martin Baxter". So, I would take any Google searches based only on just "Electoral Calculus" with a pinch of salt. When something gets widely known by a nickname then you know that it has arrived. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Trevj. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good coverage in refs, also google hits are good and per Mais oui! →TSU ^tp* 15:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to see that this does indeed seem to meet notability thresholds: the article I saw last Thursday asserted little or nothing that made it evident that it did so. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 30 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. Per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyMaths[edit]

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

I see no evident notability from sources. I think it fails WP:GNG. Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per 46,088 Alexa Ranking.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Alexa ranking show notability? Explain please. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that the site has been recognized and has lot's of visitors coming in every day.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it does not show notability from other sources on the article. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, the Alexa ranking should be enough and the others are reporting on the subject.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it passes GNG. While I still feel that the subject is less notable, it is also not not notable. The rank does give me slight ray of notability. Also it hits a good number of google results thus no doubt anymore. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The website forms a significant area of study in at least one academic paper, takes up several pages in a book and receives coverage from several school websites. By having multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage, it clearly meets the general notability guidelines. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‣ Per the Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar hits spanning half a decade this site appears to satisfy WP:NWEB. See here, for example, it was the subject of an academic paper devoted specifically to it. (as noted by Mrmatiko moments ago in the article, I see) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple independent Reliable sources have been provided. The article could be better footnoted, but notability is established. LadyofShalott 18:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is better referenced than I am learning. One who sees both of these articles and their deletion discussions has to wonder if this discussion is retaliatory for a delete comment in the other. LadyofShalott 18:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a massive coincidence if it wasn't a retaliation.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional sources have been added, addressing the nominator's concern. →Σ τ c. 23:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the coverage in reliable sources makes the subject pass both WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. →B music ian 01:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep New sources have been added and it now clearly meets GNG and NWEB. Pol430 talk to me 18:22, 25 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 Dan-Air#Fatal accidents. If there is anything more to merge, editors can do so from the redirect's history. Sandstein 05:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Dan-Air Piper Apache crash[edit]

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

NOT Notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Small aircraft crashes happen all the time ...William 15:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -...William 15:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -...William 15:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History merge to Dan-Air#Fatal_accidents. The nominator's reasoning is sound and I agree with WP:AIRCRASH's recommendation that accidents of light aircraft involving deaths of non-notable individuals are not notable / not deserving of documentation in a separate article on Wikipedia. But as this does appear to be valid researched and cited encyclopedic content, there is no need for it to pass beyond the reach of non-admin users and should be incorporated into another article, even if immediately trimmed down for balance, so that it is at least accessible in the article history. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge as above because it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH and there are no unusual circumstances. On the other hand, the plane was being operated by a major airline and I think that makes it more notable than the average light airplane crash. Dricherby (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could make the case it does meet WP:AIRCRASH as it was "an airline aircraft" operating in line service at the time of the accident. However, given that it's a rather minor accident without too much lasting significance, Merge to Dan-Air#Fatal accidents seems the best way to go here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was a crash involving a four-seat aircraft being used as a crew bus, at a time when Dan-Air was operating jets. If it was an actual bus being used on a road that crashed while transporting crew between bases, there would unquestionably be no article; I see no reason to document this event as a separate article and it's already mentioned in the Dan-Air article's accidents section with the same two sources as refs, so no need for a merge either. YSSYguy (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Wikipedia would have an article about a bus crash is irrelevant to this discussion on whether an article about a plane crash should be deleted. Contrariwise, you could just as well say that if it had been a Boeing-747 instead of a Piper Apache, it would be a slam-dunk keep. But it wasn't a 747 and it wasn't a bus. Dricherby (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dan-Air article. The operator of the service is not relevant, there is no indication of a lasting effect, nor notable passengers and although referenced I don't see the major independant coverage we expect. Leaving aside the AIBB report, there is the Flight summary of the report (a couple of paragraphs) and reference to a book on the airline (that was commissioned by the airline). GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:26, 26 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 per WP:MUSIC. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 00:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonegard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Claims to notability are unsourced and have been for a year and a half (at least). Article was nominated for deletion in 2005 and passed barely with very little discussion. meco (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two of their albums are available through iTunes, and they are listed in a number of independent sources. Stonegard meets Wikipedia's music notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. I understand the notability guidelines must have been rewritten recently. I wasn't aware that it is now sufficient to be listed in a number of independent sources... and be available on iTunes! __meco (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meco, The first clause of Wikipedia's music notability guideline states: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. NJ Wine (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you wrote listed, which is something altogether different, and less committing, than "non-trivial work". __meco (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band had a Top 20 album in Norway. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the album released by the band did chart which is enough to get notability. →TSU ^tp* 15:23, 30 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 emerging consensus seems to be that Crookes has not played any professional league games. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Crookes[edit]

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

This player has never played in a professional league - claims in the article that he played for Hartlepool and Darlington are simply false, as confirmed by this and this and this - so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage - the sources are WP:ROUTINE, standard local news about a non-notable person. Giant Snowman 15:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. User Mattythewhite deleted all mention of Crookes's professional career from the article, claiming that it was "unsourced and blatantly untrue". I have restored this material because, contrary to his claim, it was sourced (to this article in the Northern Echo) and because none of the three sources included in the nomination above appears to meet WP:RS (they're all self-published websites). Since there is a reliable source that attests to Crookes's having played professional football he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Dricherby (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is incredibly lazy journalism that has just copied the (false) Wikipedia stats without checking them - not reliable in the slightest. The Neil Brown sources I have provided - which show he DID NOT play - are reliable & respected; in my 6+ years of football editing here I can also confirm that the inthemadcrowd website is accurate and incredibly comprehensive. Giant Snowman 18:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here are two more sources: Sunderland Echo and Newcastle Evening Chronicle. There's also another one at the Northern Echo but it has the same byline as the one you dismissed as "lazy journalism". Note that, in the Sunderland Echo, the statement that Crookes played professionally comes in a direct quote from the chairman of Chester-le-Street, where Crookes had just been appointed manager: are you suggesting that he lied on the job application? Dricherby (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying there is no evidence that he played professionally, and actually strong evidence to the contrary. Giant Snowman 19:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite has stated on the article talk page that Crookes is not mentioned in Barry J. Hugman's book The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946–2005. Dricherby (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely reliable & trusted source, and one that Neil Brown is the online version of... Giant Snowman 19:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. It seems to me that, the way things are turning out, the deletion nomination is a little premature. If it can be convincingly proven that Crookes played for Hartlepool and Darlington, then the result should be to keep this article. If it is convincingly proven that he did not play for either of the clubs, then the decision should probably be to delete. However, absence from a list is not conclusive proof that he did not play, and the newspaper reports would normally be considered a reliable source. It's worth noting there is a further source at the Bradford Telegraph and Argus which mentions Crookes playing for Darlington. The problem with all these citations, however, is that they are all hearsay, citing various club officials stating that he once played for so-and-so. Remember though, Wikipedia relies on what is verifiable, regardless of whether this is actually true or not. Can anyone find match reports or programmes with team listings from the time, which would provide further evidence? Skinsmoke (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hugman book mentioned above is complete & reliable & does not mention him. GiantSnowman 08:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) I have to say, the Hugman book and the Brown website really aren't the kind of sources to omit any eligible players, let alone those (supposedly) making in excess of 40 Football League appearances. I do have copies of the Rothmans Football Yearbooks for the relevant seasons, which list all players and their exact appearances for each Football League club in a given season. I'll be able to access these at some point later today, which will hopefully settle this at last... Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Skinsmoke's assessment that it all comes down to whether he played. The omission from Hugman could be an error but if he's not in the Rothmans books, either, I'd be satisfied that he didn't play. Dricherby (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. Good solution. Please look for variants of the name, too, as Rothmans haven't always had the highest standards of proofreading! --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        On the subject of variants, I checked the Neil Brown lists for any plausible mis-spellings, for anyone who had been at Hartlepool and Darlington at the right time and even for anyone who had transferred from Hartlepool to Darlington in about 1983 (in case he'd changed his name, for example) but still came up with nothing. It could still be that he was omitted from Hugman in error, of course, so Rothmans is still needed. Dricherby (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no Crookes, no one with the first name Grant or anyone else born 26-9-1965 playing league or cupgames for Darlington/Hartlepool in the early and mid 80's according to Rothmans, the Definitive Darlington (Frank Tweddle, a soccerdata publication) or the Definitive Hartlepool Fc (Gordon Small, soccerdata) There are some players missing on neil brown's site ,that's because it's largely based on an early version of Hugman. You won't find someone like Roy Drinkwater on his site (1 league match for Crewe in 1970-71) He is listed in the most recent version of Hugman. Cattivi (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Essentially just repeating what Cattivi said, but Rothmans Football Yearbook 1983–84 (covers 1982–83), p. 185 makes no mention of a Crookes appearing for Hartlepool United. Rothmans Football Yearbook 1984–85, p. 147 (covers 1983–84) and Rothmans Football Yearbook 1985–86, p. 183 (covers 1984–85) make no mention of a Crookes appearing for Darlington. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replacing my earlier !vote. From my point of view, the evidence from Rothmans and Hugman is enough for whatever the opposite of WP:HEY is. Dricherby (talk) 21:55, 25 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 delete. I think an article might be written, but it would have to be started over. This is an outrageously promotional article, with the most unabashed language, and qualifies for a G11 speedy deletion . It takes a lot for me to say that an article on a probably notable academic is impossible of rewriting, but this one does it. I think we as a community no longer have patience with this sort of writing, DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill James Baker[edit]

