< 17 September	19 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arcana Heart characters[edit]

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

WP:LISTN, as part of the guideline on WP:Notability, explains that we need to establish the notability of lists by establishing the notability of the group. There is nothing here to WP:verify notability of these characters. Further, most of this article just summarizes information from the instruction manual (a few sentences of character bio plus a ton of information about fighting style / moves / etc.), which would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Lists of gameplay weapons and moves are considered inappropriate under those guidelines. Simply editing out that information WP:WONTWORK, because then you won't have much of a list at all, hence why I'm proposing deletion as the policy-based option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooterwalker (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN is not applicable to all lists, as it itself explains, but is merely one analytical tool. It helps us far less with subtopics such as this, which is merely a WP:SPLIT from Arcana Heart. If it is not to be kept separately for WP:SIZE concerns, then it should be merged back to that article, as a summary of the characters in a video game series is a necessary part of covering that series. So keep or merge (in other words, deal with through normal editing and discussion to trim or improve sourcing). postdlf (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Whether we merge this depends on the importance of the work, and the amount of material available. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 23 September 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Normally, I would just advocate trimming and merging the list to the main Arcana Heart article. But it seems that a good deal of the information on this list (the entirety of the Arcana Hearts 1 characters for sure) is just directly copied and pasted from the character's official bios off the official site. This seems like its a bit of a copyvio problem that needs to be fixed before anything is merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whatever survives the above copyright concerns, and then have a normal editing discussion about whether the list should be split from the game or merged back into it. Shooterwalker's nom ignores the fact that we routinely keep one or more lists of characters from fictional works (multiple if merited based on size) in lieu of people deciding to create individual articles for non-notable characters. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Power Stone. Consensus seems clear here that a careful selective merge should occur here, and any unsourceable, non-notable, and/or overly detailed information about these characters should not be merged to the main article. -Scottywong | converse _ 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Stone characters[edit]

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

There is nothing here to WP:verify notability of any of these characters. Aggregating them into a list doesn't solve anything, as there is no significant coverage to verify notability of this group of characters, according to WP:LISTN. I also note, without judgment, that this is a cartoon fighting game. The reason I bring that up is my best attempt to explain why the entire article is written as a WP:GAMEGUIDE, which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Some character lists make sense because you can write about their production and reception and offer some analysis of their role in the story narrative. But this is an example of a character list that's can never be anything more more than a bunch of stats/weapons/maneuvers translated into prose, this violating WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN is not applicable to all lists, as it itself explains, but is merely one analytical tool. It helps us far less with subtopics such as this, which is merely a WP:SPLIT from Power Stone. If it is not to be kept separately for WP:SIZE concerns, then it should be merged back to that article, as a summary of the characters in a video game series is a necessary part of covering that series. So keep or merge (in other words, deal with through normal editing and discussion to trim or improve sourcing). postdlf (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however Power Stone and Power Stone 2 both have plenty of room for an abbreviated character list. Remove the cruft and the characters will fit easily in the core articles. It's unnecessary spinout filled with cruft. --Teancum (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator; there needs to be some demonstration that the characters are notable for a list. The detail and format of the list is unencyclopedic. —Ost (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ost (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Very Selective Merge- Fails WP:LISTN. It seems to be one giant example of WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:GAMEGUIDE material. I don't think it's worth merging either, it would take such a tremendous amount of trimming down that one may as well just start from scratch if they wanted to add character info to the game articles. Too much is unusable as is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do support Teancums wording regarding a very selective merging of content, though, as I was saying earlier, I believe probably 95% of the content isn't appropriate to merge... Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and keep or merge. Much of this fails WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, but there's no apparent fatal flaw in this character list that would require us to delete it, so it could be merged if appropriate secondary sourcing sufficient to demonstrate notability is not found. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a VERY selective merge - Full of WP:TRIVIA, completely unsourced. Would not oppose a generic character table in each game's article a la Transformers: War for Cybertron#Characters (shameless plug) --Teancum (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Selective Merge - The article as it stands is lengthy only because of the excessive game guide material and trivia present. With that removed, neither Power Stone article is long enough that a split is needed. With all the crufty material removed, then something brief, such as the character table proposed by Teancum, could easily be implemented. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of list belongs in a video game Player's Guide (the sort of book that fans of a game purchase to learn everything there is to know about the game), not an encyclopedia. DOSGuy (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The material is appropriate; the arrangement is secondary. Whether it should be separate or merged is basically a decision on the importance of the game, the nature of the game, and the amount of material (recalling the primary sources are appropriate for factual material about a work of art). I'm prepared to leave that to those who know about the game. The amount of detail is what separates it from a guide--much of the material to be covered will be in both, but at different levels of detail. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you call it appropriate? There's 46,000+ bytes worth of information without a single source. There are whole paragraphs dedicated to "someone's personal character analysis". There's "character bios" that I suspect are WP:COPYVIO's ripped straight from the game or manual. Meanwhile, the actual Power Stone article lacks any sort of character section, or content regarding it at all. It's not just about clean up, It's 95% innappropriate, and the parent article has almost 0 of the information. I don't understand any Wikipedia-guideline based justification for it being like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 27 September 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon regions[edit]

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

Whole article is a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VG/GL, which states that articles that are merely detailed descriptions of game levels are inappropriate. Further, there's no independent reliable sources here to verify notability of these levels in accordance with the general notability guideline. All the sources are the games themselves, or promotional materials such as web sites and game guides. There is no way this article can ever be improved to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NOT, because there are no sources that will allow us to write anything other than a description of the game levels. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This isn't a page on "game levels". It's a list of the different settings that the many Pokémon video games, manga, anime television series, and anime films take place. There is also real world context included throughout the article which have reliable sources backing up that content. There is a link to a New York Times article, some video game reviews, some published books on the video games, as well as statements by the production team. It is not a "game guide" as it does not provide any actual detailed information as to how to play the video game. It states where each of the now 30+ video games, 750+ cartoon episodes, 15 films, and 11 different comic book adaptations are set, along with some of the fiction of the games where appropriate.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, WP:GAMEGUIDE is more than a statement of avoiding a "how-to" form. It also says that "detailed coverage of specific levels is also considered inappropriate." That principle is echoed at WP:VG/GL. It's hard to reconcile those principles with this article, which writes paragraph after paragraph about the Pokemon that are located in these levels, and a description of what the levels look like. Anything else is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, which is insufficient to provide a real-world context to make this notable and not a game guide. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, these are descriptions of the overall settings of the video games, anime, etc. These aren't "levels". This would be comparable to an article on Hyrule (which is not on Wikipedia) or Mushroom Kingdom (which is). The "Pokemon that are located in these levels" are simply summarizations of the fictional mythology presented within the video games, anime, etc., which for the most part could be removed, leaving simple paragraph long descriptions of the settings of the games of the main series. Your focus on this being a page on the different levels I believe is clouding your judgement of the article as a whole, as there are most certainly similar pages that appear throughout Wikipedia about other fictional settings. In fact, I think the Pokémon one is perhaps better sourced than what would normally be seen.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and removed the content describing the fictional mythologies, seeing as you believe they are particularly problematic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand the nominators concerns in general though. The current sourcing is troubling, almost all of the sources are first party (Game Freak's website, the official game guide) or of questionable reliablility. ("Nintendo Gamez"? A Twitter account?) I'm neutral at the moment, but unsure overall... Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, the NY Times source is an extremely small, trivial mention. It's a mere 3 sentences, with only one sentence saying anything relevent to the topic. (Only the intrepid fan will grasp the full import as Ash, the human Pokemon trainer, and his little yellow pal, Pikachu, scramble around the Orange Islands on a mission to save the environment - Useful, yes, but significant coverage towards the WP:GNG?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can Google news archive search each regions name and the word "Pokemon" and see what appears. [1] Is there enough coverage of each area to justify an article for it? Dream Focus 13:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your example at least, a large number of hits in the first few pages are just messageboard/forum posts of people discussing the games... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's coverage of all of the settings on one page rather than an individual page for each setting. Perhaps if this was converted to a "List" page it might be better suited to Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I wouldn't be apposed to deleting this because it could be considered a content fork. All this information could be found in the articles of the games they appear in, and a general setting section could be placed in the main Pokémon article. This article has always been a little awkward and I would be glad to be rid of it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't significant coverage in third party reliable sources to establish notability. No sort of real-world significance has been shown, it's all in-universe, borderline gameguide/plot information that looks more like it belongs in a Pokemon wikia, or as a subsection in respective Pokemon articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While this article could definitely do with some referencing, but the references are enough - but barely - for it to establish notability. I do not believe that merging this into the respective games' sections will do more harm than good - this is a good place for viewers to see all the regions. The regions aren't confined to the games either, being prevalent in the anime. Article Feedback is also satisfactory. This article also seems to contain more worthwhile information than blatant WP:GAMECRUFT (e.g. In this region Ash caught a Raichu, etc, etc...). (Oh, and Pokémon Trainer doesn't have any references, so that would be a way better candidate for deletion...) Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (or, more accurately, unsure). Notability seems borderline. There are a number of directions with which to take the article, and although I don't think that outright deletion is the best option, I have no strong opinion on this one. We could keep the article, although with its iffy notability it would likely be renonimated at AfD. We could merge, either into Pokémon or the respective game articles, although merging into the games articles could get tricky, seeing as though each generation games has its own respective region, and each of generations of games is split into multiple games which have separate articles (for example, Pokémon Red and Blue and Pokémon Yellow both belong to Generation I, so where would information on Kanto be merged without redundancy?). The alternative solution to this problem would be to create articles on separate Pokémon generations, but that again seems redundant to the articles on the individual games. Merging into the main Pokémon article seems to be a better option, as it has a section on generations of the games here, although that section seems a bit bloated already. It already mentions some of the regions in passing, so perhaps we could amend it to mention all five briefly. Once that is done, we could either redirect this article to that section or delete it (although I think redirecting would be the better course of action here). As I said earlier, there are a number of directions with which we could take this article, and doing something with the aforementioned section in the main series article seems to be the best route. I'm just unsure of what. CtP (t • c) 22:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is appropriate as a combination article, at a level of detail less than a game guide. The meaning of game guide is that the very specific material one would need only for playing but not for understanding. WP is intended for those who want to understand. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through the arguments I'm convinced it should be kept. The number of video games, cartoons, comic books, films, toys, etc. of this multi-billion dollar long running series, justifies listing information to help understand the franchise, and these things all take place in these locations. It should be renamed to show it is a list article. Dream Focus 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest trimming the article and having it remain as a List as Dream Focus suggested, with each region linking to the game in which it is featured in (or the season of the anime, if it is an anime-only location). There really aren't any sources that actually discuss the concept of the Pokemon regions as a group, and sources that focus on the individual regions at length would be more appropriately used to discuss the individual games in their own articles. A lot of the more detailed information on the plot and background of each region would be better mentioned in the plot-based sections of each games article, and in most cases, they already are. As a list, though, this can be a somewhat useful portal to the rest of the franchise, so I guess a Weak Keep would be the most appropriate vote for me. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I loosely agree with the arguments that this is similar to Mushroom Kingdom, but the article needs work. Things like Kanto (Pokémon) being based off Kanto provides good real-world substance to the article, but should be sourced better and perhaps expanded upon as development of the regions. It would be difficult to merge the regions to individual articles because they span games, anime, manga, etc., but plot points from these works could be culled from this page. —Ost (talk) 19:46, 25 September 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 Procedural Close; this was a redirect until June, when it was reverted without further comment (as far as I can tell). Now that it is again a redirect, there's nothing else to do here. If the editor who reverted from the redirect has concerns, or would like to create an article instead of the redirect, they should discuss it at Talk:List of The West Wing characters. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pierce (The West Wing)[edit]

