Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 2

< 1 April	3 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehangir Jani

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. Can't find verification of this putative Pollywood player in reliable sources. There are definitely more famous people with both the name Jehangir Jani and Jehangir Khan, look a little farther than Google results counts, but that same confluence of names means there's some reasonable chance I've missed something applicable as well. Reliable sources are welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it was notable enough, the article probably would have multiple reliable, third party sources. I fail to find any notability on the subject. -- Loukinho (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to identify any sources that match up with this actor. For example, this imdb entry shows a different actor as the film credits do not match at all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LÖVE

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

Article is based on primary sources, and I could not find anything to satisfy the general notability guidelines (WP:N). I had contacted the author (User talk:Thelinx) who provided additional sources [1], [2] and [3], but I find these to be unreliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 23:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not consider the sources in the references section to meet WP:RS. Beyond that I could not find other sources on Google. Beyond that I do not find that the article as written makes a claim which indicates notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of teh sourcing in the article demonstrates notability, and is primarily sourced to the their own site and forums. The additional sourcing provided and noted in the nomination is also problematic as noted by the nominator. I found this listing in a game engine design book, but it's just an entry in the appendix and actually doesn't say anything about the framework. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems highlighted by the "delete" opinions, that is, that such interactions do not seem to be covered by reliable sources. Sandstein 06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions between micronations

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

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

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

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

Original research and non-notable self-reported events. I am fine also with merging into the micronations entry, but I saw nothing that is worthwhile saving here, given the NN-nature of the described events. Sometimes even imaginary events. I suggest deleting the article altogether. It may be viewed as a POV fork of Micronation that is somewhat closer watched. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in portal:micronations. All previous contributors (except IPs) have been notified. gidonb (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with micronations entry under a new section, summarising appropriate information. Aldrich lucas (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deletion, but if no compromise is possible, merging seems to be the best option. --DCFC10 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A person is lets say a 50 year old, part-time teaching assistant and lives with his parents, then sister. Behind the computer he imagines that he is the king, grand-duke or lord-emperor of some island or sandbank, designs a flag, some coins, stamps etc. He even has a t-shirt with the name of "his kingdom". A newspaper writes a human interest story about this person and his hobby. Next the "micronation" becomes "notable" and gets an article on Wikipedia. Now this person has a cup of coffee at McDonald's with a fellow hobbyist. This "high level encounter" of course gets described on both websites and we get an article on "interactions between micronations". NOTHING in the article is referenced from anything near the level we require. Merge it? I say better purge it. Our concern is not someone's hobby but the quality of our encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look, you've invented the straw man. Well, no, you haven't, but your argument is one, and it is Original Research. Unless you have citations for that? Anarchangel (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure do. This is not a straw man but an illustration of the medium loosely based on an article in the New York Times. I made changes because of WP:BLP. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got BLP backwards; the rhetorical character assessment should remain in the NYT, and the facts brought here. And the rhetoric remains at least 79/80ths of a straw man, as there are 79 other micronations in their largest association alone. Anarchangel (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is an important consideration also on talk pages. You jumped to conclusions, then asked questions, hence the fallacies of your previous statements. There "are" hundreds of "micronations", mostly of the type described above: fantasies of hobbyists about uninhabited places. The phenomenon deserves an article (some individual cases as well), not to be forked by additional articles that are exclusively (!!!) referenced by the hobbyists' websites and contain - among others in the generalization part - original research. gidonb (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"mostly of the type described above" Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right and I purposefully threw a spotlight at the majority of the people involved. Not at the few cases of economic fraud, as bashers tend to do. Not at the the "Principality of Sealand" as portal:micronations does. My only concern is the quality of Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are micronations; presumably they interact at some point. Reasonable folk would be assuming that before they even got to citations or rationales.