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

Non-notable college professor. Although the author of this article is clearly an admirer of Dr. Baker (and very likely a current or former student), Baker does not yet appear to have made any contributions of sufficient significance. The honor of a named geographical feature in Antarctica (Baker Point) appears to be a relatively low-level honor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index around 26. Agree that article needs to be less grovelling. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 25 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Scott[edit]

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

I honestly cannot see what makes this person notable. Though carefully worded to boost the subject's image, what we actually have is someone who sings, has taught some people to sing in a church, has started a studio, but no suggestion that there is anything notable about any of these "achievements". His students include and award winnere, it says, but the award is not noted and the singer is not notable anough to have a Wikipedia page. He has sung on recordings (not named) by people who also have no Wikipedia articles. Similarly, his studios do not appear to be notable in any way. Only possible claim to fame (and here I cinfess my ignorance of the matter) is his day job - a 'Senior Investigator' at the University of Washington. But is this just a glorified job description for a lab technician? And is his work there in some way out of the ordinary? There are zero references to the substantive issues; the only references given (that he wrote a song for example) are trivial and not independent. I note that the article is almost entirely the work of one editor, who has edited no other pages apart from List of University of California, Santa Cruz people, and that was to add John D. Scott to the list! Emeraude (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't even make any claims of notability. Clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC too. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks evidence of notability, from the article or from what I could find on the web. Note: This San Francisco/Oakland area vocal coach is not the John D. Scott who is a U. of Wash Medical School (Seattle) professor/research scientist. That person, widely cited and a member of the Royal Society, almost assuredly is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no convincing claim of notability and is full of WP:OR. SPA-creation suggests the purpose is actually promotion. The article does indeed conflate the singer with the (notable) scientist of the exact same name. (We should have an article on the latter.) The sources are ephemeral or not independent of subject, etc. etc. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 30 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Tucker[edit]

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

This article is about an academically gifted student. It's sources fail to meet notability guidelines, and I can't find any extra sources to make this so. To illustrate, one of the "Notable Awards" listed is passing his first year of his degree. To add to this, the article seems largely written by the author himself, which most other edits cleaning it up or vandalising it. A notability tag has been on the page for weeks, no significant effort has been made to meet it's criteria. AndrewJDTALK -- 15:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is known for appearing in a TV show, Bright Young Things: Growing Up Gifted. If that show had an article, could merge/redirect there. But doesn't seem notable on his own. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims of significant notability; fails to pass WP:ACADEMIC. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name's common enough to complicate a Google search; but searches such as ("gavin tucker" trinity), ("gavin tucker" lanesboro), and ("gavin tucker" gifted) turn up no in-depth coverage, apart from some very local coverage in the Longford Leader. Given the size of Longford (population 7,622), a profile in the Leader doesn't seem to confer a great deal of notability. Ammodramus (talk) 23:30, 31 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. Notability evidenced via WP:BASIC. While WP:BLP1E was discussed, participants noting the longevity of coverage, and how that relates to BLP1E's reminder that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timmie Jean Lindsey[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable. She's mentioned in very few reliable sources. yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually she is discussed in lots of reliable sources.[22][23][24] such as Wall Street Journal[25], BBC [26], The Guardian[27], Sydney Morning Herald[28], Florence Williams's new book Breasts: an unnatural history[29], etc., etc. We might consider her to be covered by WP:BLP1E, although we do have articles about some other famous first patients such as Louis Washkansky. If BLP1E does apply, however, that would suggest that some information should be incorporated in a relevant article such as Breast implant#History, rather than simply deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BASIC with substantial international coverage: a half-dozen solid Google Books hits and dozens of Google News hits with a significant percentage of those being in reliable sources as Arxiloxos observes. (And actually, in the narrow category of tabloidy topics of prurient interest like breast augmentation I think the Daily Mail sort of qualifies as a reliable source in this case. Caution preceding link contains NSFW material.) WP:BLP1E doesn't override because this isn't a newsy burst of coverage, this is sustained broad-spectrum interest half a century after the event. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To my surprise, her story still has legs (no joke intended) 50 years later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 25 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. Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Franco[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable just because he's married to someone who's famous. yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Susana Martinez the spouse, whose article mentions him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (i) There are a few editors around here who have taken the position in past AfDs that all or nearly all first ladies/first gentlemen of U.S. governors are notable enough to have their own articles. While that position probably does not command consensus support, it's probably fair to say that a first spouse is at least as significant as a Lieutenant Governor, and we certainly do have quite a few existing articles in the category. So even if we agree that being married to a famous person doesn't automatically make you notable, it also doesn't automatically mean that you're not. (ii) Mr. Franco has received at least a modicum of press coverage for his own activities, such as [30][31][32][33][34] (iii) I would feel it somehow inappropriate to have this debate without acknowledging that Franco and the governor found themselves making a dangerous "hard landing" at Santa Fe Airport yesterday[35]. They're apparently OK, so happily that mishap will probably not end up being relevant to this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos's comments, and because the article meets WP:GNG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the sources linked in the article, it appears Chuck Franco is notable in his own right. Not only is the first 'First Gentleman' ever of the state of New Mexico, but the news sources linked at the bottom show a consistent and demonstrated effect on public affairs. Meets WP:GNG. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- I've changed my mind per Arxiloxos' points.--yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 03:06, 29 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok (Norwegian band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This band appears not to satisfy the notability criteria for bands. There are three sources attesting to its notability, but none of these appear to be reliable sources. Both AllMusic and MusicMight have been the subject of inquiries at Reliable sources noticeboard, and the conclusion there seems to be that they are not usable to attest to a band's notability. The third source, Regain Records, is associated with the band itself (that article is up for deletion in a separate AfD). meco (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The band has its own entry in in Joel McIver's Extreme Metal II, Music Sales Group, 2005, ISBN 9781844490974. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a little telling that the second hit is indeed their myspace page. Doesn't appear to have charted anything major. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to dispute the idea that Allmusic is not considered reliable. A fair summary would be that Allmusic is considered reliable for band notability and facts, but not necessarily for a band's genres. I may have missed a discussion somewhere - in which case please link me. The most recent I could find is at: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Soundtrack reviews. I believe that MusicMight is not considered reliable because of the user editing element, but it may have changed as I cannot find a way to edit at the moment. A band's own company is generally not useful for demonstrating reliability.--SabreBD (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "AMG will add any product submissions we receive to the database as long as they are commercially available in their country of release." It is not a source of notability. They will literally print anything anyone sends them, as long as they are publishing music commercially. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That refers for requests to be included in their database. Write-ups such as this are not done for every item they list (not by a long shot), and they constitute significant coverage by a reliable source, the same as any other professional music review website — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, that write-up is very sketchy. __meco (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I've seen better, but nonetheless it provides what is expected by the GNG, that is, coverage of the subject such that no original research is required to extract the content — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the AMG write-up, the entry on Extreme Metal II (which the Google snippet suggests contains significant coverage), and also this article (It seems to be reliable from what I could see regarding their editorial practice, but GTranslate can only get you so far, so I'm open to review). It's barely notable, but more independent coverage on metalunderground, metalnews, etc., while not entirely reliable, serves to suggest that additional reliable sources may exist, specially considering that they've been around since 1994 — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding quite a lot of coverage for a group in that genre, including two entire newspaper articles (both added as refs along with a lot of smaller stuff). They are also mentioned in an Aftenposten article on the metal scene in Norway that is paywalled. Numerous sources talk of them as one of Norway's most important black metal bands, they have toured several times in Europe and at least once in N. America, and someone with better access to Norwegian newspapers can probably find a lot more. I believe they meet criteria 4, 7, and possibly 6 of WP:BAND. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band with long history, sufficient coverage, and encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now looks to be more than enough coverage for notability.--SabreBD (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improved since nominated and there are good number of WP:RS. →TSU ^tp* 15:26, 30 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 delete as blatant hoax vandalism. This is fairly obviously a hoax biographical article with obviously falsified references and picture. In addition to what's already been pointed out I note the nickname field in the infobox. That and the picture make this an attack article. Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Moore (Rugby Player)[edit]