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

He was a recurring character on the show for one season. The article cites no sources at all whatsoever. He already is included on List of The West Wing characters. He has no stand alone notability. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article was redirected to the Recurring WW characters page some time ago. I don't understand why that was reverted. Redirect, don't delete. --SchutteGod (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't earlier today when I saw the page...Go Phightins! (talk) 01:41, 19 September 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 useful arguments in this debate were about whether the supposed phenomenon is notable, not whether it actually happens. The consensus seems to be that the sources provided establish that the phenomena is notable, regardless of whether or not it actually happens. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lluvia de Peces[edit]

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

A miracle story or a bit of Forteana; either way, the sources are scanty to non-existent. Notability is also extremely iffy. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Sources are scanty, but a legend that is the subject of a local festival is notable. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a local festival. The sources for one are the sources for the other. Mangoe (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 01:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why a local festival would show notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourced/sourceable, covered in multiple books. Cavarrone (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, and I couldn't find any with Google searches. The sources used are blogs and tourist guides of extremely dubious reliability. Classic case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which, however, meet our reliability and notability policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How (the hell) do you make your Google search?! Google Books gives tons of sources, such as Frommer's Honduras by Nicholas Gill, La Sirena de Fiji y Otros Ensayos Sobre Historia Natural y No Natural by Jan Bondeson, Confessions of a Reluctant Missionary by Steve Norwood, Portentos y prodigios del Siglo de Oro by Luciano López Gutiérrez, Tradiciones y leyendas de Honduras by Jesús Aguilar Paz, "Caras y caretas: Volume 29", "Centroamericana: revista cultural del istmo: Volume 1, Issue 1", "Revista de la Academia Hondureña de Geografía e Historia" (1958), Tierras de pan llevar by Rafael Heliodoro Valle, Esta es mi tierra: lecturas centroamericanas by Saúl Flores, La Mosquitia and Olancho, Honduras: Frommer's Shortcuts, "Revista de montes: Volume 38", "Sectante: Issue 2; Issue 4" and many more (I can post here additional titles, if necessary). Google News has also dozens of reliable sources, as newspapers and printed magazines. Definitely tons of reliable sources, and surely more than "blogs and tourist guides of extremely dubious reliability"... --Cavarrone (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are explicitly about the topic; can you highlight which you have confirmed haev significant coverage? I'm not sure of the reliability of this text [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all of these sources are significant coverage, Centromericana has a chapter about it, the highly reliable Revista de la Academia Hondureña de Geografía e Historia 1968 issue has two pages about it, six pages on Tradiciones y leyendas de Honduras, a chapter on Conozca Honduras, a whole article on Caras y caretas, Volume 29, two pages on Frommer's Honduras, an entry on the Atlas geográfico de Honduras and so on. You can verify it by yourself, Google Books turns back several hundreds of results, and a very few of them are false positive. Cavarrone (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There weren't many English language sources, but there are many Spanish ones. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note}

Keep - Cavarrone convinced me. --E4024 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cavarrone's rationale. FurrySings (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are sources - but most of them are extremely unreliable. There is little or no fact-checking going on. For example, many of the sources in Spanish (and all of the English language ones) talk about a 1970's National Geographic expedition to investigate the phenomenon. This seemed like a good source of information on the topic, so I fact-checked it very carefully. I discovered that there was no such expedition - although there was a 1974 Nat Geo expedition to Australia to investigate a rain of fishes there. The original error comes from a field report by some student out on an internship in the area who had vaguely (and, as it turns out, incorrectly) recalled a TV documentary from the "Wild Case Files" series about a Nat Geo expedition to investigate. This one error has propagated into most of the reports on this subject. We must conclude, therefore that every single one of the sources that reported the Nat Geo expedition picked up on the words from that field report and not one of them actually checked that the expedition ever happened (it took me all of five minutes to figure out what happened). Not one of them was curious enough about the supposed Nat Geo findings to dig out the (non-existent) report from this expedition!?! So how can we take any of those sources as "reliable" per WP:RS? Bottom line for me is that there is almost zero reliable information out there and a lot of re-re-re-reported hearsay. Take for example, the crucial detail of whether the fish blind or not? This is a critical factor because blind cave fish being brought up from underground water courses during flooding is the most likely explanation...and that's what the real Nat Geo expedition found to have happened in the Australian "rain of fishes" event. Some reports say "Yes" and some are indecisive - none contain first person reports from people who examined the fish. It's all hearsay and rumor. These are not secondary or even tertiary sources - they are worn out by repetition. How can Wikipedia talk intelligently about what happened without any sources that we can actually trust? All of this information is from tourist guides and slow-news-day items in dubious online magazines and travel guides. It will be hard to make an objective article here - so it should be deleted rather than allowing it to peddle information that we cannot rely upon. SteveBaker (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent piece of lawyerly rhetoric (I'm saying it in a positive way) but this is not an article about the claimed National Geographic expedition that is not not even mentioned in the article. Is "lluvia de peces" a hoax? maybe. Is this a supernatural phenomenon? surely not. That said, like it or not, it appears as a quite notable event in history of Honduras, as much as to inspire works of poetry and prose (eg see Páginas hondureñas: selección de prosa y poesía, Invocación a Centroamérica: poesía or Estudios de Literatura Hondureña) and it was reported, with different tones, by a large number of newspapers, books (even textbooks, see Geografía de Centroamérica: para los institutos y escuelas normales) and printed magazines in a time-span that comes from 1910s till nowadays. And the claim that all the sources are "dubious online magazines and travel guides" appears inconsistent, except you are arguing that sources as Geografía de Honduras, Atlas geográfico de Honduras or the Revista de la Academia Hondureña de Geografía e Historia are sources of this sort. Cavarrone (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Nat Geo expedition was mentioned in the article. I deleted it myself when I figured out what happened. I strongly suspect that other claims can be similarly tracked back to the same erroneous field report - the language used is strikingly similar in so many of these 'reliable' sources. SteveBaker (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I've taken a few days to sift through the Spanish sources, and have to concur with SteveBaker that, though numerous, they are all of extremely dubious quality. I also had no luck verifying information about the supposed National Geographic expedition, and came to the same conclusion that the sources mentioning it misinterpreted a report about an expedition to Australia. As I said before, this is a classic cases of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which contributes anything to the notability of the topic, and even taken together do not represent enough material on which to base a WP article. Still think the article should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, as I wrote above, I doubt you have a decent skill in finding sources (or maybe in translating Spanish)... I have already listed a number of reliable sources that does not mention the supposed National Geographic expedition, sources such as Geografía de la América Central, Geografía de Honduras, Atlas geográfico de Honduras, Revista de la Academia Hondureña de Geografía e Historia, Geografía de Centroamérica: para los institutos y escuelas normales. Have you checked them? Are you arguing they all are unreliable? Cavarrone (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've seen are all quite old. I checked [3]. It contains text which google translate gives as "This is where you check the 'rain of fish', at certain times of year, this is not simply a consequence of groundwater of regal rainy season. The high Aguán has an elevation of 620 m". Since you have access to the source, what does it say next about the topic on page 64? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just said it does not mention the National Geographic expedition [4]... never said that I have more access than you (or anyone else) to the sources... sorry (I too would like to know what it says) :( Cavarrone (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then out of the sources available, can you please list the ones you do have access to which you have checked has significant coverage? IRWolfie- (talk)

Comment I'm basing my keep vote largely on the fact that there is a local festival based on the legend. I would be extremely surprised if we found a reliable source confirming a rain of fish. Would merging the article about the legend with the article about the town be a good compromise? The town's existence, at least, is not in doubt and towns are, I believe, notable by definition. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 05:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a careful merge into the article about the town. So long as we say "It is claimed that fish rain from the sky"...and not "Fish rain from the sky". It's pretty clear from the description of how the fish are found (in temporary pools and streams) and the occasional reports that the fish are blind and white - that they are some variety of cave fish washing up from some underground source. A freakish one-off rain of fish might be credible (after all, there are fairly well-reported claims of other animals raining from the skies elsewhere) - but this is claimed to happen several times a year whenever there is a lot of rain and localized flooding!! It's just not credible that waterspouts somewhere a long way away transport fish over that long distance and drop them PRECISELY here an nowhere nearby! Everyone says that the fish are totally unlike those they find in rivers and lakes that they fish locally. Why are the fish only found on flat fields outside the town? If they came in rain - why are they not found on rooftops? We can't prove that the fish wash up from underground (although we have a solid reference from the 1974 Australian Nat Geo expedition that says that this is how the almost identical incident in the outback occurred)...but the odds are so overwhelmingly high that this is not really "raining fish" that we must to be super-careful not to propagate the claim that this is true without impeccable mainstream scientific proof (per WP:FRINGE). It's a quaint local custom and nothing more. Let's not inflate it to a full-blown mystery. SteveBaker (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I could agree with your concerns but here we have not to prove anything nor to investigate, I doubt that Bigfoot exists or that Marian apparitions in Fatima never occurred, but this does not change the fact they are indeed notable. We are judging if the legend is notable or not, not if it is a miracle or a paranormal phenomenon. Your concerns are easily fixable, just rewriting some sentences of the article in a more dubitative way and, if possible, introducing sources that question the effectiveness of the story. Cavarrone (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found one source in English Sunday Observer Sri Lanka December 27, 2009. Others in spanish: September 12, 2003 September 12, 2003, April 5, 2010 April 5, 2010, [5][6]. There's probably more information in non English sources to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:50, 26 September 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. Soft delete because there has been minimal discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud Aliyev[edit]