Then there's that impossible assertion again, that the article is both OR and a FORK. An article is only a FORK if it replicates material from another article. If it is OR and a Fork, then the other article must be OR, and should be deleted; it is not, therefore, there is no FORK. There are citations in it, verifying the facts stated, therefore it is not OR, and Verifiable. Notability established; subject is sound. :Anarchangel (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See answer above. Not even one source that is anywhere near to sufficient by our standards! gidonb (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"an article in the New York Times", is not to your liking now for some reason? I am adding another article from the New York Times as well as the Seattle Times, China Post, and other sources. Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on! So far we have zilch independent quality sources in the arcticle about interaction between micronations, but we do have two keeps here... gidonb (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of "just a vote". gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's at a good enough standard now to merit keeping. Flipper24 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can the standard be good enough if there are no quality sources that establish that interactions between micronations (this is the article in the AfD) have any notability? gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not regard the New York Times, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the AFP as quality sources? Flipper24 (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. The fact that these media disregard "interactions between micronations" strengthens the case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Qwertyuiop1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. gidonb (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of "just a vote". gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Adam R. Millard (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Adam R. Millard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of "just a vote". gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the meantime Anarchangel added some sources that support the well-known fact that some people claim being sovereign over their own property or desolated islands that they have never visited. I do not see even one quality reference for "interactions between micronations". I believe that these hobbyists sometimes do have coffee together. Since the references are exclusively by the people with this pastime, the article, however, should not be merged into micronations, but purged from Wikipedia, because such interactions appear to be completely non-notable. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click here for an illustration of the above. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, there are good sources. Unfortunately, these sources mostly talk about what micronations are, or interactions between them and normal nations (which would be outside the scope of this article). The stuff about actual interactions between micronations appears to be sourced to stuff from micronations themselves. In the end, there's just nothing left worth keeping. Kansan (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I moved a copy of this to another wiki, I renamed it Micronation diplomacy. I support a change to that title. Anarchangel (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether there is any diplomacy going on between micronations and non-micronations, since the latter invariably seem not to recognize the former. (i.e. the article states that some declare war on non-micronations almost as a joke, which makes me think there isn't serious diplomacy going on). If we can establish that there is, I certainly that would be a better title. (As a aside, even though I voted delete, this is really interesting stuff.) Kansan (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While most diplomacy would not be considered 'serious', interactions between micronations and non-micronations do exist and have existed. The Kingdom of Lovely, for instance, visited the United Nations and had dealings with the London Council as far as I'm aware, and similar interations take place through other 'notable' micronations, such as Hutt River and Sealand. However, this article deals exclusively with interactions between micronations. If this article was to be merged into an article encompassing both aspects of interactions, I would have no problem with that. Deleting this page outright is not the right move. Flipper24 (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If deleting it is not the answer, then where are the reliable sources showing diplomacy among micronations? All I see is sources such as the Molossia News, which in this case would be more or less self published and thus not reliable. Kansan (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought, Kansan. TY. I would not know what to call pronouncements by one nation with respect to another, or policy made by one nation with respect to another, if not Diplomacy. If a better word can be found, I would be quite happy to change that as well. Meanwhile, I will add that distinction to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Neutrality^talk 22:02, 8 April 2011 (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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Chilufya

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.' PROD was contested on the grounds that he was named player of the year in Namibia. I see no evidence of this award generating significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it needs sources, it does not seem to fail notability. I understand Namibia is NOT a fully professional league according to WP:FPL which is a prerequisite for WP:NFOOTY in section 2 ("Players who have appeared in a fully-professional league"), BUT subject participated in in international competition, which had teams of Fully-Professional Leagues (Nigeria and Tunisia) playing, scoring a hat-trick [4]. WP:FPL on its own is a source of disagreement and the reason why Namibia is not considered professional is not clear there. So, since WP:NSPORT says that it "should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis" and since the subject (other than scoring a hat-trick on an international competition) also was top scorer for a national competition [5] (his name was spelled "Shilufya" instead) I think he is personally notable. Article still needs sources and references, though. And a lot of improvement too. -- Loukinho (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played (and scored) in the CAF Champions League, which is Africa's top continental club competition - notable enough for me. Giant Snowman 12:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fails WP:GNG? Full-page coverage: here, here, here, here here and so on and so on, all from top-tier african sources. A couple of these are behind paywalls but i've subscribed for a week just for this AfD if anyone's interested in the full contents. These are all from the first few pages of google searching 'William Chilufya Football' (there seems to be a politician with the same name). With all due respect I suggest the nominator should re-read WP:BEFORE, and to think that this was PROD-ed. doomgaze (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. It is quite clear that this article does meet WP:GNG, and as such I am withdrawing the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi (singer)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP, this does not meet GNG. Also, only one major label release, does not meet MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Needs reliable, third party sources. Fails to meet notability. -- Loukinho (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and the subject also does not have any significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (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 sources provided by Whpq mean the subject is clearly notable. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramit Sethi