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

I have serious concerns about the accuracy of this article, but my lack of knowledge about rugby and sport in general makes me hesitant to call it an outright hoax without another opinion. I do find it very hard to believe that there is a 4'11 guy playing professional rugby and the person in the photo is clearly not 22 or 10 st. Two of the refs cant be verified and the third has an incorrect title and makes no mention of him. A google search shows nothing on him and a search of www.coolminerfc.com gives nothing even though he is claimed to be the captain there. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting..... Claims he's a professional player, but I can't find out whether Coolmine is a professional side. However, the photo of the First XV on the club's website includes someone (front row, first on left) who bears a passing resemblance to the photo in the Wikipedia article. Other than that, I've failed to turn up anything using various searches on Google. So, nothing either way. However, it is strange that the infobox says it's updated to 15 September 2005 (in an article created this week). Emeraude (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fake reference title to the independent - its a story about Brian O'Driscoll. The height and weight look inconsistent with the photo, Irish times ref is just a name of a reporter and nothing more. Other ref is to a match program - nothing significant. Looks fake and if not fake is not notable. noq (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further: Searching the Irish Times website ("David Moore" rugby) brings up an article from 28/2/11 that starts "Former Leinster Academy and Blackrock College scrumhalf David Moore managed a rare start for Harlequins at the weekend but could....." If you want to read the rest, you have to pay. I don't think this can be the same person. Another article (2/10/10) mentions a David Moore going professional (but pay to read more). On 6/9/10, the paper reported Harlequins had a scrum half called David Moore (again, pay to read). I guess these are all the same David Moore; whether it's the one we are dealing with will need someone with an account with thhe Irish Times. Emeraude (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a clear hoax. I have access to the full text of the Irish Times and can confirm that there is no mention of Moore nor article by Bernard Jackman in the issue cited. A further concern is that the club where he is supposedly a professional player plays well below the professional level. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 24 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 Moe (slang). Redirects are cheap, though I have deleted first per consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2D Love[edit]

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

There have been discussions about this article on the WikiProject Anime and manga discussion page, but I believe that this article should have a wider hearing. The article is about a phenomenon sometimes seen in otaku culture where otakus have romantic relationships with fictional characters, usually ones that are considered "moe". This practice is frequently called "having a waifu" and such characters are referred to by their "lovers" as their "waifu", after how the word wife is transliterated into Japanese (ワイフ). However, that article's title is a neologism that, according to a search I did, is not widely used by reliable sources, except for the New York Times one on the article, which is mainly anecdotal information and not a full description of the actual term, and a blog article I found on the Christianity Today's blog. A merge to Moe (slang) was suggested on the Anime WikiProject page, and probably that's the best thing to do since the article's quite short anyway. However, the actual phenomenon has received much coverage, although they don't use the term "2D Love". The point is, the term "2D Love" is not supported by enough reliable sources. Our page on neologisms states that if there are reliable sources to create an article, but without a term that is used by reliable sources, then it is preferable to use a more descriptive title rather than a neologism. If the article is kept, then it should probably be moved to such a title. As I am split on whether the article should be merged to Moe (slang) since moe is more or less the same thing or be deleted, I will abstain from this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to moe. All pertinent facts from the 2D love article are already present in the moe article.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to moe, while not all Waifu is moe the majority of it is, makes sense for a redirect here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to Delete, per below, I do not see 2D love being a redirect term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with moe - the topic exists, but presently I don't see how notability has been established enough so that it warrants its own article. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While a merge would probably be alright, I don't think that a redirect will. For one thing, it is a neologism that really hasn't caught on, so it really won't be much of a viable search term. Also, a search for "2D Love" reveals many, many false positives and not enough reliable sources. Second, the article is already so short and whatever content there already is should already be, if it isn't yet, at Moe (slang). If a merger will be done, I just don't think it will be viable to keep the page "2D Love". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least then Waifu should be redirected then to Moe, as it is a term used in the Anime and manga scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, we had a redirect for that? That's just as surprising as the wiktionary entry for wikt:weeaboo... -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I boldly redirect Waifu to Moe (slang)? Waifu is a much more commonly used phrase and is a much likelier search term than "2D Love". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no objections here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) But seriously, if the content is merged to Moe, then the page "2D Love" would probably have to go, for reasons I already stated above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expand. The Article is too short even to judge, but when it's a little longer we can discuss this again. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork of Moe (slang) which covers the same topic. A merger would not be appropriate because the only fact that is not already in Moe (slang) is the term "waifu", but this article has no reliable source for that term. A redirect would also not help because the search term appears unlikely (the redirect can be created once the target article actually mentions this term). Sandstein 06:54, 2 June 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 Groasis Waterboxx. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Hoff[edit]

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

Advertisement, part of a series of articles to promote his waterbox. (3 articles on the Dutch WP and the same three here). Self-promo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Groasis Waterboxx, where the information is already covered. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to redirect. Information is so far not sufficiently notable to have its own article, and references are not independent for this subject. TGCP (talk) 12:52, 30 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kalyuzhnaya[edit]

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

Olga Kalyuzhnaya is a tennis player who has never had a top 200 ranking, never played in the Fed Cup and only has 3 career ITF tournament wins to her name, all being $10,000 events. The article claims no general notability and thus fails the inclusion guidelines. Jared Preston (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, I am afraid she is not notable according to our policies: Not competed in a main draw of a WTA tournament.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Now speedy keep, as sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I searched and found that in 2002 she played in the main draw of the the WTA $140,000 Tashkent Open. She made it to round two and then was injured. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 26 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 consensus is to delete - the newly found source does not appear to be accepted as sufficient to 'keep' PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bela-Vista (football club)[edit]