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

One professional MMA fight, virtually no notability. Not worthy of a stand-alone article. Luchuslu (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One MMA fight (over 7 years ago) is not enough to show notability. The only source given essentially links to a blank page and my search found no significant coverage in reliable sources. I found things like facebook links, WP mirrors, and books based solely on WP articles. I found more coverage for the politician of the same name. Perhaps there are Azerbaijani sources that can show his notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 20 September 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this should not exist as its own article. I will thus delete it, but am willing to userfy it on request if someone wishes to discuss the merits of a merge. If a merge it proposed, further discussion should take place on the destination article's talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Explosion[edit]

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

Same as previous prod "Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through founding band." Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 4 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 11 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with White Zombie; subject does not have enough merit for its own article, however, it is worth noting on the band's page. Donatrip (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge A short-live record label that published a few indie albums isn't notable enough for its own article, but may warrant merging into an article about independent record labels, or the White Zombie article. I have absolutely no objection to merge. DOSGuy (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have agreed with the merge but what content would we merge? We could add the content to the "early years" section but I'm concerned with the lack of third-party sources. I have found zero reliable third-party sources to establish notability aside from one Google Books result which was published with Wikipedia content thus unreferenced. It is not surprising that there would've been little to no coverage, considering that the group was the only artist. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berks County Community Foundation[edit]

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

Although sourced, a not notable organization. Selfpromo and close to advertizing. The Banner _talk 11:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 4 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "although sourced" --Nounique names 04:47, 12 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's ample evidence that this organization is a significant institution locally--many GNews hits from local media, for example. So deletion would be the wrong result, although merger into some more general article about Berks County is possible. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of substantial coverage in multiple independently-published sources. Content concerns are an editing matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 20:02, 19 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schultz (news)[edit]

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

Very non-notable weatherman. Borderline speedy, maybe. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What the heck is "very non-notable"? Does that mean there are negative extant independently published sources? Carrite (talk) 20:59, 16 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacking in-depth sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites offered are his bio on his local TV station's website and some spam site that doesn't mention him. Found nothing else on Google search. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chewker[edit]

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

Non-notable fusion board game; the only hits for "Chewker" on Google Books and Google News archives look like false positives. CtP (t • c) 20:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after cleaning up the obvious spam, this article shows no evidence of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be A7, but it doesn't technically cover games… ignore all rules, then? CtP (t • c) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why A7 is limited to certain entities, but it is at the moment. Might as well let this AfD carry through. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a reasonably good example of why WP:NFT actually could benefit from having a speedy deletion criterion assigned to it. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A brand new game can't have achieved notability yet. Clearly an advertisement to promote sales of the game. I myself have created hybrid chess-checkers and chess-shogi games; the concept isn't original enough to establish notability before the game forms a community of players or becomes a market success. DOSGuy (talk) 15:55, 21 September 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) KTC (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tang (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Local city councillor for Vancouver, British Columbia who does not meet the criteria for inclusion for politicians. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added some citations to the article (and there are more), and it appears the subject passes WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than trivial "mentions in passing" or "meet the candidate" type coverage, I don't see anything significant in any of the cited sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because city-wide councillors of very large cities are usually notable; see WP:OUTCOMES#Politicans. This article has sufficient sources to prove notability. Vancouver is the centre of the largest metropolitan area in western Canada. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and Global city: Vancouver. Mkdw ^talk 05:27, 26 September 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 because of multiple violations of Biographies of living persons policy.

Dale Cregan[edit]

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

Article about a suspect arrested for the shooting of two police officers in Greater Manchester, England this morning, as well as two previous incidents. There has been previous news coverage of this individual, but no doubt at this point the article qualifies for WP:NOTNEWS. Even if it doesn't, I personally have reservations about creating an article about a murder suspect at such an early stage because it is simply too soon. Besides, this has multiple issues concerning its content. This was PRODded earlier, but having just come across the article I thought an afd debate was more appropriate. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete More problems than I care to think about. PatGallacher (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like it's been speedied, so I'll close this. The speed at which this appeared here is staggering, and yet again demonstrates the need for some guidelines on articles of this nature. I have a draft essay on this subject for perusal for anyone who's interested. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:38, 18 September 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 per WP:SNOW, or maybe even WP:CSD#A3. Quite WP:CRYSTAL clear that this isn't going to be kept in any event. postdlf (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart U[edit]

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

No sources. As the the creator says nothing is known about it. Maybe its to early to create this JetBlast (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A WiiU version of Mario Kart is inevitable, but has this even been officially announced yet? Whatever the case, there is no information available about it, so it should be deleted for now. This probably could have just been PRODed, really. Rorshacma (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. « ₣M₣ » 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No need to have an article for a topic about which nothing is known. This could have been speedy deleted per WP:SNOWBALL and no one would have objected. DOSGuy (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Inevitable but not yet sourceable. Someone another 23:23, 18 September 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 (G11) and SALTed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufi numeer[edit]

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

A model. The references in the article either goto one of his sites (website, Facebook), are unreliable or don't back up what was being sourced (goes to homepages of news outlets). Unable to find any reliable, independent references. Article has been Speedied multiple times under different titles as promotional. There are sockpuppets at work. Salt maybe required. Bgwhite (talk) 19:08, 18 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonorable Disclosures[edit]

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

This “documentary” received little attention from reliable sources at the time of release, and all discussion of it even in unreliable sources died within a week. It is clear not notable, and appears to be using Wikipedia to promote an election season smear campaign. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a pointy nomination. Regardless what any editor (or critic) thinks of this 22 minute film, it has receieved more than passable coverage from RS such as the New York Times, UPI, Washington Post and the AP. Can't get much more RSy than that. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep What LGR said; this is very notable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Film has received substantive coverage in primo reliable sources. RCraig09 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree that it was a flash in the pan, and I think this is a weakness of notability policy, but it clearly meets the requirements. If this wasn't during silly season, I doubt it would have ever received any coverage, and certainly wouldn't have been an article. Glaucus (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that methodology inherently faulty. The video in question has no hits on news.google.com, aside from the YouTube video. Many of Obama and Romney's campaign ads, however, have many hits in reliable sources; by your yardstick, each of those ads deserves a Wikipedia article more than this video. I think it's inherently obvious why such a policy would be a bad idea. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 19:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gee whiz, why are we here? This topic is far too notable. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To rephrase: by all notability characteristics (the only one it even measures on being news articles dispatched immediately after release), this political ad is less notable than the normal plethora of political ads which we specifically do not allow articles for, and are even reticent to mention on the candidates' own pages. Ergo, according to long-standing policy, this political ad should not have an article. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 22:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observations The pertinent guideline/policy is at WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Granted, the primo news coverage was concentrated in the first two weeks after release, but: ● such coverage may return after the film is shown in "key states" in upcoming months (as promised in Fox News interview videos), and ● it is a matter of personal opinion whether it is in fact a political ad. Also ● the involvement of SEALs in such a film is itself an issue that's been mentioned in some references but not yet included in this article. RCraig09 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not my personal opinion that it's a political ad; even Fox News called it that—and that wasn't even in the editorial section. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 23:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory glance at the sources is all that's needed to see that this nomination is patent nonsense. Belchfire-TALK 00:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This has applied to films time and again. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:NF is easily met per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Suggest a snow closure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It received enough attention in the national news to warrant an article. Regardless of whether it's an honest non-partisan documentary film, a swift-boat style political smear campaign, or something in between, keeping the article in it's current incarnation isn't really using Wikipedia to promote a cause. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Passes WP:GNG & WP:NF.--JayJasper (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Plenty of reliable sources. Insomesia (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recieves well known sources and can be useful for encyclopedic records, mostly WP: Notability in the news media and a variety of sources, to promote a cause--GoShow (...............) 04:22, 22 September 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 under category A7. WaggersTALK 10:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next Game[edit]

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

Not been sourced for years. Not Notable, Unable to find any evidence about the companies existence on the internet. JetBlast (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Dick?[edit]