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

This is blatant self promotion. Ramit is nothing but one of many business, who write blogs/sell "mantra" to make you rich in a night. Having a wikipedia link sort of make such actions official. This link was already deleted once before, but seems like he has created it once again. Mohitranka (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a NY Times besst-selling author as verified here. He is identified as notable finance blogger. The Houston Chronicle has covered him, as the SF Chronicle. there's quite a bit more, but this is sufficient to establish him as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources noted above indicate that notability exists for this subject. As an aside - this is listed as the third nomination, any idea where the first two went? This article has no entries in the Deletion log, so it has not been deleted previously (under this name). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe it is in error due to a misunderstanding on the part of an inexperienced editor. Is was prodded and declined (deletion #1), a malformed AFD was submitted and reverted (deletion #2), and then finally this AFD was created (deletion #3). It is in fact, the first nomination and perhaps some knowledgeable editor/admin can fix this. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, now that I know what the deal is. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll leave most of the links to the 3rd nom, as well as the redirect. The log and the article both point here directly. Once the thing closes, I'll clean up the rest. If necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 02:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! So? People are hungry for help & knowledges. He has some EDU. Do U, sis /bro? That you can help too? Maybe mentor, cohort, anything to help rather than to tear down please! The Netflix part is lucrative too in helping to spread right human relationships -each & all w/ea. other!! other! (While still time & good available. B4 we pass the PONr.)

The world’s people need each other. Get with the program! Puh-leeez. <g>! xoxo 😚 75.100.215.165 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2023 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocism

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

There are a few hits in google books using this word here and there, but I can't find a substantive discussion of the topic/definition. The same goes for google scholar. WP:NOTDICT. One 1989 source even says: We are unfamiliar with the term "ethnocism" and have been unable to locate it in any dictionary. This suggests WP:NEO. I would have prodded it, but it was deprodded once before with the statement that the term is used, which is true, but insufficient for a Wikipeida article. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Even Google thought I spelled it wrong. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone knows that this form of discrimination is known as racism. Racism dispite its name is not limited to race but also to ethnicity, nationality and sometimes even language.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dictdef for neologism for concept already commonly known as "racism". —Lowellian (reply) 01:58, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most popular sport by country

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

Article does not meet Wikipedia standards and is superfluous to existing articles Porterlu (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Question. Which existing articles? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has defined criteria in the lead, but the sourcing is quite poor - the US ref doesn't seem to mention popularity at all, China's two refs only have a single sentence on popularity, Japan's ref appears to be based on a survey and not viewership, and India has no ref at all. With better sourcing, I could see room for articles like Sports viewership by country or Sports participation by country perhaps, but I'm not convinced these, or indeed any criteria, are great ways to define "popularity". FWIW, while researching I dug up an old AfD on a similar-sounding article that closed as delete, and among the concerns raised were the definition of popularity. BryanG (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not provide anything useful as is currently stands and in addition, it is unlikely to be useful at anytime in the future. As noted above, 'most popular' is going to be difficult to define and strikes me as unencyclopaedic.Thepm (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article, as is, is completely borked. *IF* it listed the countries, instead of the sports, then used some kind of unbiased metric (or metrics) to judge "popular", such as TV ratings and/or total tickets purchased, and allowed to show not just one but optionally more sports (ie: USA, NFL football+metric, Baseball+metric), then added countries one at a time according to the ability to find good sources, THEN it might be a useful article that meets the criteria. The concept is valid, the execution is horrible. Abstaining from !voting. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lachezar Angelov

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

Not notable footballer, fails WP:NFOOTY. Oleola (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the B PFG is not fully-pro, so this player fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He has never played in a fully pro league, and there is no significant coverage of him, meaning he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:15, 7 April 2011 (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 - default to keep. AFD created by a block evading sock of a user indef blocked for disruption and socking. Closing without prejudice to creation of new AFD by any user in good standing nancy 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Kime

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

Searched on Google, could not find anything, tagged as hoax, OR etc. Round Maple (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. She appears to be a young hopeful, and has not yet reached the level Wikipedia requires to merit an article. I'm puzzled by the nominator's comments, though. Why conclude that she does not exist? The CV is plausible, and the Google search provides a consistent set of hits which are promotional in nature and entirely what I would expect for somebody trying to make her way in the field of entertainment. --AJHingston (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. That being said, she does exist, and a human interest story about her getting kicked of a bus for being "too tall" verifies the basic facts of her life. The article is excessively tagged and templated in an effort to make it go away, I guess. Articles should be tagged judiciously, not indiscriminately. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator is a new account, blocked already as one of the many socks of User:Crouch, Swayle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as hoax. The creator has also vandalised the Guiseley page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guisley Secondary School