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

Article about a football club from Sao Tome & Principe which (as far as I can see) didn't play for the national cup or the country's top division. Appears to fail WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 09:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 09:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, and no verified sporting claim to notability either. Giant Snowman 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. In the absence of any refnerences or any other indication of significant coverage, this article clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Haven't played in the top league or the cup, so fails WP:FOOTYN Mentoz86 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in the preliminaries of the national cup in 2001 and 2003. See rsssf.com. - FakirNL (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above link demonstrates that the club is notable and meets ~~WP:GNG and~~ WP:FOOTYN. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
- How does it meet GNG? FOOTYN yes, but GNG no. – Kosm1 fent 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have notified the users who !voted delete, so they can change their !votes. If they do, I will withdraw the nomination. (however I could let it run off, 7 days have already passed... eh whatever) – Kosm1 fent 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it technically meets a WikiProject's essay - but one that is certainly not fit for purpose. This article doesn't meet GNG, and even the sporting 'achievements' are nothing of note. My !vote remains the same, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will endeavour to make it "fit for purpose". League Octopus {League Octopus 19:55, 31 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. On the face of it, a clear 'delete' consensus, but looking at the 'keep's, there was nothing there which was accepted by the 'delete' contingent. Citing another article that should be deleted if this one is deleted is not useful; the consensus is that this is an indiscriminate list, so the argument that it is not was against consensus. Further discussion could take place on the talk page of the userfied version - for a potential return to mainspace should a consensus on that ever be reached PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of last survivors of cultural events[edit]

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

List based on vague trivial intersections of characteristics with no clear inclusion criteria. A "cultural event" is not defined and at present includes assorted films, sporting events, employment status and meeting celebrities. Violates WP:NOTDIR ("Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"). Information can be true and notable yet unsuited to grouping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article to lighten the load on the List of last survivors of historical events list. Much of what is on there has been transferred from that list following a discussion on Talk:List of last survivors of historical events and has remained on there unchallenged for quite a long time. Mabalu (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, of which this is a perfect example. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair, the list is currently a simple transfer of information from one page to another. Any indiscrimination is due to the information that was gradually added into the Historical events list, building up to a substantial volume of bumph, without its being immediately removed/challenged. None of it has been added by me. Personally, I don't see the need for a lot of what's on the list right now (Employees/classmates - seriously?) but I know I would find it useful to know for example who the last surviving members of literary/art movements or groups were without trawling through the article on that movement/group and looking at all the artists's death dates to work out who died last. Mabalu (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - On that note, I decided to further follow WP:BOLD and remove a lot of the names/films/events I didn't think had reason to be on there (e.g. "What Happened Last Night?" did not show film history notability, whilst obviously Casablanca/The Phantom of the Opera/The Great Train Robbery do). I am not touching Sports with a bargepole as I know nothing about it (but I'd think ought to list things like the last surviving medal winner from landmark Olympics (say the first Games of 1896, the 1936 Berlin Olympics etc.). Similarly, I haven't touched Music due to not knowing enough about it. Mabalu (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your good intentions and the list is certainly well-ordered and comprehensive. My reason for calling the AFD is that I do not believe that the article could ever be anything other than a collection of tenuously-connected trivia. WP:LISTCRUFT#Meaning is just an opinion piece, but I would say that points 3, 6, 8 and 10 apply to this article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a case for art/literary movements etc - the last known surrealist, etc. Certainly that is something I would find incredibly useful, and have added three such instances to the Arts section as an example. (sorry, slipped on keyboard and submitted this prematurely). Mabalu (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a mishmash of indiscriminate trivia, ranging from Hypatia to Betty White. A notable factoid on their individual bios perhaps, but in reading down the list one entry has little to do do with the next, even within the same category. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The criterion is way too murky and broad. Just in films alone, we'd have to include every significant one that's old enough. No thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is well within WP standards, if not its (ideal) policies. If this is deleted then List of last survivors of historical events should be too, if it's policies we are following rather than our feelings about the polish and/or seriousness of the article. Borock (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Personally I agree that individual films/programmes shouldn't be on the list, although I can see the case where someone may want to know who "the last surviving leading man of 1930s Hollywood" for example, or indeed, who the last silent film actor was, or who the last Keystone Kop/Our Gang member was. But individual films/programmes? I wouldn't mind losing them from the list and in fact would happily wipe them. Essentially, I think that regardless of aspects of the content, the spirit of the article is in scope, and with proper criteria (something that is also needed for the Historical Survivors equivalent) set in place, it would be valid. I especially feel that the artists section would survive AFD if it wasn't lumped in with the other stuff. Mabalu (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The trouble is everything from being a teammate of Babe Ruth's to participating in a rescue mission (what's that doing in sports BTW?) to being part of a band or art movement is included. What exactly constitutes a "cultural event"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment/request - Completely agree. Which one is the rescue mission, BTW? As I said, I don't know anything about sports. I just moved everything from the Historical events list that wasn't a historical event or appeared not to be. Perhaps I should have sought more feedback/assessment and edited it more fully and developed the criteria. before creating the article itself, but I decided to be WP:BOLD and create it. Yes, it's a mish mash, but I don't think that's my fault. I would request that if the article is deleted, the current text be moved back to my userspace as I think there's solid material in there among the "mish mash" stuff that could form the basis of something more useful. Mabalu (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would be the 1925 serum run to Nome. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is essentially a mish mash of trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, encyclopaedic list. Not indiscriminate. Needs expansion, but no reason whatsoever to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the inclusion criteria is not indiscriminate given that it's basically "X with characteristic Y associated with 1, 2, 3, to infinity"? As far as it being encyclopaedic, I would say the opposite - it's a violation of WP:SYNTH (therefore, the definition of unencyclopaedic) because it uses verifiable information to create an original connection between unrelated subjects. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WP:ITSUSEFUL vote. Discard. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you urge others to "discard" votes you disagree with, I think you should probably read up on the status of essays such as the one you have just cited. That's right...they have none! Isn't it funny how editors are very knowledgeable about exactly which shortcut to use to quote such essays and much less knowledgeable about their status vis-a-vis Wikipedia policy! My opinion (for such it is, just like yours) stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry: Is User:Mabalu/List of last survivors of cultural events2 (alternative edit) any more acceptable? The title is obviously incorrect, but I've tried to clarify criteria, etc. Mabalu (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say my nomination rationale would still apply. Example: "last surviving member of significant groups of people" - theoretically, any group of people with an article on Wikipedia is significant. There could be a case for it to be split up (e.g. "List of last survivors of artistic movements") but equally some would question the notability of listing individuals who happened to live longer than their colleagues. The existing war-related lists are fundamentally different as soldiers in battle are expected to have a diminished lifespan. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks. I was thinking that about splitting it up too. You do keep seeing people described as the "last of their type" - I remember an obituary of the Queen Mother saying that at her death, she was the last living main player in the Edward VIII abdication scandal, which I thought was fascinating. I know I'm not the only one fascinated to know who the last person standing was, so I think I'll keep that on my userspace. Incidentally, there is still a lot of non-war related stuff on the Historical Events list, including last native speakers/last members of a race/community/etc, should that be taken out too and if so, is it a valid article subject or equally non-enyclopaedic? (This discussion probably should be moved elsewhere, so pls do advise.) Mabalu (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too broad of a criteria for inclusion for a concise article to emerge. Them From Space 19:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am compelled into following the logic that this list has too wide an inclusion criteria, but I can also see how this could be fixed with something close to User:Mabalu/List of last survivors of cultural events2. I am not sure how this could be good, when all is done, for our core readership - students. It's dangerously close to doing their research for that high school essay. I'd love to see a detailed closing statement from a sibling admin. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 31 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Kruse[edit]

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

There is nothing here out of the ordinary; we are dealing with an ordinary working man. No sources demonstrate notability for the individual. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like he lived an interesting life but I can't find any evidence of notability and none is claimed in the article. The only source is a (self-/vanity-published?) family history and I couldn't find any others beyond a passing mention in a Lutheran journal. Dricherby (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are lots of other family members on Wikipedia. I've summarized the claims to notability made in those articles but I've only made cursory evaluations of their notability: all I did was evaluate the claims made in the article against the relevant notability criteria. In particular, I didn't try to verify the truth of the claims and I didn't look outside the articles for new information.