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

The article contains no assertion of notability. The only reference shows that the opera was performed twice -- once in a worshop format and the eventual premiere -- but there is no evidence that it has been performed since 1989. I personally feel that an opera must have more than one full scale performance before it can be considered notable on its own merits, and there is no evidence that anything else that might have made it notable (some sort of disaster, or the final performance of a notable singer, etc.) occurred. DOSGuy (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Performed by a major opera company. Reviewed in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle. It presumably had a run of several performances at the Houston Grand Opera. The fact that it's never been performed again does not make it non-notable. Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrific! If the article had contained that information, I wouldn't have nominated it. Is there a reliable source that it had a run of several performances, or is that just a presumption? DOSGuy (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. - Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The San Fran Chronicle article notes three performances were to be given. With the kind of national press coverage it got, it certainly warrants remaining (but expanding, of course). Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well hold on now. Are we going to give an article to every opera that ever had three performances? Lots of things make the national news each day and are quickly forgotten. Notability requires endurance. Three performances isn't a long run, so is there any evidence that this opera has any sort of legacy, or was ever considered notable by anyone after its 15 minutes of fame were over? Perhaps a mention in someone's review of the years's operas, or some sort of award? Was it written about even once after it closed? DOSGuy (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. In addition the opera was listed in the book Recent American Opera by Rebecca Hodell Kornick (Columbia University Press, 1991) and profiled in the Encyclopedia of American Opera (page 421, McFarland & Co., 2006).4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link is not a review, just a premiere date. If this is just a list of operas that premiered recently, it would be full of non-notable operas. Being mentioned in a comprehensive list is not evidence of notability. I'm in the phonebook -- another example of a comprehensive list -- but that doesn't make me notable. The second link appears to list some details about the play, but it's cut off, so it's impossible to determine if this is actually a review, or just a slightly more detailed listing in another comprehensive list of notable and non-notable operas. DOSGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is from an encyclopedia. Why would an encyclopedia be "reviewing" the opera? Why would it include a synopsis of a non-notable work? An encyclopedia is meant to provide neutral information on notable topics, not provide reviews.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 article in the Huffington Post also mentions the opera as being revelutionary for its time. If the opera were so forgetable, would someone still be talking about it 21 years later?4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to this its entry in Operas in English: A Dictionary (Greenwood Press, 1999, p. 650). I have a subscription to Questia and can verify that its entry is not a one-line mention on a simple list. The entry describes the initial Omaha Opera performance, the principal singers in that performance and gives a brief summary of the plot. Entries in tertiary sources attest to notability. The existence of wide-spread coverage and review of the work, outside the city of its premiere, likewise attests to its notability. Notability is not temporary. Note also that this work was the first collaboration between a notable composer and librettist, and the first work by the composer to have a major premiere. In biographies of the composer for program notes (examples [7], [8] from PBS and The Kennedy Center) and in reviews and articles about his later work, it is almost invariably mentioned, e.g. [9]. Readers will be curious as to what this opera was like, its performance history, etc. Incidentally, the article needs a lot of work. The premiere date was actually 24 May 1989 and the opera had a run of 8 performances [10]. The librettist's name is also misspelled. I'm going to expand, correct and reference this article today, something I don't do unless I'm convinced the subject is notable and encyclopedic. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Voceditenore. It also seems the nominator has withdrawn the nomination (see above "Terrific! ... I wouldn't have nominated it." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am more convinced than ever that this opera had 15 minutes of fame and never achieved true notability. No one has provided any evidence that it was ever written about after its mere 3 performances, except for appearing in comprehensive lists of notable and non-notable operas. DOSGuy (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess you have decided to completely ignore its comprehensive inclusion in two opera encyclopedias where the opera has its own entry including performance details and plot synopsis? You have also ignored the fact that it had 8 performances not 3, and the recent article in the Huffington Post. Did you actually bother to read the above comments and look at the sources? You appear to have forgotten the first pillar of wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias." If a specialized encyclopedia covers the content than we should too. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was 8 performances, though that still constitutes a short run in my mind. It is absolutely not true that anything that is covered in a specialized encyclopedia should be covered in Wikipedia, too. The Muppet Wiki has articles on every single Muppet ever made. The vast majority don't deserve their own Wikipedia article, and a significant number of them don't even deserve to appear in a list of less notable Muppets (such as those that appeared in only one episode, never to be seen again). Likewise, an opera that had only one run, never to be seen again, probably doesn't deserve its own article. Every topic under the sun has a specialized encyclopedia (Doom wiki, Commander Keen wiki, etc.). Specialized encyclopedias are the proper place for comprehensive inclusion of subjects that appeal to a specific audience, but are little known and non-notable outside of their particular niche. The should probably be an Operapedia for this article to appear in, if there isn't already. DOSGuy (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppet wiki is not a serious encyclopedia, and neither are any of your other poor examples. The two encyclopedias above are written by respected published academics in the field of musicology. They are not online encyclopedias written by amateurs which are full of fancruft but serious academic publications in print that are intended as a reference tool for research. These are exactly the sort of sources wikipedia requires us to use at WP:Verifiability. None of the source examples you gave would survive reference scrutiny. Stop making false analogies. Further, your arguement about niche topics holds no water because wikipedia literally is full of articles on niche topics, some of which have garned FA ratings. Pillar one clearly indicates a support for specialized content inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 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 and SALT, WP:SNOW. The creator is advised to actually read Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Notability before editing Wikipedia further. And Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, while you're at it... postdlf (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Elliott Argument[edit]

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

Unsourced, entirely synthesis and original, very essay like. The Elliott Argument might be a notable topic, but the article as written is entirely unsalvageable. v/r - T P 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ~~perhaps~~ salt ~~too~~. At this point this is just getting silly. As it stands, the current article, is a highly biased personal essay, filled with synthesis and original research, that is backed up with no reliable references. Clearly the topic has generated a huge amount of internet hype and response, but it is unclear what if any of this is actually encyclopedic. If an article is to exist on the subject it needs to be done with a huge amount of care. The persistent attempts to publish the article also appears to be trolling, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Odd things at The Elliott Argument AFC. France3470 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Elliott Argument which should also be salted. France3470 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is very noteable and The Elliott Argument has become a huge debate topic in the last 2 years. This article allows people to see what the formal argument actually is and some of the objections and rebuttals to it. The author continues to edit the material and provide suitable references and external links which wikipedia will consider acceptable. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfivethirty (talk • contribs) 16:47, September 18, 2012‎

A little research shows the argument does have some notoriety. In the same way that Holocaust Denial has notoriety Mongoletsi (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has been so highly debated, one would expect it to appear in articles other than personal blogs. Until then it is original research and should be treated as such. One should recall Wikipedia's policy on autobiographical articles - you don't write about yourself. 94.11.89.120 (talk)

Nowhere in the article is the author writing about himself. The very fact that this message board is getting so much attention and the article isnt even published yet should be further evidence that this is noteable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfivethirty (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the author of the article is Chad Elliott himself.

Please do not delete. It is NOT ORIGINAL research. It is a formal argument, and there will be references and links provided from other sources!! The author is not writing anything about "himself"...only the argument and its rebuttals/objections. Thank you for you understanding. I dont go around and delete atheist arguments just because I dont like them. Please let me finish putting it together.

Again, this is not how Wikipedia works. Please post a FINISHED article. It is then open to honest academic review. If you delete "atheist arguments" because you disagree with them, or indeed any other pieces because you disagree, you are not in the spirit of this free encyclopaedia and are likely to be banned. Mongoletsi (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I read the whole piece, and things like "this is a pic of Chad Elliott smoking cannabis" and "The Elliott Argument is no argument" do not make for an article, never mind the editorializing about Mr. Elliott in the article supposedly about his argument. This is YouTube nonsense to boot. I'm inclined to believe that Mrfivethirty is self-promoting, from here, as a "fivethirty" posted the original video, as well as the "the author" statements made above (which are supposed to make me think this is someone else?). MSJapan (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SALT and warn - the article should be deleted, the title and reasonable variants SALTed, and the user in question warned about attempting re-creation in mainspace - AfC or sandbox is fine, if plans are made for a constructive article i.e. adhering to policies and guidelines and not just an unsourced ramble of OR. Giant Snowman 16:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: In addition to being completely unsourced and a WP:FRINGE theory, a comment on the page clearly shows the political agenda: “THIS PAGE IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION...If atheists aren't scared of truth they will quit deleting it and trying to hide this argument from the world!!” —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 16:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/salt/etc Unreferenced & non-notable. Possible WP:BLP concerns. WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:NOTBLOG apply. Possible reason for article's creation could be to create notability for, to bestow legitimacy upon, and to drive traffic to the non-viral/low-views Youtube videos. Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Bunch of nonsensical, non-scientific drivel masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Unsourced WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:FRINGE. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Mrfivethirty has now removed comments from this page five times, including two complete blankings. I'm not filing a 3RR yet, but he's certainly earned it. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 16:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, I see zero evidence of any encyclopedic notability. Essentially a WP:OR essay. Find a blog if you want to rant. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A thorough Google search turns up not a single reliable source even mentioning this, much less "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," per WP:GNG (there is an unrelated "Elliott argument" having to do with U.S. policy in Ethiopia in the 1970s). First Light (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains no references and even has a note indicating that it's under construction. If the article can be made to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, develop the article in your userspace until it's ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia. DOSGuy (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete The article is completely unreferenced OR written like an essay. There is nothing salvageable here, and even if there were the possibility of a valid article, it would still be far easier to delete this mess and start over. Rorshacma (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mrfivethirty has been blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours. City Of Silver 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I failed to find any evidence of the subject's existence. Though idea of salting is attractive, the deletion logs have no records concerning The Elliott Argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the salting comes from the fact that the editor has written that he will continue to repost it. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 21:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been previously re/created under the title Elliott Argument. The original editor/author is additionally calling for support across the Internet, making statements that nobody will stop him from presenting his message. Cindy(talk to me) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was an apparent attack page/article (see AfC's deletion log). And as to the statements elsewhere purporting to be from the article-creator re: no one stopping him from presenting his message, no one is stopping anyone from doing anything at all here...everyone is free to pay for their own space on someone else's servers and present whatever they want elsewhere. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, as I'm withdrawing my nomination per WP:SNOW. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Rooster Award for Best Director[edit]

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

Unnecessary list of information that isn't encyclopedic. Each movie's associated article, if any, can contain the information on what award(s) it won.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all share the same reason for deletion:

Keep separately and improve. Golden Rooster Award seems to be very popular in China, see [11] or [12], it is noted by major Chinese news agencies, such as Xinhuanet [13]. We have similar set of articles covering the Academy Awards, so what's wrong with this Chinese award? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do more than just insist your opinion that it just doesn't WP:BELONG? This is apparently the highest honor in China's film industry, which means that not only is the award notable, but the recipients. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can find a lot of sources in English here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously and demonstrably notable. This nomination doesn't really state a valid basis for deletion, since lists of notable award winners are clearly encyclopedic. Unless someone makes a cogent deletion argument in the next 24 hours or so, this would be a good case for WP:SNOW. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film awards for/in China. Passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Italy[edit]

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

Unsourced stereotypes (hand gestures?) and opinions gathered from blogs and crowdsourced sites. The fact that Italy has a flag with three colors is the only solid reason for this article to exist, and that's not enough. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has improved sufficiently, not to mention WP:SNOW. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you can not delete the page, because if these exist:

And another 73 must exist National symbols of Italy. So now let's do this: I COUNTERPART at the others and you remove the warning. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I approved the article like the others 93 articles in this Category:National symbols by nation. I think now we can remove the warning. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE. It's true that the words "national" and "symbol" are often used figuratively, but that is not a good reason for articles like this to exist. There are already appropriate articles about culture, cuisine, and sport for various countries, and so there is no need to abuse the word "symbol" in this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I confess that I don't understand this nomination. If there are items (like the aforementioned gesticulation, or espresso) that don't belong, by all means, we should delete them; but in general, I don't see that there's anything wrong with list articles that collect the notable national symbols of a country. Many such articles have existed on Wikipedia for years. As for this particular article, the initial draft was certainly flawed, but it now looks like it's getting into shape. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add the fact that the article is request by template. ((Europe topic|Symbols of)) --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a list article in effect, with a reasonably clear inclusion criteria. Sourced/sourceable, a national topic of widespread general interest, I expect. Too large to merge inobtrusively into another article, such as Culture of Italy, for example. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note only that I created the article just because there was a "red link" in this template ((Culture of Italy)), only after I realized that I exist other 93-page "National symbol of". --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is sourceable, notable, easily expandable. Encyclopedic. Cavarrone (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article on Italian Wikipedia has more info and refs, including links to articles on the individual symbols.[14] There seems to be sufficient material for this to be a notable topic, as well as being a good list of links to notable topics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GUBA (acronym)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Could not find reliable sources of any kind in Google Web, Book, Scholar searches. Article is no more than a dictionary definition.Rcpdavies1939 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find a single source that wasn't just copied from Wikipedia. Merriam-Webster has nothing. Braincricket (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable word, and probable WP:ONEDAY, too. —Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything on it (that isn't sourced of Wikipedia) Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:05, 23 September 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. Weak consensus is that this term is not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shamanic story[edit]