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

This page has been tagged with Template:Hoax and other templates, so I have searched it on google, but I can't find anything Round Maple (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a hoax - no parliamentary party in the UK has the power to act in the manner suggested. Mark^Dask 17:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment The school appears to be real, but misspelled. Try Guiseley Secondary School [[6]]. My Keep only applies to the hoax rationale, so if you have any other reasons for deletion I offer no opinion. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school should be publicly listed - if it is not then delete. Guiseley is a school. Guisley is not. Mark^Dask 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guiseley#Schools. The stuff about Margaret Thatcher is, well, stuff and nonsense. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The misspelling is of no importance, as the page can be moved if it is to be kept. However, the whole of the article is a hoax. The fact that a real school of a similar name exists does not in any way detract from the fact that the school described in the article does not exist. The real school is not a catholic school, was never named after Thatcher, nor opened by her, and in fact not a single statement about the school in the article is true. Once the article has been deleted there will be no problem in creating a redirect as suggested, but there is no justification for keeping the hoax in the article's history. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE Bandra Crosses

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

Contested PROD. The author then added sections of content to the article, which I removed as they were a number of blatant copyright violations of various articles. Now the article is back to being a call-to-action with no encyclopedic content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is probably a worthy cause involved, but with no notability shown. There is a campaign, as http://news.inmumbai.org/2011/02/28/bmc-stays-demolition-of-bandra-crosses-for-4-days/ demonstrates. Looks like the City Council were requiring reliable sources (but not WP:RS for the age of these crosses. For more background, see http://www.inbandra.com/civic-listing-details.php?id=39 As the article stands, WP:SOAPBOX comes in. Personally, I can't see why they don't just move the things. Probably too simple. Peridon (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1. This page is 90% a religious screed, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Only one sentence refers to the subject of the article, which is to "save Bandra Crosses." 2. If the crosses are notable, there should be an article on these crosses–which there is not—and the campaign to save the crosses would be mentioned on that page. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX. While an encyclopedic article about the crosses themselves might be written, this isn't it. Notability for the campaign to save the crosses is not established. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article violates so many things, so many in fact that I'm not sure why it wasn't speedied.Aquabanianskakid (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The closest speedy criteria I can think of would be "Unclear subject", but it clearly refers to crosses in a specific area. Certainly needs to be deleted though, as there is no notability whatsoever in this unencyclopedic topic. An article on the crosses themselves might, might be warranted, if they had some sort of notability - but nothing I'm seeing is evidence of that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 6 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Čampara

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Reason for contesting was: Čampara played last season and this season for the first team of one of the most prominent clubs in Bosnia & Herzegovina in the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina. FK Sarajevo have represented Bosnia in the UEFA Champions League and in the UEFA Europa League. This is not relevant to notability. Bosnian Premier league is not fully pro and therefore insufficient to grant notability under WP:NSPORT, and he has not actually played for Sarajevo internationally. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Recreate the article if he does go on to play at professional/international level in future. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comments at the article. I would not argue that Jasmin Čampara, however promising, is an outstanding player at this stage of his career, but the basis of deleting the article appears to be that all Bosnian Premier League players without an appearance at international level are deemed non-notable unlike their colleagues in most other European premier leagues. The basis for deletion is that the League has been deemed not fully professional. The article for the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina makes no reference to it being anything other than professional. The list article referenced in WP:NFOOTY points to the League's Constitution as the basis of the decision to classify it as not fully professional but the article (Article 9) cited simply refers to the existence of two categories of club employment, registered player and professional player, without any mention whether the League actually allows registered or any other non-professional player to appear for the club in the League. Without any other evidence the categorisation of the League as not fully professional does not appear at this stage to have been established. Opbeith (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the burden is on you to verify notability, and you can't prove that this player has played in a fully-pro league. This player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG so should be deleted, unless we find proof that the bosnian league is fully-pro. doomgaze (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that he has played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation - My mistake, I was looking at Article 9, not Article 41 of the Bosnian Premier Division Constitution. Article 41, much shorter, says that clubs in the Premier League can sign both professional and amateur players. But again, like Article 9, Article 41 says nothingn about about eligibility to play in the League itself. So is the rule that permits clubs to sign amateur players asa well as professionals sufficient to establish that the League is not a fully professional league? The whole basis of WP:NFOOTBALL's criterion of notability appears rather dubious. It cites as the reference authority Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, which provides lists of fully professional and not-fully professional leagues without any definition of what a fully professional league actually is. The listings appear to rely on a hotch-potch of citations of varying authority. Argentina's Primera Divison's status relies solely on a webpage reference to the founding of a professional league in 1931 - simply "professional", with no qualifying "fully". No official confirmation. The only accessible reference for Brazil suggests that the only teams that would qualify are the members of the Campeonato Paulista Série A1 - the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A status is referenced only by a mention as "professional", not "fully professional" in the Campeonato's own Wikipedia article, without a citation to source, while the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie B's status as professional is not substantiated. The combination of WP:NFOOTBALL and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues would appear to be a substantial distance away from being any sort of reliable source of authority. So before the Čampara article is deleted, can I ask for a definition of a "fully professional" League and for an authoritative ruling that the Bosnia and Herzegovina Premier Division is not a "fully professional league" while the Argentine Primera Division and the Brazilian Campeonato Serie A and Serie B are fully professional?Opbeith (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cuozzo