Anine Kruse Skatrud (vocalist with no claim to meet WP:MUSBIO)
Astrid E. Kruse Andersen (wrote a book but no claim to meet WP:AUTHOR)
Benedikte Kruse (vocalist with no claim to meet WP:MUSBIO)
Bjørn G. Andersen (geologist, clearly notable by WP:PROF)
Bjørn Kruse (musician/artist/academic, with some claims to notability that would need evaluation)
Dag Anders Grothaug Kruse (no claim to notability)
Erling O. Kruse (no claim to notability)
Even Kruse Skatrud (musician/composer who doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSBIO or WP:COMPOSER)
Jannike Kruse Jåtog (vocalist/actress but no claim to WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSBIO)
Philip Kruse (composer, with claims to notability that would need evaluation).

It looks like some of these should be AfDed, too. Dricherby (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 24 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 is that this should be kept, especially as improvements are taking place PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes involving radioactive substances[edit]

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

This article has always been a very troubling bit of original synthesis. It was originally titled nuclear crime; the original author(s) had abstracted a novel category of crime out of very different events (not necessarily all technically crimes). I moved it to what I thought was a better title, based on the looser criteria for lists as opposed to articles. But now someone has moved it away from the "list" title on the grounds that it is not a list, which is arguably true. In that case it has to go because it's not justifiable as an article, and it's a libel trap. Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting article subject. I think it should be rewritten as a list, the original research removed, and careful attention paid to phrasing, e.g., lots of "alleged" or "suggested." I would be interested in contributing to the rewrite. Catavar (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a plausible solution if done rigorously. I am still somewhat concerned about the original-synthesis element, even in a list. Are there any reliable sources that categorize these events together on the basis of similar criteria? --Trovatore (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should say that WP:SYNTH doesn't say exactly what I was thinking — I'm not saying that the article necessarily "advances a position" via a novel synthesis (though I'm also not saying it doesn't; it's a point that needs to be watched out for if Catavar's plan is followed). The point is more that it considers together things that I am not sure are considered together in reliable sources; that it's a novel invention of a topic of study or discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit - The overall topic is clearly notable, and the article at this time would be better-presented in list format. This article has significant potential to act as a navigation guide for topics (per the article's premise) that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are they considered together as a category in reliable sources? That's what bugs me about this sort of article. We should not be inventing novel topics of study at Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise -- Yes, there are problems with the article as it stands, but this is a notable topic which is supported by several reliable sources, including the Johnston Archive, Criminal acts causing radiation casualties. Johnston is considered an expert in the radiation field and this is really an excellent data source upon which to revise and improve the article. Johnfos (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a reasonable start for a revised article. But then stuff like Klaus Fuchs needs to be removed; Fuchs never caused any "radiation casualties", at least not directly. Also the name needs to change. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an interesting collection of reports I think WP:SYNTH and WP:OR say not to create articles based on an intersection such as "crime" and "radioactivity." I don't think we would have an article on "Crimes involving gasoline." Also the article, to me anyway, seems to have a WP:SOAPBOX feel. As if its purpose is to warn us of the dangers of criminals getting hold of radioactive substances. A worthy purpose, but not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be doing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:43, 22 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 08:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said "The threat of criminal or unauthorized acts involving nuclear and other radioactive material has grown significantly since the early 1990s. It is well known that terrorist groups have sought to acquire such material", see Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and other Radioactive Material. This source and the Johnston Archive, Criminal acts causing radiation casualties are excellent data sources which establish notability and which could be used to revise and improve the article. Johnfos (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response an article based on that source would have a very different scope from the existing one. For example it would not include the Goiânia accident or Klaus Fuchs. --Trovatore (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this article runs afoul of original synthesis, since I do not see a clear conclusion... or really any conclusion. It's a glorified list, one that draws no conclusion. The weasel words in the article I think, assuming good faith, are an attempt to keep a NPOV, Roodog2k (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's true that I had misremembered what WP:SYNTH says. You're right, there's no clear conclusion the article seems to be advancing. Nevertheless it seems to be somewhat of a novel topic of study, which WP also should not be discovering; it's not within our function. As for it being a "glorified list", the trigger for my filing this AfD was when someone moved it from a title containing list on the grounds that it was not one. If it were rewritten as a true list, that would alleviate some of my concerns to some extent, but not the one about it being a libel trap. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I do not feel this is a novel topic of study. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) defense concerns by the US DoD (military personnel) and DHS (civilians), state and local gov'ts are well documented, as a simple Google search will show. This scope is not unique to the United States. Companies, such as Bruhn Newtech in Eurpoe, produce software for civil defense worldwide to protect against these threats. I called it a glorified list, because it is something more than a list, but less than an article, since there needs to be more of a narrative in the typical way articles are written. In that sense, the article is lacking, but just because an article needs improvement, it shouldn't be deleted. As for it being a libel trap, I would be fine with renaming the article; I'm not sure the name does the content justice anyway. And, if it does get converted into a true list, then the article should still exist, since the scope of the list would be rather small, say, compared to a list of as crimes committed with handguns, which would be unmaintanable and essentially unlimited. Roodog2k (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The scope could probably be narrowed, in one direction or another, so as to make it not novel, but with its current scope, I stand by my position that it is novel. Combining the Litvinenko murder, the accident at Goiânia, and the transmission of atomic bomb designs to the Soviets? Show me a reliable source where these three things are considered in a common category. --Trovatore (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure I can, but that's not a criterion of deletion, although it is close. Plus, a bold editor could improve the article to keep things more in line. Like I said before, I don't like the title. Now, I will not attempt to open anything close to a set theory discussion with you regarding inclusion, since you've got the juice to trounce me. Roodog2k (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you know, technically, AfD is about titles. Possibly I should have filed an AfD against it as a neologism, when it was called nuclear crime.
        