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

This article relies entirely upon the work of a single scholar, who is presumably non-notable. His published books are all from small publishers, and while Cambridge Scholars might be notable, Wessex Aquarian probably isn't. Hence, as a genre, (and opposed to the general concept of Shamanism) this is non-notable. St Anselm (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article appears to have been created as part of an educational assignment - see User talk:Hoopes#Shamanism Past & Present (KU Spring 2012). St Anselm (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't made up my mind yet, but so far this seems like an as of yet unnecessary POV fork from folklore. Most of what I'm finding about shamanism in stories tend to fall into two groups: shamanism in today's fiction or shamanism in folklore. The shamanism that is shown in folklore does not always sit up and say "hey, I'm shamanism" and is often woven into the culture of the story and country. What I'm basically trying to say is that so far the only person really using this term as a specific subset of folklore is Berman. There's not a lot of other chatter, although I've just gotten started. I'm not sure that this term is really all that notable enough to have its own article. It's debatable whether or not it's used enough as a term or a specific subset of the folklore genre to overall merit a mention in the shamanism article either, as the original editor has also added a section on the term and scholar on that article. It might merit a brief mention, but I'm slightly dubious about whether this term is really being used or if it's ultimately something someone came up with one day years and years ago that never really became popular in any of the anthropology, literature, or other pertinent groups that would show an interest in the sub-category of shamanism specific stories in folklore. If we can show notability for the author then maybe his research might merit a mention in the larger entry, but I see that there's a concern over his notability as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Berman doesn't appear to have significant reference in other works, and the phrase "shamanic story" itself doesn't get much in the way of hits; most of these don't seem to treat it as a term. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 11 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable "genre" of fiction. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:50, 18 September 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. Soft delete because discussion has been minimal. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Companion Animal Studies[edit]

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

Although certainly a noble cause, I haven't found sufficient sources to establish notability. Google News provided links each consisting of one mention here, here and here (requires payment for full article). Google Books also provided one mention here. Google Books also found this (scroll to the book with the title "Society for Companion Animal Studies"), a book published for the society with content from this article. I should also note that this is not the first time I have seen this. I've seen those authors publish other books with content from Wikipedia as shown here.

The best link I found was this, mentioning that the group was founded as Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond in 1979 but changed its name in 1982. However, I have found little results with "Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond" aside from one mention through a 1979 newspaper here. I found another small mention of the former name here. With a slightly positive note, I found what appears to be a detailed book here (scroll to the title "The powers of love"). Unfortunately, the snippet view never shows the relevant content. Additionally, I would be more than willing to improve the article if it weren't that I haven't found any significant content or significant sources. If I were to improve the article, it seems the best option would be a stub with the former name and dates. However, the concern of few news sources would remain. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, besides its own claims for itself. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 18 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 18 September 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 25 September 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetCat[edit]

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

Delete mainly per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a notable creation by a notable creator. Stephens is the subject of a lengthy TCJ interview but alas it's a gap in my collection otherwise I could use it to fill out the article. The Journal has praised The Land of Nod, the comic where the character first appeared "(as if) Hanna-Barbera dealt with existential angst and deconstructuralism", but I need to track the issue for a citation. The issue also sees Bela Kiss join a group of super-villains against the character, where he is openly mocked for his name, per Rosenfield, Depravity: A Narrative of 16 Serial Killers. It was also an animated cartoon. Hiding T 13:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 11 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a couple of sources already there, I found this which was apparently published in the Montreal Gazette (I can't verify that because the Gazette's archives are a PITA to get anything from and locked behind a paywall anyway). Between them and Hiding's source I think there's enough. Someone another 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG: Hal Erickson. Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia. McFarland & Co., 2005. p. 875, [15]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some info: Montreal Gazette November 30, 2002, Akron Beacon Journal October 14, 2007. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:27, 26 September 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 and restore prior redirect to xkcd. This article is about a neologism (definition of neologism: a newly coined word or term), and Wikipedia has a policy to deal with neologisms, at WP:NEO. It states, among other things, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." As many editors note below, those reliable secondary sources have not been provided. That Wikipedia's treatment of the subject has appeared in a few articles (and a cartoon) is not a case for notability of the term itself (and that event is already covered well enough at xkcd). Since the argument to delete has not been refudiated, it must be deletified. Despite several calls for protecting the article against future re-creations, I don't see a pressing need for salting at this point. -Scottywong | chat _ 22:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malamanteau[edit]

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

This is a breaching experiment, identified as such by its author's dare on the talk page. Of the 21 current sources, the vast majority either do not actually use the word at all (WP:SYN) or are primary sources influenced almost entirely by the very debate we're now having: as such, this is an article about its own struggle for existence on Wikipedia. We should neither entertain such experiments nor the editors who introduce them. The previous redirect is appropriate, but given that there was previously a DRV and RfD over that matter this needs to be a central discussion. Recommend full protection of the redirect to prevent further disruption. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please assume good faith. This is neither a breaching experiment nor a dare. The term meets WP:GNG as it is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources including The Boston Globe and The Economist. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 23:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is plainly contradicted by the talk page diff specified, and indeed the very content of those sources (which heap scorn on Wikipedia for not summarily deleting such rubbish due to unwarranted good faith in their creators). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Economist article you keep linking to is clearly a blog, not a reliable source. BigDom (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Blog" does not mean "not reliable source". There is an automatic presumption that some random person's blog is not a reliable source, of course, but blogs that meet journalistic standards through fact-checking and editorial oversight may certainly qualify. Especially when they're the digital arm of a highly reputable publication like the Economist. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that the bulk of the sources cited are irrelevant to notability, not being to reliable sources or not containing significant coverage of the topic. However, the Economist, Boston Globe, and Long Island Press citations readily meet the WP:GNG between them. Note that commentary on Wikipedia controversy does not automatically make a source primary for purposes of Wikipedia notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed, many of the sources don't add to notability (and simply support bits of article content) but there are others in the list that do. I do like the irony of nominating for deletion, a subject which has gained notoriety for having been nominated for deletion. I can hear them screaming now - "Don't feed the trolls!". Stalwart111 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not irony: it's the entire purpose of the nomination. This is not Meta. The subject itself is a troll, and a deliberate one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comment was supposed to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. My point was that I enjoy it; I like the fact that it's up for discussion and I think such discussions are healthy. I don't begrudge you for nominating it. I don't think the article necessarily adds value to WP but I do think it does technically (frustratingly perhaps) meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and protect indefinitely, preferably with the minimumest amount of discussion possible. As a word it is belongs on wiktionary, not here, and as a meta-discussion it fails WP:EVENT. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked through the sources provided, many of them are unreliable or simply do not even mention "malamanteau" (no, someone writing it in the comments section doesn't count). The only ref that comes close to being usable is the Boston Globe article, but that alone is not enough to pass GNG. I will AGF that the author did not intentionally mislead us into assuming notability by using an unreliable blog from The Economist but not mentioning that fact that it is a blog in the reference. Also, this article is full of false attribution; not one of the sources provided in the Sarah Palin paragraph actually says that "refudiate" is a "malamanteau" (not that they would be reliable sources anyway) and there are other examples throughout. BigDom (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no false attribution in the article. The Economist piece indicates that refudiate is a malamanteau. While it is a "blog", it is not unreliable as it is written by author Robert Lane Greene, who is an authority on the matter. Also, The Telegraph is usually considered a reliable source. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph certainly is a reliable source, I'm not denying that. But that link doesn't include the word "malamanteau" anywhere in it, so it hardly helps to establish notability does it? And The Economist "article" says that refudiate is not a "malamanteau" under the current definition so I'm not sure what your point is... Also, how can you say there isn't false attribution? You claim that refudiate is a "malamanteau" and then provide two sources that don't back that up – that's false attribution. BigDom (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no false attribution. Not all references used to establish individual facts in an article are indicative of or intended to establish notability. There is not a rule saying that any references in article "X" have to explicitly mention "X" or they are not permissible. The Economist piece discusses Munroe's definition in the comic and goes on to describe malamanteau as "a word meaning "an erroneous and unintentional portmanteau, eg, 'refudiate'"". Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blogs published by established reliable news media sources, such as The Economist, or written by experts like Language Log can be notable per WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control", "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article". --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Language Log blog post is a response to the Economist blog post, which is described therein as "a quixotic bid to rescue malamanteau". I don't see how wikilawyering over whether a blog post is a reliable source or not does anything to address the problem that said blog post is actually the primary topic of this article (which, after stripping away synthesis such as the Palin material, is about the article's own struggle for existence on Wikipedia). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether the article's content is any good isn't germane to AfD. You seem to be saying "it's written as about the wrong stuff, so delete it". Content issues are a WP:SOFIXIT, not an AfD topic; we're examining article existence here, which is strictly about whether the topic has RS coverage. I mean, yeah, the question of how we cover a topic that's mostly notable for controversy surrounding it is a weird judgment call that we don't really have rules for; do we cover Monica Lewinsky, Lewinsky scandal, both, neither? Since the topic proper does receive discussion in sources, not just the controversy, though, it seems well within the bounds of editorial discretion to bundle the topic and attendant controversy together as in this case. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "subject" (by which I assume you mean the made-up word) has not received any reliable secondary coverage at all separate from the matter of the article's deletion at Wikipedia. Those few sources that we would typically consider to be reliable here (all of which in this case are blogs) all specifically cover it from the angle of Wikipedia. The threshold for the notability of a subject is not whether or not an article on it has ever had its AfD discussed in a newspaper's blog. The Lewinsky scandal is an absurd thing to contrast with this, being an extremely high-profile scandal with significant impact on the real world. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay. I don't really think it matters what angle it's covered from so long as it's covered, and I don't agree with the assumption that Wikipedia controversy being under discussion has some special impact on the GNG. Those seem to be the points of intractable difference. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. The only source for this is Erin McKean's news article - Boston Globe May 30, 2010. The one other article I found merely cited to McKean's news article.[16] Neologisms require more to justify a Wikipedia article. WP:NOTNEO provides requirements, such as wide use, which Malamanteau lacks. Even the event surrounding the effort to try to see fast the Malamanteau word can enter the language is an event that does not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if it were, Malamanteau would not be in it. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets WP:GNG:

Newsblog source from The Economist: Eggcorn, mashup, malamanteau or other?
Boston Globe source: One-day wonder. How fast can a word become legit?
There's also a mention in Long Island Press: Nothing But Net: The Net at 10 a.m.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BigDom as well as WP:NOTNEWS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Wikipedia needs to not take itself so seriously. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd#Themes Seldenball (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to projectspace or Userfy - This really isn't notable as a "word". It's potentially notable as a "Wikipedia in popular culture" topic. The Economist and Boston articles are solid, but not sufficient to build an entire article upon. —Quiddity (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to xkcd. Wiktionary had to delete this plenty of times too. 81.157.179.6 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more to this than just the meaning of the word? No? Then delete as WP:NOTDIC. Spinning Spark 01:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to xkcd per WP:NEO. There are sources, but not enough to warrant notability on a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 01:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with quality sources such as The Economist and The Boston Globe addressing the subject directly in depth as their main topic. WP:NOTDIC does not seem to apply as the article is about the word as well as the events surrounding its popularization. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 00:04, 26 September 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 (non-admin closure). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal energy[edit]

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

Non notable fringe theory with only a facebook page as reference. noq (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant copy-and-paste from the Facebook page. (Duplication detector) I would have tagged it for CSD G12. Needless to say this is non-notable original research. Google Books and Google Scholar turned up nothing for "Keyvan Shadafza". The article seems to have been created by an SPA (User:Eternal-keyvan), possibly Shadafza himself. Braincricket (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The above topic "Eternal Energy" is a theory proposed by Iranian national MR Keyvan Shadafza. The term "eternal energy" is widely used, e.g., Eternal Energy Corp, "Eternal Energies" by Sandya Shetty. However, Eternal Energy by Shadafza is not among those eternal energy term usages in reliable sources. Deleted since fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article contains no references, and the subject is a post-graduate student's theory that he hasn't even given a name to yet. When the theory gets a name and is published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, it could attain notability in the future. DOSGuy (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is pretty uncontroversial so I'm really just adding to the WP:SNOW.--Talain (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail our notability criteria. Cavarrone (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's a copyright violation. Someone want to put it up for speedy delete? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and tagged it for speedy. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 21 September 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. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 21:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Pugalia[edit]

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

I can't find coverage of this journalist (as a subject) in multiple reliable sources. A poorly-sourced BLP, it seems to have been created as a (self?)promotional exercise. pablo 15:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is an editor in chief. --131.123.124.42 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of people all over the world are editors-in-chief. It's just a job title. If you can find some independent sources that state he is a superlative editor-in-chief, if he has won national (or international) awards for the excellence of his chiefly editing, then that might be relevant. We do have articles on patent-office clerks, civil servants, customs officers and so on— but they've usually done something else too. pablo 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, then the solution is to have thousands of more articles...--131.123.124.39 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a solution — if you want to suggest it I think it should have a wider audience than this though. Maybe Policies and guidelines. pablo 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we could have 7 billion articles since every human has a measure of notability just for being alive, but it's easier to keep the bar where it is than to lower it and write 6.995 billion new articles. It's reasonable to have a cutoff, and the cutoff has been extensively developed and debated over a period of many years. DOSGuy (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written as a biography ,with colours not a wiki material for sure Shrikanthv (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--131.123.124.39 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails WP:GNG. Fails Google test too. Just being a chief editor of some channel alone cannot be a criteria to be in wiki. The tone of the article is too much promotional. Not an article for Wiki. Probably the person may try to come back after getting some strong references meeting WP:RS. Till then delete. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Please remember to keep comments focused on Wikipedia's deletion policy, and in particular whether or not the subject fulfils the notability guidelines for biographies. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and is not notable under WP:CREATIVE. Cited sources are not sufficiently independent of the subject, and a search for suitable alternatives turns up only WP:ROUTINE coverage of industry moves and so forth. There is also an element of WP:SPIP here. --Batard0 (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. It's still on the fringes of Wikipedia's notability criteria, but given that he's won at least two significant awards and the references have been improved slightly, I think it's best to err on the side of inclusion at this stage. --Batard0 (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads like an advertisement, or perhaps an obituary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a site for posting resumes or vanity pages. DOSGuy (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Advertisement like stuff removed/moderated; subject notable and well known TV anchor cum editor. This article has encyclopedic value. Rayabhari (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per above poster, I have removed the advertisement-like stuff and marked where references are necessary. Previous voters may wish to review the changes to see if it changes their votes. DOSGuy (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the state of this article is clearly attrocious, a poorly written article that is self promotional is hardly a good rationale for deletion. The subject is a prolific Indian journalist who has been active for 30 years for a variety of notable media organizations in India. Clearly satisfies wikipedias notabiliy requirements for journalists.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSo far the reliable sources appear to be no more than a few sentences here and there--appointed head of this, moved to that, etc. No awards, no books, and most of all no substantial coverage of him as an important figure in the field (such as an article about him). Pending more sources, this doesn't appear to me to meet the GNG. Willing to reconsider if better sources are presented, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually he was given major awards in his nation. See this article and this article.4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That helps--you might consider adding this information to the article as well as here. But neither of these awards seem to even have a Wikipedia article about them, which isn't a good sign for their significance. More importantly though, I'm still not seeing any substantial coverage of the subject himself, just a few passing mentions of his name. On a side note, there's really no need to bold single sentence comments; I promise I'll read to the end of the sentence without your emphasis. =) Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these awards are not on wikipedia are more a reflection on the Western centric emphasis of the english wiki rather than a reflection on the awards themselves. Many notable topics in Eatern cultures lack coverage, and to some extent wikipedia's notability guidelines are more likely to exclude topics from Eastern cultures where there are not as many media outlets, published authors, awards, etc. when compared to Western cultures. But that is a bigger issue beyonf this single AFD. As to adding the content, I'll do so if the article passes the AFD. Otherwise, why bother?4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I improve articles in AfD if I can. The effort might save the article. DOSGuy (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on all of your comments above, the article was revised and it includes a notability statement, better organization, further citation, and new material. Currently, its assessment is stub. The most recent changes should merit a reconsideration of a nomination to delete and possibly a raise in status from stub to start. Thank you all for your helpful comments! Crtew (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional sources now seem to me just on the right side of notability requirements. Still not much in-depth discussion in the ones I can access, but enough of them to change my mind. Thanks, Crtew, for the expansion. Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the links are real and I find this as notable. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:34, 26 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiavision news[edit]

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

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

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

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. No sources cited except for web stat listing sites such as Alexa and Domaintools. Searches have failed to find any significant independent coverage. (Note: The article was created by a single purpose account, virtually all of whose edits concern indiavision. A PROD was contested by a single purpose IP which edits only in connection with indiavision, giving the edit summary "This is my popular web news site, kindly spare your spade of unnecessity [sic]." Both the account and the IP have long ago received several warnings as a result of adding apparent spam links to Indiavision news.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The title of the artcle probably should be IndiaVision.com or Indiavision.com. See indiavision.com/privacy.html. I didn't find any reliable source information on IndiaVision.com. However, source information that I found about Indiavision television news channel on cable network includes: India Business Insight April 22, 2003, Business Line April 23, 2003, Hindu (India) March 27, 2005, New Indian Express October 21, 2009, Medianama June 3, 2010, Indiantelevision.com November 2, 2010, New Indian Express July 16, 2011]. I'm not sure if Indiavision television news channel and IndiaVision.com are related. There probably can be a Wikipedia article on Indiavision television news channel but not on IndiaVision.com since IndiaVision.com doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly UnDelete This domain and website is much older than the Indiavision tv, and this domain is in no way related to that channel, agreed.

the site is live since 6/8/1998 as per "whois records". and "wayback machine". ((cite web)): Cite uses generic title (help) and very old and popular "Alexa Stats says the truth". . --Farhan.dastoor (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete age and alexa rankings do not make for a notability argument, I'm afraid. This does not appear to meet the standards for notability.--Talain (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do NoT Delete This site has over a million pages (Gignatic information is strrong basis for wiki`s existance principles), sufficient for its credibility and importance apart from age, So its a fit case for avoiding deletion.

--Qutubuddin (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Qutubuddin (talk • contribs) has so far made no other edits apart from this one.

Having a lot of pages stored on a web server is not an indication of notability. If you haven't done so yet, I suggest reading the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 19 September 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. The WP:NOTDIR deletion claims, though marginally greater in number, are not substantive nor do they respond to Northamerica1000's points in favor of keeping. Editors might consider merging to Evolution-Data Optimized rather than bringing another AFD in the future. postdlf (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolution-Data Optimized network equipment suppliers[edit]

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

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Passes WP:LISTPURP as a useful navigational aid about a discriminate topic. Upon reading the article, it passes all seven points of WP:DIRECTORY. Also, the article mostly has blue links to other articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For comparison, here's an example of an article that (in my opinion) actually fails WP:DIRECTORY: List of United Parcel Service hubs. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with rationale as provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether here or in the main article, a gross violate of NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally indiscriminate list, and Wikipedia is not a sales guide. Per WP:NOTDIR. Nageh (talk) 12:03, 20 September 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 1963 Mexican Grand Prix. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Monarch[edit]

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

Delete Race car driver who entered but withdrew (what that means isn't entirely clear) from a single Formula 1 race in 1963. Fails WP:GNG and in a sense fails WP:V. Some Internet forums discuss him but the central theme is always that there's a complete absence of reliable coverage on the guy. This article says he was born circa 1943 while on other wikis, F1 databases are cited and he's said to have been born in 1912 and have died in 1964. Of course that doesn't make sense: you don't enter your first F1 race at 51 years old but that's what you get for trying to write an article without any hint of a reliable source. One possibility is to delete but redirect to either 1963 Mexican Grand Prix or List of Formula One drivers. Pichpich (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Formula One drivers - The other F1 databases copied older versions of this article which gave the 1912-1964 dates, which are obviously wrong. That's what people get from taking a census entry for a guy with the same name and making an uneducated guess that it's the same guy. I have corresponded with people who knew him after 1964, and we most certainly not in his 50s at that time. The later approximate birthdate, which I added, is correct, but how you'd source it, I don't know. There is a theory that Monarch was born in 1945, which would make him the youngest ever driver to have an entry accepted for a Formula One race and inherently notable. The fact that he ultimately did not take part would not affect that record, as a place on the entry list always seems to count in F1 record terms. It's a matter of establishing the facts via birth/death records etc, and the facts concerning what he did or didn't do at the event itself.