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

Unnotable dentist who wrote two young Earth creationist books published by a fringe organization and claims there is an international scientific conspiracy against creationists. He isn't a notable orthodontist, nor a notable author, nor a credentialed scientist-- even though he writes about science. One book was review and criticized by a science organization, but that doesn't make him or his book notable (See: WP:Notability (books), source cannot be "other publications where ... self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book".) Article created in 2007. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO. No indication that his work has garnered more than passing notice, even from within the deepest trenches of the evo/creo debate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of required notability per WP:BIO Rmzadeh ► 00:03, 10 April 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angela quinlan

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

Autobiography; Wikipedia doesn't do these. Neutral point of view must be used. The Master of Mayhem 15:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I was about to CSD this under A7, which was the better option, but I saw it was AfD'd. By the way, nothing in reliable sources and I have no context of who the person is.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have tagged the article as A7, no point waiting seven days to delete this. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Because it wasn't a copyvio, I didn't do the same but you're right.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:47, 2 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Chili Cook-Off

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

I've rewritten this article since my request for speedy was declined, so that at least it's not pure canned pork any more. However, the underlying problem still exists: it seems to be very much a local event (although the "locals" in this case are the glitterati). The sources used are a university rag that doesn't pass muster, and the journalism is distinctly crassly promotional, like a write-up. A Gsearch gives hits which are either trivial mentions or directory or facebook listings, so my impression is that it isn't really notable. Do attendance figures count? – the number of visitors cited in the article (10-15k) is just an estimate of the frequentation over the Labor Day weekend 2011, and is not an audited figure. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in non-local sources to establish notability. I prod'd this before the AFD, and there's a message on the prod notice now saying a deletion already exists. This seems to be a bug, I will bring up. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a local event - no independent online sources. Mark^Dask 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet and Sookie

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

Creator of the article contested prod. Plot-only description of a fictional work with no indication of notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No sources at all. Get rid of this nonsense quickly. It may even be a hoax, or best case kids messin'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is fine by me but it should match some criterion first and they're awfully strict on fiction. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of where this story has been published, and Googling turns up nothing relevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't think of a criterion of CSD that fits, except hoax. I'm rejecting that as it looks like a quite valid plotline for a young adult series - either novels or comic - that's being created. Whether it would be publishable or not is not the issue here. The thing that concerns us right now is that it hasn't been. Peridon (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hoaxes have to be blatant. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2011 (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 redirect to Chandala. Everyone including nominator supports this as it's a common alternate spelling for Chandala —SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candala

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

Reason Harsimaja (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an article 'Chandala', and this article now adds nothing new, besides being rather awful.

Delete unless its a common enough typo, in which case we should perhaps consider redirct to Chandala... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's a plausible search term and the other article has more info. Peridon (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a redirection would be best - I was not aware the procedure was different. Either way, this actual article must go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsimaja (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chandala; both seem to discuss about the same topic and the Candala article is unreferenced and inferior to the Chandala article. Salih (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect valid (though archaic) search term--Sodabottle (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not archaic - it's the standard international Sanskrit transliteration of 'chandala', so it is reasonable to assume any non-Indians who have come across the term in a religious context might spell it like that. Even more reason it ought to be redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsimaja (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2011 (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. If we were going strictly by numbers this would obviously be a keeper, but some of the keep arguments are quite weak and everyone seems to agree the article needs further improvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld

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

Delete. Notability has not been established for this YouTube series of animated cartoons per WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Distributed through YouTube and redistributed on various sites, including Newsgrounds, MySpace, and various blogs. Created and deleted ten different times through speedy deletion, as well as AFD. While it appears sourcing is there, reliability and independence is lacking. Cind.amuse 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - ~~this is purely promotional~~ - on closer examination this is not promotional but i cannot find sources for Eddsworld. ~~surprised it has made it this far - could have died at G11 - will list the sources with evaluation if necessary~~. Mark^Dask 17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that I have copied a comment by the creator of this article, left on the talk page of the original discussion, to the talk page of this one. --Kateshortforbob _talk 22:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have tried my best to address the issues raised. I believe I have removed most unreliable sources and have added multiple reliable sources. This includes the distributions and collaberations with BBC, the Guardian, TVE, and the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference and the reliable references that support the work done with these organizations. Also, sources to prove its YouTube popularity. With these improvements, this article does (and of this I am most certain) meet the 3rd Criteria of Web Notability, thus allowing it to stay. I will admit it still needs improvement, but just because sources are minimal and very difficult to find, does not mean it should be deleted. I really think it would be best to allow the article to stay, giving it the opportunity to further improve. Please reconsider your previous vote, as again, I have found sources that prove its notability. (Thank-you for reading. Please Reconsider.) Zach Winkler (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi Zach! While I appreciate your passion about the subject and the article, it falls short of the requirements for inclusion. Articles require support through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Consider the current references.