        In any case, the question is not should this content be included somewhere?, but rather should there be an article on the organizing principle of the current one?. I think there should not be, because it combines things that are too disparate. The content can be spread out over more coherent articles, say one for things like Goiânia, one for things like Litvinenko, and one for espionage relating to nuclear/radiological technology. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "Nuclear Crime" is not a neologism, since it is a term that is used in the mass-media, as a google search will demonstrate. Interpol has a page that describe efforts against these crimes, albeit wrt terrorism. A google book search turns up "nuclear crimes" sources as well, going back to the 1980s by the RAND corporation. google book search. Like I said, some of the content of the article I'm not fond of and I think it should be removed, but I think it's valid to say that 'crimes involving radioactive substances' isn't too broad taken by itself, or something else with similar wording. Roodog2k (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You have to be very careful with this sort of search. Of course "nuclear crime" will turn up a lot of Google hits, but most of them are likely to be simply adjective-plus-noun used according to standard English-language construction. That's different from anyone attempting to isolate category of "nuclear crime". And I don't think there is a recognized criminological category of crimes involving radioactive substances (in very disparate ways). --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        By the way, your link is not about "crimes involving radioactive substances". It's about "Terrorism that makes use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (CBRNe) materials". I would not object to an article on that. But that would not be this article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you read any of the references in the google book search? It pretty clearly supports the fact that "nuclear crime" is not a neologism. Also, I was pretty clear that the link was about terrorism. My only point is that this is clearly not a novel topic, and is, in fact, a subtopic to CBRN defense. Roodog2k (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I did look at some of them, and no, I did not see any that unambiguously supports the claim. There were some that were perhaps suggestive, but I do not recall a single one that clearly indicated that "nuclear crime" had been singled out as a named category, as opposed to being used as a natural construction of the language. The topic of this article does not appear to be "a subtopic of CBRN defense": the Goiânia accident is not about defense at all, but about care with hazardous materials, and the atomic spies issue was about defending against espionage rather than against CBRN materials directly. --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Release Other Than Attack (ROTA) is considered within the scope of CBRN defense, something a google search will show, something that could either be criminal or non-criminal. Also, espionage wrt 'Nuclear Crime' in google books also is covered. Roodog2k (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        For "nuclear crime" not to be a neologism, you would need two things: First of all, it would need to have a meaning different from (probably more specific than) simply "nuclear" plus "crime" in English, and second and most important, these parameters for "nuclear crime" would have to be (within some wiggle room), generally agreed among those who study the subject. If the first fails, then you're just taking an intersection. If the second fails, then you're originally abstracting a notion from authors who used the same language, but may not have intended to study the same notion. Can you point me to which Google Books results support the first and second points, if you think they do? --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's back this discussion up a bit, although I disagree with you whether "nuclear crime" is a neologism... that discussion is becoming moot: You proposed to delete this article based on one criterion: WP:SYNTH. They way the article stands, even by your admission, this does not violate WP:SYNTH, since there is no conclusion drawn by the article, nor inferred by the title. Neologisms can be removed from articles, and articles titles can be changed, anyway. But, I still say it's not a neologism. "Mainstream" book on Amazon, and a 1982 RAND Corporation Report. And somepower point hell from DHS: DHS PP Presentation. What may be a neologism to you isn't really one to those that work supporting CBRN defense, such as myself. Within the scope of the article, it's a reasonable term to use. Roodog2k (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That specific criterion I misinterpreted somewhat, yes. Nevertheless Wikipedia is not supposed to create novel areas of study. This is within the general idea of WP:OR, whether or not there's a specific passage about it. Also there is still my separate concern that the article is a libel trap, especially if the word "crime" remains anywhere in the title. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I've demonstrated that this is by no means a novel field of study, as the RAND Coporation was studying this in 1982. Also, I'm not sure about the libel trap. Provided that facts are supported by reliable rreferences, what's the problem? Otherwise, by your logic, all bios of living people would be libel traps and should therefore be deleted. I do see other issues that may occur with this article in the future, such as someone adding the atomic bombings of Japan to the list of crimes, but that is not a criterion for deletion... that someone may add something controvertial in the future. Any of the issues you describe with the article could be solved by a bold editor or editors. Roodog2k (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Really? What RAND was studying in 1982 would have included cases like Goiânia, cases like Litvinenko, and cases like Klaus Fuchs, all in the same study? Frankly that strikes me as unlikely. The novelty is not in what is studied, but in the organizing criterion for studying them as a single subject. I highly doubt that there's a precedent for that, at least one that would meet notability requirements; if there is, then please point me to it (I gather that you are in a position to do so if anyone is). --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're defining a new criterion. You're basically saying that in order for an article to have merit for inclusion, there must be a third-party source that must cover the topic in its entirety. If you're concerned with a few subsections of the article, rather than the article as a whole, be bold and remove the parts with which you disagree, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A discussion about what belongs in the article is a very different discussion than whether the article should exist at all. Roodog2k (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The question is, what is "the" article? I do not think there should be an article based on the defining principle that this article has always had. To me, that means the article would no longer exist. There could plausibly be an article on, say, events where intentional or negligent release of radioactive materials caused injuries, and that would keep Goiânia and Litvinenko but lose Fuchs. But that would not be this article; it would be a different one, even if it had much of the same material. --Trovatore (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is sufficiently coherent, and there is enough material. an encyclopedia does not create gields of study, but it does organize material. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, but then you have to argue that it's a good novel organization of material. Why is it a good one? I don't think it is. --Trovatore (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, a WP article does not have to be of good quality to be kept. Improving articles is done by normal editing. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but that's not my point. The question is not whether the article as it stands is good. The question is whether it's a good criterion for defining a topic for an article. If it's not, then how well such a criterion is implemented is beside the point. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do believe this would be better renamed to "List of ------." The alleged crimes named in here themselves are notable. I'm fact some of them may be notable for their own articles, so they could be moved to separate articles, and linked from this page. Stedrick (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnfors and WP:HEY - it's getting better and is clearly notable, based on a cursory look at the sources. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 31 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sky of Red Poppies[edit]

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

Non-notable novel. — Sgroupace (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of torn on this one. We have one interview, one review, and one brief mention of it being a top book of 2011 for the San Diego library system. The other review was written by Iranian.com, which would be a good source except that the author publishes regularly for the site and I'm not sure what the police is for reviews written by companies/newspapers that the author works for. (Such as a NYT journalist reviewing a book that one of their coworkers wrote.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:54, 14 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) 01:03, 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, Sandstein 08:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet our book guidelines. Also note that it is the only book published by its publisher, which makes it the equivalent of a self-published/vanity-press work for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ‣ Yeah, doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. WorldCat shows it in more than a dozen libraries but it needs more critical attention than the One City One Book reading program and the local San Diego media article. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 18:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. No awards or reviews received by the novel also, looks like self-published and the author is not notable. →TSU ^tp* 15:28, 30 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 Userfy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Warriors (Belgium)[edit]

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

American football in Belgium is an extremely minor sport, covered by Wikipedia to an incredible degree. Whilst I applaud the editor responsible for maintaining such detailed records, I cannot ignore the fact that just about none of this satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is being used to host it all because web hosting is too expensive, but Wikipedia is not a webspace provider.

The articles we have include subjects such as the league, the conferences within it, every team (except one, already deleted), stats on every season since 2000, the Belgian Bowl and every game since 1995. Some of these are likely notable topics, but most of the articles appear to fail inclusion guidelines. The teams, in particular, do not appear to attract non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, and yet each must independently show this in order to justify inclusion.

It would be inappropriate to nominate every single team article in one batch; each must be given due attention. I am therefore nominating just four at this time - the subject, plus:

RichardOSmith (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep give me some time to edit them, i'm currently studying for my examinations, so i don't have time to do extensive research for more reference material. If you delete one team, the whole belgian american football content gets damaged due to links that go nowhere... Please give me some time to edit. 26th of june i'm finished with the examinations Arkangel lucifer (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially WP:PLEASEDONT. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy seems to be the appropriate move here for now. When the article is ready we can then come to a consensus about its notability standards and if met, move into mainspace. If not, try another wiki with the research that is held in userspace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Paulmcdonald. Creator appears to be interested in further developing it, but it's just not suitable for articlespace right now. cmadler (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Duplicate !vote struck The overview of the american football in Belgium is unique on the internet. Currently only paper archives exist, these pages have an added value to the internet and the general knowledge. Arkangel lucifer (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the deletion rationale, Wikipedia is not your webspace provider. If you want to put these stats onto the internet then go ahead and there are plenty of ways you may do that. But Wikipedia is not one of them if you can't demonstrate notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per comments by Paul and Cmadler. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Arkangel lucifer/Waterloo Warriors (Belgium), plus userfy the other articles listed above. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:44, 1 June 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. Even with the new references, the consensus is that Feng does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zuming Feng[edit]

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

No indication of notability aside from ~~competing in~~ coaching a team at an international high school math competition, does not meet WP:PROF, no secondary sources. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 05:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The biography of the subject needs to be expanded but information exists. I added two bio type references quite quickly. Expand and keep! Stormbay (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google scholar search turns up a few items written by the subject, but all have low citation counts. It is very unlikely that the subject passes WP:PROF. There is certainly no indication of notability in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 27 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seemingly non-notable company that offers seminars on seduction/"pick-up artist" tactics. Most information I can find on the company appears to be promotional material, or from some entity that is affiliated with LS in some form or another.