Until that is done, I'd suggest a redirect to the List of Formula One drivers article. Some kind of redirect is essential as this guy is a sort of cult figure in F1 terms, and people will definitely look for him on Wikipedia. He took part in other races, and certainly had a more extensive motor racing career - it's a matter of uncovering it, which is not always easy. It will probably surface at some point, but as I said in my original talk page comment in 2008, we can't really prove his notability till then. A redirect would also preserve the very useful information on the talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 12 September 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The debate has been relisted and I hope others can give their input but if this doesn't happen I'd be fine with a redirect. Bretonbanquet's thorough explanations are pretty convincing. Pichpich (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1963 Mexican Grand Prix. Wikipedian research has found some useful information on him, but none is WP:V and if true, does not indicate any notability as it appears that he had never raced a Formula One car and that possibly his inclusion on the Mexican Grand Prix entry list was a mistake or a case of confusion. (ie it's apparently possible he entered a support race but was shown as being entered in the grand prix, when he failed to appear he was simply listed as withdrawn from the grand prix). -Drdisque (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to 1963 Mexican Grand Prix. - seems a more useful target than List of Formula One drivers. I think the case for redirecting as opposed to deleting has been well made by the other commenters. WaggersTALK 10:21, 26 September 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 per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twenty20 International games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Twenty20 International games

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

WP:Listcruft. Completely unable to be properly maintained – would be equivalent to "List of NFL matches" or "List of horse races". Better left to cricket stats sites. Ignorant•Armies (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ignorant•Armies (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ignorant•Armies (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree per nom. We don't have List of Test cricket matches or List of One Day International matches for obvious reasons, as the number of matches played only ever increase, making them impossible to keep updated and also leading to bigger and bigger sized page. As the nominator says, best left to cricket stats sites. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But change into a navigation page linking to the series or tournaments the T20 matches took place in. There's no reason why the same thing couldn't be done with the Test matches, etc. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA/etc. season has an article, but there isn't a list of every game in them. The article about each year's playoffs/championship usually does list every game/series since there are relatively few and there will never be any more. If the games listed in this article were notable for being part of league play or some annual championship, I would support splitting the article into a separate article for each season to prevent the article from becoming infinitely long, but they don't seem to meet either criteria. It's just a list of every international Twenty20 game ever, which is no more notable than a list of every international Rugby sevens game ever, or every Fischer Random Chess game ever. DOSGuy (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much detail for an encyclopedia. The data for individual games belongs on some site dedicated to the sport. Borock (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Way too much detail for an encyclopedia". Haha, brilliant! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly maintainable list, although I would also support it being split by year/season. Prouder Mary (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia isn't a statistics website. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Awards and decorations of the National Guard#Colorado. -Scottywong | gab _ 21:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Achievement Ribbon[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:N. No reliable independent sources about these awards could be found, onlt primary sources or passing mentions. No results in Google Books or Google News. Together with the Colorado Achievement Ribbon, all other lower Colorado National Guard awards, as listed below, are also nominated for the same reasons.

Colorado Recruiting Ribbon
Colorado State Mobilization Support Ribbon
Colorado State Foreign Deployment Service Ribbon
Colorado State Emergency Service Ribbon
Colorado Long Service Medal
Colorado Active Service Medal
Colorado NCO Command Tour Ribbon Fram (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Awards and decorations of the National Guard#Colorado or into List of Colorado National Guard awards and decorations. None of the medals/ribbons appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RCLC. GregJackP Boomer! 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Intothat darkness 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Leg With Adam Hills[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show (contested speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adam Hills (on the off chance that someone is looking for the show rather than just the show's host). Keep per below. I was probably a little too hasty earlier. Great expansion work. Ignorant•Armies (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not the article's creator, but since seeing this AfD notice I have made substantial edits to the article (including adding citations from national UK newspapers) in an attempt to improve it. I think the programme has had a significant impact in the United Kingdom in fostering a debate about the role of disabled people in sport and in the acceptability of combining disability with comedy on TV. It is therefore a significant subject and warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Headhitter (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Program received a lot of press coverage and is clearly notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep. Notability, which was far from clear, is now evidenced. Consider this as withdraw nomination if that's procedurally acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your supportive and appreciative comments! Headhitter (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Baylor University#Athletics. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sic 'em Bears[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sic 'em Bears

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

College athletics hand gesture, no evidence of notability to justify separate article. WP:N. GrapedApe (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Baylor University#Athletics Eric Cable | Talk 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, as my searches show that the term appears to be widely used in coverage of Baylor's athletic events but not widely covered itself (a brief mention at Baylor University#Athletics might be necessary). As a side note, I've never quite understood why people think these single-college hand gestures might be notable. Ah, good old times… CtP (t • c) 21:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Baylor University. The "See also" section lists "Cougar Paw", which is part of the University of Houston article, and Gator Chomp, which should be merged into the University of Florida page. Having an article for every team's gesture is clearly excessive. DOSGuy (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh good grief. I really don't think Wikipedia is the place for instructions on how to make juvenile hand gestures while shouting rubbish. Most of us are proper grown-ups! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Gosh, American college sports really are a weird world - I can't imagine this sort of thing ever taking place here in the UK......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rama P. Coomaraswamy[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks notaility. They were apparently a doctor. Claims about being a priest are unsubstantiated, but even if proved does not in itself make the subject notable. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced and unsourceable. My own Google searches turned up nothing substantial except on very, very fringey and totally unreliable "traditional Catholic" sources. Here, "traditional Catholic" does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but to a tiny breakaway movement. This reads like an apologetic hagiography. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Most references I found at searching were about his far more notable father. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The notice has been listed for 7 days and the consensus is to delete. I will now delete. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. The nominator don't get to close debate they started. You didn't actually close this debate anyway. A delete consensus debate have to be close by an admin who actually have the power to delete pages. Blanking is not deleting. I have reverted the blanking of the page. KTC (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Thanks for the clarification. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is of sufficient notability and influence for an article. Afterwriting (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to be more specific please as the article as drafted doesn't suggest any particular influence? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 25 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Shaheen and Inshirah Moussa[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article that is biographical about two persons, presumably still living. Article does not demonstrate notability of the subjects and fails WP:BASIC. Contested PROD and attracted adverse criticism at WP:BLPN in mid-June 2011. Dolphin (t) 08:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Dolphin (t) 08:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dolphin (t) 08:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Ibrahim Shaheen (Shahin) was hanged in 1977 (Black (1994), p. 294, cited in our article, also this newspaper article). His wife and children fled to Israel and converted to Judaism. I think it is possible to compile a decent article about them. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also this interesting link (Chicago Sun-Times, only snippet available). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is full article from the Chicago Sun-Times (HighBeam, subscription required). The article says the case was closely watched by the Israeli national media ~~in the 1970s~~ (the case was published in the Israeli media later). I've changed my vote to 'keep'. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also: [17], [18] (Arabic), [19], there's also a few more articles behind paywalls at the Jerusalem Post archives from 1989 and later (SON OF SPY HANGED IN EGYPT DISCLOSES 'ISRAEL IGNORED FATHER'S 1973 WAR WARNING', ELAINE RUTH FLETCHER; Nov 26, 1989). As JP's archives only go back to 1989 there's certainly likely to be more contemporaneous coverage (and likely coverage elsewhere in Arabic, Hebrew, etc., beyond Google's easy reach.) Apparently a television series was produced on the incident. --j⚛e decker ^talk 12:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dug up the BLPN discussion the nominator referred to, it's here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see the reasons to be deleted.Justice007 (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwanath Tamasker[edit]

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

Did not receive significant media coverage under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN Harsh (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. I'm willing to change my opinion if his name and work appear in transliterated form in reliable sources written in non-Latin characters. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More sources have been added and other editors (obviously better informed about importance of Indian MLAs) have persuaded me to withdraw my vote. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a state MLA. The Election Commission of India reference is proof enough. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really not notable ???? Chosen by people, represented a constituency, i have started questioning my self. Thank you --доктор прагматик 12:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's an MLA, no doubt, as per the reliable sources. But,

Just being an elected local official, does not guarantee notability. My concern is that he didn't receive significant media coverage. I personally don't think there needs to be an article for every MLA of every Indian state for every term they held. Harsh (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage, it seems you are from India only. Tell me the definition of media coverage for those days (1957), just ten years after freedom. Millions of people chose them as their representative in constitutional bodies. Absence of print and electronic media in those days does not reduces their notability, per me. Thanks--доктор прагматик 16:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exactly. It is of 1957. World wide web does not cover most of 1957 Indian media. --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN - ELECTED FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Rayabhari (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does Absence of print and electronic media in those days as per above comment, justify his notability? And WP:POLITICIAN has 3 points, out of which only first one is met. Harsh (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to meet all 3 points of WP:POLITICIAN. But I partly agree with you, we have nothing but his name. How can we write an article about him? Would it be encyclopedic to turn many names in the cited PDF document (p. 4 - 10) into uninformative set of articles? I'm not sure. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reason that in 1957 there wasn't much information available on the internet and print media, and hence any person of that times is notable, and the media and internet should be blamed for the reason it didn't cover that topic is so very lame. Harsh (talk) 07:38, 21 September 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. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. in 35 years of existence a mere 7 gnews hits. [20] LibStar (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The prize has many notable recipients and reliable sources are available, see [21] or [22]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS#Google_test. Not a valid criteria for deletion. The article is about a literary prize. The article lacks references of which there are a substantial number but that is easily rectified.For example Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources brought up by the previous editors are sufficient to meet notability in my opinion. Deletion is only wise for things it is impossible to reliably source, not articles which merely have not incorporated available sources.--Talain (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources available. Also note that a less restricted GNews search for <"Ewart-Biggs" prize> yields about 50 hits.[23]--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:11, 18 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hussainia Jalalia[edit]

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

Unverifiable, fails WP:V. At best, this is a transcription problem, and a different rendering of the name solves this. But it seems unlikely that this is the main problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassal Sharif was the discussion for another, related article by the same author. He is also the author of the sources for the article we are discussing here (the sources which were available in the version here. Searching for reliable sources gives no Google Books results, and no regular Google hits independent from Wikipedia or the author of this article. Fram (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See: Template:Sufism and Tariqa. "A tariqa (Arabic: طريقة‎ ṭarīqah, pl. طرق ṭuruq; Persian: طريقت‎ tariqat; Turkish: tarikat; alternate spelling: tariqah, meaning "way, path, method") is an Islamic religious order. In Sufism one starts with Islamic law, the exoteric or mundane practice of Islam and then is initiated onto the mystical path of a tariqa."