video repositories

http://www.cakebomb.co.uk/ is a repository of Eddsworld YouTube videos. As the originator of Eddsworld, this source is not independent of the subject. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch the video. Not significant.
http://wn.com/tveinspiringchange?upload_time=all_time&orderby=relevance is a video repository. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch the YouTube video. Not significant.

video presented through online newspaper blog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/clips/p0087j80/mitchell_webb_almeratron/ is a blog presented through an online newspaper that put a video on their site. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch a video. Not significant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/05/one-minute-to-save-the-world?INTCMP=SRCH is a blog with some videos on the site. None identified as Eddsworld. Blog only briefly mentions Eddsworld and does not verify the article content cited.

site stats

http://vidstatsx.com/eddsworld/videos and http://vidstatsx.com/v/Eddsworld are stats pages set up by Ed Gould (Eddsworld) to present website viewer statistics. Neither independent or significant to an encyclopedic article.

personal blogs

http://www.beyond-ability.com/charity/super-fun-charity-raffle is a personal blog that put a video on their site. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch the video. Neither reliable or significant.
http://johnwelsh.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/guest-post-how-cult-youtube-directors-encourage-a-young-demographic-to-support-climate-change/ is a personal blog that put a video on their site. A source that offers little more than an opportunity to watch a video. Neither reliable or significant.

lulu.com

Gould, Edd (02/27/2011). Toaster Brains. Lulu. ISBN N/A.: A self-publishing promotional site. The source is a shopping cart to either download or purchase a cartoon book. Neither independent or significant.

press release

www.tve.org/tests/documents/A%20Million%20Views%20on%20Copenhagen%20Press%20Release.doc is a Word document press release, which is neither independent or reliable.

Hope this helps provide some insight, Cind.amuse 08:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that the BBC features Eddsworld should constitute notability - the fact that Eddsworld is a purely online phenomenon should not exclude it, in notability terms, from inclusion, therefore keep. Mark^Dask 06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This really doesn't support notability for Eddsworld. If you can provide a rationale that is supported by Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, it would be beneficial to the process. The BBC website has a comedy blog that serves as a repository of comedic videos from around the web. They placed a video on their blog in order to highlight BBC's programme entitled "That Mitchell and Webb Look". This does not equate to the BBC featuring Eddsworld in any capacity. Outside of merely watching a video, nothing more is offered other than including Ed Gould on a list of individuals as animator. The video on the BBC blog does not establish notability according to WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Thanks, Cind.amuse 08:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe Mark may be referencing to the actual BBC News segment that featured (and was specifically about) "Eddsworld" and their YouTube popularity and involvement in the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference. I am in the process of getting a direct reference from the BBC archives of this news segment. I believe this may define any notability "Eddsworld" has (as this Climate Conference was a very important, international affair, and any involvement "Eddsworld" had in it (created a video featured in the opening ceremony) would prove notability). I do not know how long it will take for the man I spoke with to return any resources or information; I wish I had more time. Can a "Speedy Deletion" be changed to a more long-term deletion process? Is that in our control? I will try to fix-up the article some more, and if I can get the information in time, I will add this vital reference. Also, thank-you Cindamuse for your constructive criticism, I am becoming a better Wikipedian every day! Thank-you for reading. Zach Winkler (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the existence of this BBC report on Eddsworld can be found, that would be a good jump towards notability. Having checked out Eddworld's popularity on YouTube, I wouldn't be surprised to found it had received coverage like this, I just have had trouble finding it myself.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. Zach, there is no speedy tag on the article, only the regular deletion tag--usually such AfD discussions run for a week. If it should get deleted (and if so, it will be without prejudice against recreation, no doubt), you can always ask the deleting administrator to "userfy" it, that is, to put it in your own user space for you to work on. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well now I feel stupid, thank-you for telling me it was not taged for Speedy Deletion (I could have sworn it was). Thank-you for the comment too, I am still going to try to get that reference though. Thank-you. Zach Winkler (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't feel stupid: you're getting your feet wet (this stuff can be complex), and you sound like a team player. Wikipedia can use team players. All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deleted some of those unreliable references (I know this does not help in notability) and another user added an info-box. I am still awaiting the proper information in reference to that BBC news broadcast (I have called more individuals for assistance in reference information). This article is improving greatly and much faster then I thought it ever would. Eddsworld does meet the notability requirements (via the news broadcast and work with the conference I previously explained), but because I do not have the proper information to reference to, I will not discuss that any more. The subject is obviously very popular, and just because sources are difficult to find does not take away from that, but I understand all of your great points. I know this article is poorly sourced and still needs improvement, but I also believe it meets the minimal requirements. Deletion should not occur, but proper notifications should be attached to the article to indicate its issues. Even so, I would also like to thank all of you that helped and put so much interest into this project. It has improved this article (some-what) and improved my skills as a Wikipedian. If this article is deleted I will continue to find sources and may contact you guys on your opinion about my sources' reliability and such. Thank-you for the experience. Zach Winkler (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Zach, if the article is deleted, don't discourage thinking that your work is lost. We can "userfy" the article, which is Wikipedia's fancy way of saying that we can move the article to another page of your account, where you can have access to it and continue editing and improving it. When the other sources come in, we'll just have someone quickly review it and if it's a go, we can move it to the mainspace again. Please don't hesitate to contact me anytime if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 02:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This article meets the notability requirements. The article Jonti Picking is up with worse sourcing than this article has. There are biography articles up with no sources too. I'm not justifying this article's lack of sources, just making a point. I think it needs Notability and Refimprove boxes added though. It still needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkus M (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign. Kirkus M (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Just wanted to notify. I added a reference to the BBC video I was previously typing about. I do not think I entered in all "necessary" data, but I entered what I could. I am awaiting further information from Crispin Rolfe (The BBC "presenter" who did the news-segment). Zach Winkler (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets notability. simple as that.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circassians in Romania