This article was nominated to AfD in March 2008 with result of "delete". In Jan 2009 it was recreated in deletion review after supposed improvements by User:Coaster7. This user was found in Nov/Dec 2009 to be a sockpuppet of a user continuously making COI edits relating to Love Systems and Nick Savoy under multiple usernames.

Not only is the topic seemingly non-notable, but it also appears to exist only because of multiple editors (or sockpuppets) with obvious conflict of interest. _scootey ^talk 05:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages due to their connection with the topic of this AfD and lack of notability, along with some being written in large part by some of the same group of editors/sockpuppets involved with this article:

Comment Agree it's probably not notable. Will look more tomorrow, but on Highbeam the only RS I see is this economist article and it's not that detailed. Note that I'm not sure if editors without HB access can see that link, so if not I'll find a link to the main source. SÆdon ^talk 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure if the Mystery guy is considered notable or not, but I just did a lot of trimming on his article, removing the primary sources and an unproven claim that he popularized the term "peacocking". The only source in the article that mentions it (a Salon article) doesn't really say that he popularized it, just that he uses the term, which does not automatically mean that he popularized it. There's a lot of dead links on the article as well, but I'll try to see what I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love Systems Doesn't appear notable from the sources provided. The article is clearly being used to promote the company and what I assume are franchises. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nick Savoy Doesn't appear notable outside Love Systems. If he's notable for anything, it's the persistent marketing of himself and his company. I don't think this should result in a Wikipedia article on him given WP:SOAP and WP:NOTDIARY. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful to examine all the articles in Category:Seduction_community, most of which have the same or similar problems, so as not to look biased. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I haven't gone through a lot of the "seduction" articles, but happened upon this one and it caught my eye (especially because of the problems with sockpuppets/COI). It looks like at least a few of them are either non-notable or not written from neutral POV. With some exceptions, a lot of the ostensible "notability" for these "pick-up artists" would be because of excessive marketing of their services. Nonetheless I can see why this industry might be prone to shameless self-promotion... _scootey ^talk 20:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mystery Seems more notable than both Love Systems and Nick Savoy because of Mystery's role in The Pickup Artist (TV series). --Ronz (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a status where the article can be sent to be better sourced? As I recall, Love Systems has had plenty of mainstream media attention, including:
- Dr Phil Show, "Women Beware"
- Tyra Banks Show, "Bro Code"
- Fox News
- Boston Globe, "Learning Their Lines"
- ABC Nightline, forgot the episode title but it caused a lot of controversy
- Globe & Mail, several times on relationships
- Playboy (very recently)
- Nick Savoy was a paid consultant to the VH1 show The Pickup Artist
- ABC (Australia) Choose Your Own Adventure
- And many many many others, I see a list here at www.lovesystems.com/media and I know that's not reputable and could be slanted but these pieces could be tracked down in their originals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.13.74 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— 64.183.13.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Disagree with deletion. Although I agree with some of the points about entries on the pick up industry I feel the fact he writes for playboy on dating science makes this entry more relevant than that of other 'dating gurus'. Also his book 'Magic Bullets' seems to be well regarded in the 'dating community'. --Paxti (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)— Paxti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Disagree with deletion. <Second Notion> Not only through basic research can you find numerous videos on youtube and other main stream media outlets, Their knowledge has been shown to improve the skills of men who seek and practice their teachings. Though some people may have moral objections to the aspect of a Pick up artist, the premise is NOT to trick woman but to present yourself in a light that shows attraction to your characteristics. It is a positive reinforcement of your inner game as well as your self confidence and personal well being. These positive traits that they teach have an outward effect on how men interact in society as well as in.

They have had very well thought and balanced looks in their products and teachings. Las vegas weekly "Sympathy for the skeezy" ^[1] Not only does it talk about the inner teachings but about the media presence Love Systems and Savoy have as well.

Playboy has had 4 articles on their website promoting the teachings of love systems and Savoy with over 23,000 views combined ^[2] is the link to all 4 articles for the past 2 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggcas (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Greggcas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Agree with deletion. This as well as many seduction community articles are obvious promotional pieces for companies products and nothing more. --liddy64 15:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— liddy64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment How is it a promotional piece when it isn't trying to get you to buy any of the products? It gives information about what they are but never encouraging you to purchase these items. The books are goods and the workshops are services. Saying that they are "obvious promotional pieces" has little to no merit

An article can be promotional without directly trying to sell a product. See WP:NPOV. SÆdon ^talk 21:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beyond the semantics and exact definition, anyone knows that web traffic is important to companies like this, and links on wikipedia are important for them to maintain said traffic for promotion and search engine indexing. This article itself gives search terms and links to sites that do indeed try to get you to buy products from lovesystems. In contrast an article about a tv actor from a series in 1954 would be added for historical reference with no links to sites where he sells copies of the said show for profit. And if removed would not be then argued in favor of by proven sockpuppets. It is a moral issue of the quality of wikipedia, not a legal specific wording definition (which is not required for deletion of non notable articles from this wiki) that my complaint and agreement for removal is based on.--liddy64 1:46, 02 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Delete Did not find substantial coverage by independent sources. SÆdon ^talk 21:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each article nominated for deletion should have its own AFD. Note that my delete !vote above only applies to Love Systems with no comment at all on Nick Savoy or Mystery. I suggest the OP renominate those pages with their own AFDs as unless an editor here specifically comments on the ancillary pages, their !votes will not be considered to be "blanket" keeps or deletes. SÆdon ^talk 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply on merit of sockpuppets being involved already. The only thing Love Systems is notable for is marketing a product on wikipedia, and now sockpuppets being involved in edits. There should not be an article based on WP:SOAP and WP:NOTDIARY. --Liddy64 (talk) 1:41, 02 Jun 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bots (edi)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, see reasoning here. This article is about a not notable software product. This product has a lot of GHits; but, I could not find any reliable sources in the mix and certainly none that are independent and cover the topic to any depth. I though I found one book with an author, two editors, an ISBN, everything until I realized that it says it is "Content by WIKIPEDIA". How they got 112 pages on this topic from Wikipedia beats me. This subject does not meet the general notability guidelines; is unverifiable; has no reliable sources; and seems here only to promote; therefore, I propose deletion. WTucker (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline G11 speedy as advertisement. Just a brochure-like list of features, wouldn't even make a good starting point for a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Haven't been able to find anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 31 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 presented under WP:BASIC/WP:AUTHOR joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Stone[edit]

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

A self-published poet that publishes on lulu.com. Lulu.com references are blocked on Wikipedia for spam reasons. Wrote the lyrics for two songs. No reliable, independent sources about him to be found. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artist seems to be building quite the walled garden for himself on the web; however I can't find any reliable sources from outside this garden. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 24 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pervertible[edit]

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

Badly sourced neologism. Term already has a short entry in Wiktionary which could be expanded to include this particular meaning. The first sentence is very closely paraphrased from the definition on the Informed Consent website listed as the second of two references. Reference #1 is dead. Draco^E 03:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Wiktionary Dictionary definition. It might be possible to write an article about people using everyday objects as sex toys, with references to everyone who's written about masturbating with a shower faucet and statistics about cucumber sales, but this article isn't anywhere near encyclopedic, and you would need a better title. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an unsourced, non-notable neologism. Glad to see they got the controversial toothbrush graphic that the porn hobbyists at Commons are so infatuated with into play in an "educational" context... I suspect that the only reason for this article's existence is to get that should-have-been-deleted graphic into play, but don't listen to me, I'm a cynic... Urban dictionary is thattaway -----------> Carrite (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has long been said that if you cannot think of at least 6 ways to use an object other than for its intended purpose then you don't fully understand it. As anything can be used for some perverted purpose the word has no real meaning. John lilburne (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haven't found any evidence that it is gaining currency. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this doesn't appear to pass the general notability guideline, doesn't seem like a topic in need of an encyclopedic entry, and is certainly currently written in a way that is far outside the expectations of what a Wikipedia article should be. See WP:NEOLOGISM -Pete (talk) 23:53, 31 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 (nomination withdrawn). The nomination was withdrawn, and all of the !votes to delete were struck by those who posted them. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Licht (film)[edit]