And, "Tarīqas have silsilas (Arabic: سلسلة‎) "chain, lineage of sheikhs". Almost all orders except the Naqshbandi order claim a silsila that leads back to Muhammad through ‘Alī. (The Naqshbandi Silsila goes back to Abu Bakr the first Caliph of Sunni Islam and then Prophet Muhammad.) Many silsilas contain the names of Shī‘ah Imams."
Per this article, "Hussainia Jalalia is an Islamic Sufi order or Tariqa, named after Syed Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari. Hussainia Jalalia is the real name of Jalali sufi order. It is the oldest silsila Sufi order in world." It also claims that Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari founded this order.
And per the template and tariga, their founder fails lineage and this article becomes promotional and fails citation, biographic and encyclopedic minimals for Wikipedia. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above mentioned reasons--Itemirus (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Chilton[edit]

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

Per Talk:Steve Chilton#Sourcing and a good faith search for independent reliable sources, the subject of this article appears to fail WP:ANYBIO. There are also WP:PROMO concerns, as highlighted on the talk page. Notwithstanding Chilton's achievements, he seems to be merely one member of multidisciplinary teams which have created some (admittedly award-winning) designs. Chilton's credited with lead involvement in Villa Hush Hush, but I don't know if that's notable and anyway, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here as with the other projects. I wish you all the best in your endeavours, Mr Chilton. -- Trevj (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 18. Snotbot t • c » 06:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Snotbot. The automated script doesn't seem to work with XScope under Android, and I had edit conflicts when trying to do step 3 manually. -- Trevj (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have to agree with the nomination; just doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Plenty of "GoogleHits" but most of the articles in question are one-off mentions, not "significant coverage" of the subject. Though it does not go to WP:N, there are obvious concerns about WP:COI given the original editor shares a name with the company the subject helped to establish. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first I hoped this could be saved by the Royal Academy summer exhibition which is apparently similar to a regional state fair. The article reads "Over £70,000 prize money, including the £25,000 Charles Wollaston Award, is awarded each year at the Summer Exhibition. Winners include Gerard Hemsworth (2000), Marc Quinn (2001), Jake and Dinos Chapman (2003). However those cited are artists. Architects and others pay for their entries and prizes are given out. This makes a big difference in notability. And without that, this person is not notable. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hyper Tower, there is some more coverage, but (unless coupled with Villa Hush Hush and any further info demonstrating notability) it'd account for WP:BLP1E AFAICS. -- Trevj (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The fact that he worked on a project as an employee of another firm is probably NN. It is not clear that any of the solo projects have in fact resulted in the building of a notable builing. I thus think him to be a NN architect. The Royal Academy is an art institution, so that I fail to see how it could be relevant to architecture. Anyway havine a work hung in their exhibition is too commonplace among artists to be a major achievement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 24 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University Club of Milwaukee[edit]

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

This club does not meet the notability criteria. Mootros (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article needs improvement, but the club itself is very prominent in Milwaukee so I think with improvements to the article, notability will be more apparent. I found this: [24] fairly easily. Eric Cable | Talk 14:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per EricCable. Article needs improverment, but extremely prominent club in Milwaukee; membership alone makes it notable. Article about equally prominent Milwaukee Athletic Club was deleted erroneously and will be restored by me. Additionally, it should be noted that the nominator, Mootros, has taken it upon himself in the past couple of weeks to attempt to delete numerous articles and content throughout Wikipedia about gentlemen's clubs.Clubwiki (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club meets the notability criteria. Warden (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Wikophile (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, however. Thanks-RFD (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The club's 1928 building was designed by John Russell Pope, and its 2007 tower is also notable. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Love Ministries[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is promotional and of dubious notability. It is written like a bible lesson at Sunday school Jschnur (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ADVERT. No WP:RS to fulfill WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "The Law of Love Ministries was started by Timothy A. Baylor of Niles, Michigan in June 2012." This per their website. This is too new, not notable and too promotional. Maybe in time it may become more notable and then it can be written. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yea I agree with all the comments. It doesn't have notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 September 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. If someone reckons that this should be merged, talk page thread would be the best way possible but for now, consensus is for keeping the article (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rossica Young Translators Prize[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. no extensive coverage. gnews comes up with a mere 2 hits (one being WP) including Russian language sources. [25] LibStar (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very minor prize without the sufficient WP:RS to fulfill WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is possible to compile a decent article based on reliable and independent sources [26]. The article is an interesting contribution to our coverage of literature topics. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

only one of the sources in your search, the Telegraph article could be considered indepth. the others merely confirm someone won the prize. also WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More indepth sources in Russian (major Russian newspapers included). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+ this. It looks that the award is widely noted and covered by Russian media. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, don't delete. The Rossica Young Translators Prize is different than (although related to) the Rossica Translation Prize. There appear to be more sources for the latter, at least in English. In any event, however, deletion would be the wrong result. The information about the Young Translators Prize is sufficiently sourced to justify keeping it or, at minimum, merged either into the main article Academia Rossica or combined into one article with Rossica Translation Prize.--Arxiloxos (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 September 2012
Keep. Coverage in The Telegraph. Coverage in Russian-language sources. Willing to discuss merge after the AfD on the article talk page. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust & Perversion demo[edit]

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

searched and cannot establish this as notable/deserving of a Wikipedia article - e.g. not featured in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 13 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources for this demo; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Blumberg[edit]

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

This person is not notable as far as I can tell. There's a couple of awards which don't appear all that important, and nothing in the way of sources. I found nothing in GNews or the archives, and GBooks gives me only this, which isn't much more than nothing. Note also that there is a very likely COI here, with a bit of promotion for good measure. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established and poorly sourced. – MrX 03:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 11 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICIAN Qworty (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not Notable PeterWesco (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO - not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low level of participation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo Wrestling Alliance[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This 11-minute television series fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Notability is not inherited, and all articles require a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources; our guidelines are quite clear on this point. Furthermore, its full run was 10 11-minute episodes, which would not grant inherent notability even if there were such a thing. Neelix (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 13 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aired on a national cable network for a full run. Passes WP:N easily, even if it only aired for one season (sources are needed, but it's obvious an Adult Swim show easily has notability even without any). Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited, and all articles require a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources; our guidelines are quite clear on this point. Furthermore, its full run was 10 11-minute episodes, which would not grant inherent notability even if there were such a thing. Neelix (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators should never add a delete vote as this is indicated by nominating the article for deletion. I have moved this to your initial AfD nomination comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 25 September 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Adult Swim programs. I've found three sources, but ultimately that's all that I could really find for this show and I don't think three sole sources show notability enough to merit an article. Notability isn't inherited by airing on Adult Swim. It generally didn't get much notice from the public at large as far as reliable sources go. If someone could find one more in-depth source, I'd be willing to potentially change my vote. It's just that everything else I've found has either been non-reliable, primary, or a "junk" hit. Everything else has been in passing and there's not a lot of those either. I'm voting for a redirect to the list of programs since redirects are cheap, although it may be worthwhile to keep the history in case more sources are found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Circle Story[edit]

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

Clearly promotional article created by SPA/COI editor (wife/sister/mother of filmmaker?). Article was Prod'd (by me) and deleted in July for reason: 7-minute short film "shot without a script, randomly, in just five hours" by unknowns. No sources provided to evidence notability, other than that it was entered into a non-notable film festival. Article has now been recreated, but without providing any substantial evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NFILM. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/potential redirect to Prashant Bhilare. There's a language barrier here, but I was unable to find anything that would show that this short film is ultimately notable enough to have its own article. There is some debate over whether or not the director himself is notable, so pending the director's article getting deleted somehow this should be redirected there and given a brief mention.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:21, 4 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 11 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - clearly promotional as noted above. Cites are blogs, not notable outside local, and not encyclopedic. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

419 Boylston[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. There are no independent, third party reliable sources that assert that this group is notable. There are several external links embedded in the article, and none of them verify any of the statements in the article. They neither refer to the existence of any "419 Boylston" nor assert that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Searches of Highbeam, General OneFile, ProQuest and Google Books and Google News turn up no mention of 419 Boylston, other than frequent references to various tenants over the years of 419 Boylston St., Boston. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a fan of this art space and some years ago I asked people affiliated with it if they knew of any publications describing the work the residents do there. They knew of nothing. I confirm that nothing on Google mentions this place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This mostly makes sense to me. 419 certainly has notable published works (e.g. k-sketch, hi I'm pon, standardminds.com) but 419 itself is not usually referenced in the media. I believe there are notes in some of the works, e.g. standardminds.com. I'll defer to your judgement. -Toomim

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 11 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS to fulfill WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above and reads a bit like an ad. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Winter[edit]

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

DePRODED by another user with a recommendation for AfD. Concern was: Although the article may demonstrate importance, researches have not revealed sufficient third party reliable sources to establish Wikipedia criteria for notability at WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, make into a disambig page with Daniel Winter (Orangeman). JASpencer (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JASpencer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - books are self promotion, citation is a court case, parts read like an ad, and clearly fails WP:BIO. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not supported by any acceptable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Bot (Legoland)[edit]

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

This article describes one specific implementation of a product offered by Lo-Q, that used by Legoland Windsor. The product, Q-Bot, is discussed in sufficient depth in the Lo-Q article, and this particular implementation is discussed in the Legoland Windsor article. This article adds little other than tourist-guide-like information, and is completely unsourced. In the past I'd have CSD'd it, but I'm a bit out of touch with the current criteria, so would prefer the input of others. _Talk Islander 00:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an ad. This could be briefly covered by a footnote at the Legoland page. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information is accurate, just unsourced. Perhaps inclusion of pictures and sources would make article more official. ThemeparkGC editted article to become more factual. Article does explore versions of the product/rides/ and saves LLW page from excessive focus on Q-Bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitterbug123 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The wikification I performed to the article did not make it more factual. Themeparkgc Talk 22:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per those above. The article could easily be summarised in the Legoland Windsor's section on the device. ~~I'll look at doing that in the next day or so~~. Themeparkgc Talk 22:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - for those that are interested, I added a short summary of the article to the Legoland article and tried to minimise on the marketing speak. Themeparkgc Talk 01:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The summary Themeparkgq has added is sufficient. The article is unsourced and shows no hint of notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:06, 22 September 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.