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

This article is quite frankly a perfect sample of what does not constitute an encyclopedic subject. The entire topic is irrelevant, as the article candidly notes: "In the 2002 Census, two persons declared to be Circassians". (Mind you, even this is entirely original research, since the records of the census, cited as the reference, do not actually and understandably go into as much detail. One presumes that the author of the article, a self-styled Circassian, got this info from personal interviews!) The rest of the article is entirely speculative and highly promotional: "Some traditions are similar between the two peoples. For example, both Circassians and Romanians are known to be very hospitable with their guests". The rest, about place names or surnames, is simply WP:COAT, whose sources are either unretrievable, unreliable or non-existent (see for instance the article's main reference). The few relevant tidbits, such as the 1870s exodus of virtually all Circassians from Dobruja (which btw only became Romanian territory in 1878), or their current presence in Turkey, are aptly covered in other articles: Deportation of Circassians, Circassians in Turkey, Circassians in Israel. Dahn (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a classic bit of original research. About half the sources are self-published/blogs, one is the white pages (!), and the rest, while more or less reliable, are either irrelevant or twisted to prove a point. The little content that is relevant, as Dahn points out, has plenty of other target articles where it could be covered. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to article called Circassian diaspora. There is no mention of a Circassian diaspora in Romania within the diaspora article and any useful information within the Circassians in Romania could be usefully merged there. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a solution, but let's note that the article now claims there are no more than two Circassians in present-day Romania, and even this WP:FRINGE claim is not actually sourced - the census results simply show one person in one locality who declared him/herself something that was recorded as Altă etnie ("Other ethnicity"). Dahn (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is safe to assume that if 10,000 Circassians were displaced to Romania in the 1800s that there will be more than two of their descendents there today (whatever the census says). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, perhaps. But somehow that line of thought seems to go against, for instance, the core tenet of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Dahn (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been verified that 10,000 Circassions were displaced to Romania. Anything else, including the census results, is speculation. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let me restate this: 10,000 Circassians were not displaced to Romania, but to a region which became Romania some years after those Circassians were displaced further, to Turkey; in all, those Circassians had only been living in that region for some decades. Provided it were known that Aztecs are from a place in the United States (i.e. that Aztlán was on the Mississippi or something), this article would be the practical equivalent of an Aztecs in the United States article. Beyond that, the article speculates about the (earlier) existence of Circassians in any other regions of Romania, and their present-day number now is two (allegedly). So what "Circassians in Romania" are we talking about? Dahn (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So what you are saying is that there was more than one displacement and that this ___location was temporary. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unfortunately for the Circassians and their Dobrujan neighbors, it was temporary: in 1877, during the Russo-Turkish War, the Russian advance into Dobruja was the effective ethnic cleansing of that region. Most Musilm populations there either fled or were expelled en masse, including other refugee groups from Russia - the Crimean Tatars, the Nogais, various Turkic subgroups. This all happened before Romania was assigned the region by Russia, in forceful exchange for most of the Budjak, which was still Romanian-owned in 1877. Now, I'm not saying that Romania has a clean record in this matter (Dobrujan Muslim populations continued to be pressured by Romanian colonization, and 20th century totalitarianism in Romania effectively encouraged some more to leave for Turkey), but the Circassian thing, for what it's worth, did not occur on Romanian territory. For an overview, see Islam in Romania (I'm being immodest, as I wrote most of it back in the day). Dahn (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, the "Circassians in Romania" are in reality the Circassians in Turkey, the Circassians in Israel, the Circassians of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kosovo etc. That is to say, the Circassians of those Ottoman provinces that were not ran over by the Russians. Dahn (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the conclusion is OK, I have to note that the first paragraph is riddled with factual errors.Anonimu (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too little info in reliable sources for a separate article.Anonimu (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Careers