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

* The information on this page is about an non-known shortfilm and director. (Licht at IMDb)

~~The dutch interwiki is directed by Stijn Coninx and actor Joachim Król played in, is named When the Light Comes international. (When the Light Comes at IMDb)~~

~~So this page has to be a different name with different content. Neanderd (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

*Delete No independent sources at all, in English or in Dutch. Wikipedia's film notability guideline is not met. NJ Wine (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After the massive revisions to the article, it clearly meets WP:NOTFILM, so I am changing my vote to keep. NJ Wine (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable short film, not to be confused with the same-named feature film by Stijn Coninx released in the same year. [36] Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 16:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC) It is now about the Stijn Coninx film and not about the short film anymore so struck Delete !vote Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 11:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless Dutch sources are found and proferred by those better able to search non-English databases. No confusions here. Licht was the first and correct article name when this was authored in 2009.[37] I have just notified the author of this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC) struck. see below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Appreciate being alerted of the nom, but very surprised nobody here put two and two together based on the Dutch wiki article that this is supposed to be about the feature film, and why you assumed it was supposed to be about a non notable short rather than a clearly notable feature film....♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Solid Keep When first nominated, the article apeared to be about a non-notable short Licht, and would have merited a deletion... BUT after I informed the author of this deletion discussion, his subsequent edits have shown this article to be about the multi-award-winning[38] film Waar blijft het licht (AKAs: Die Stunde des Lichts , When the Light Comes, and far less commonly as Licht) which is NOT the same film as the non-notable short. He has expanded and sourced the article to show it emminently notable. I would suggest that all those who opined before his edits should now revisit the article, as notability is not at all in question. This bears absolutely no resemblance to the article that was first nominated. MAJOR Kudos to Dr. Blofeld. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and kudos indeed to Dr. Blofeld. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Realy impressive! Totally different page now. Neanderd (talk) 12:35, 25 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 consensus is that the reference provided is not sufficient not meet the general notability criteria, and so this article should be deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ipteq[edit]

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

Apparently non notable company. Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any third party articles about them which assert their notability. DietFoodstamp (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep but improve referencing. I found a few independent sources discussing[39], [40] this company which makes a unique product. Wikipedia's corporate notability guideline is met. NJ Wine (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORP (and, more generally, WP:GNG) is not met by one source discussing the company's product and a listing in a directory of Islamic products: that is not significant coverage and I couldn't find any more. Dricherby (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article was created by new user who has made no other contributions to wikipedia. Dricherby (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also found one newspaper article in German from 2003 which has two paras on the company and its clock, but nothing else significant. If there was an article on prayer clocks, this would warrant a mention there. —SMALL JIM 15:59, 31 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. Clear consensus for keeping DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin & Co[edit]

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

Apparently non notable company. Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve the article. Although the article is very spartan, I found plenty of reliable sources online about the company.[41], [42], [43]. Considering that the company is no longer in business, this is not an advertisement, and I have no problem keeping this article. NJ Wine (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the James Martin Firm is an important builder of locomotives. "COUNTRY NEWS". South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839 - 1900). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 15 November 1894. p. 6. Retrieved 24 May 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop (talk • contribs) 04:30 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - adequately sourced stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - desperatly needs work, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs work, but there are enough WP:RS, thus passes WP:GNG. The company is notable enough. →TSU ^tp* 15:30, 30 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 close as not a deletion request. Not even the nominator wants the administrator deletion tool used. This is Articles for deletion. You have all of the tools necessary for doing a merger yourself, Kumiko. Don't burden a high traffic part of the project with things that it is not here for. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intérpretes[edit]

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

I recommend merging this into the article for the group. Relatively obscure band and the album has minimal notability. Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not independently notable; no refs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 24 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC) As a clarifying note, my reading of the discussion is that even if the copyright issues were/are resolved, the consensus is still to delete. Jenks24 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Theodora von Auersperg[edit]

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

Not notable. No RS found in search of GBooks, MSBooks, GScholar, MSAcademic, GNews, NYT, & Wikipedia Reference.

I did not nominate for speedy deletion due to claim of inherited royalty, although I was unable to substantiate or disprove the claim. GregJackP Boomer! 00:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No independent sources, wild claims that are not verified, and reads like an advertisement. NJ Wine (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No supporting WP:RS can be found. Reads like an ad. LK (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article was recently edited, resulting a copyright violation. I tagged the vio, so you'll have to look at the history to get past the copyright banner. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Kicking myself for not tagging it as an A7 and believing ther Royalty claims. No RS, delete. Buggie111 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a complete new page per all instructions provided by Wikimedia, annotated the citings and submitted proof of copyright permissions. Please remove your nomination for deletion for this page. (Tonypanaccio (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

We apologize, but it's not that esay. THis discussion will run its course until an administrator decides if conesensus, that's more than just a majority, is to keep or delete this article. On a side note, pelase read WP:COI. Best of luck, Buggie111 (talk)

Delete In fact, I consider the current version almost a G11 speedy deletion for incurable promotionalism. There is also not a single reference there that is adequate for notability of a BLP. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the copyright permission did not grant a CC-BY or GFDL license, but gave limited permission to use on WP only. I restored the copyvio template (as it was removed by the editor instead of an admin), until the issue is resolved. GregJackP Boomer! 01:10, 31 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 deleted by Uncle G for copyvio. (non-admin closure) -- KTC (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D. June & Co.[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable company. The article has a long list of problems and needs a complete Rewrite. At first glance it also appears that much of it was cut and pasted from somewhere. Kumioko (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources about this former company, and I tried searching under a few different spellings. Does not meet Wikipedia's corporate notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: provided that the substantial copyvio of the last paragrph is dealt with. Article gives th source, & its included as aquote. Company had a reasonably longhistory ofmanufacture: search in the books shows that the refrences given are authentic. Its just a very messy article with issues.TheLongTone (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-rad th article, the big quote, which is cited, dates fromwel over sevent years ago, so not a copyvioTheLongTone (talk) 08:07, 24 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sara[edit]

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

Appears to be a Non-notable band. Kumioko (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It is a close one on the notability, but they do play some notable gigs (such as the Viper Room), and apparently are included in a popular tour: [44]. There are also some interviews/articles with them here: [45] [46] [47] but the page definitely needs significant work to assert any kind of notability. DietFoodstamp (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band has a full article in Rolling Stone magazine, and I found other independent sources about the group. Dead Sara definitely meets Wikipedia's music notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent, non-trivial coverage in Rolling Stone, Glide magazine and an Allmusic biography, alongside the other sources listed above. Meets the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:MUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 12:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full article in Rolling Stone (which makes reference to a "hit single") pretty much makes the case.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:MUSIC per the coverage in reliable sources. Also note that the nominator used a WP:JNN rationale for deleting. →B music ian 01:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously passes WP:MUSIC and there are good amount of WP:RS. →TSU ^tp* 15:31, 30 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirus Futures, LLC[edit]

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

Organization does not seem to meet notability standards. Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Manta, this company has been in business for 8 years, and 20-50 employees. I saw no true reliable sources for this company, so it does not fulfill Wikipedia's corporate notability standard. NJ Wine (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a smallish trader, no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haven't found any significant coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 31 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.