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

Unencyclopaedic synthesis / original research, consisting of opinion - inappropriate in WP:TONE, problems with neutrality, which I cannot imagine could be salvaged into a coherent article without entirely rewriting. The topic of "energy careers" is subjective in inception.The only referenced facts are chosen as random representations. Chzz ► 13:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense. Mark^Dask 18:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - which is such a pity, as it is such a pretty piece of spam. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2011 (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Moffat

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

Claims to fame: Member of non notable band, "producer" of The 1 Second Film(anyone who donates is listed as producer), uncredited appearance on a documentary and a self published book. No reliable sources and I didn't find anything useful while searching. Asilv (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who???? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazing how long some things hang around for. The link to the band website doesn't seem to work, but that's not a ground for deletion. The total lack of notability shown is. The book he 'published' isn't even of his stuff, but is a compilation of someone else writing in a university newspaper (which is hardly in the same league as a compilation of, say, Beachcomber (any of them...). I wonder how many more like this are lurking in Wikipedia, protected because no-one except the subject looks at them.... Peridon (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Jarwali

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

Could not find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anything of value is left once all the peacock crap is washed off.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see a source of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No significant and notable person. ramansoz ( talk) raman 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of third-party reliable sources that would show a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humza Arshad

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

Well written article, but little evidence of significance. References are all youtube clips and a facebook page. Includes recordings of two BBC Asian network interviews, but no indication of lasting notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable, and only hints at notability. Article is a total coatrack showcasing the artist's material that needs to be removed if this is kept Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted as it is quite similar to Fred Figglehorn, not including the comparison in references. The references of Humza Arshad come directly from Arshad's official YouTube channel and from other real and trustworthy videos. Even though they are YouTube/Facebook references they are the only references that could be found on the subject. If other users contribute to the article more then it can be improved more. Ninjinian (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment as per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, YouTube is not a reliable source. If they are the only references that can be found on the subject, we must conclude that the subject is not notable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Only sourceable to YouTube, no actual WP:RS to merit an article. Also recommended for deletion are the WP:COATRACK articles Diary of a Bad Man and List of Diary of a Bad Man episodes. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:11, 7 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punch Trunk

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

Delete Article makes no indication why this individual episode is notable. Currently consists of plot details and castings. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not an "episode," but a theatrically released animated short. Given the number of films in the series which had Oscar nominations, other distinctions, etc, and the array of print sources which can be used to establish reputation/reception, as well as the regular involvement of notable voice actors, I see no reason to poke holes in a relatively comprehensive filmography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should contain those. As it stands, this is unsourced and makes no assertion of notability. The fact that others in the Merry Melodies series have oscar nominations in no way contributes to the notability of this particular short. Nor does involving the regular crew of voice actors which are themselves notable; that is licence for every Loonie Toons short EVER to be considered notable solely on the voice actors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This short, and every Looney Tunes short to 1988, is covered in Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide to the Warner Bros. Cartoons by Jerry Beck and Will Friedwald (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1989, p. 256).SPNic (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight Project (album)

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

The band itself is not notable. No secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for picking out this specific EP from their page and not the other two that have their own pages then? I just thought I'd help the fans that might look at this. If you want to erase one, erase them all. dragula_85 | Talk | 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into band's main page, as not notable enough to warrant it's own page. As for the other albums, They don't seem to have much notability either, and the references (Amazon, Twitter) do not denote notability. As such, I would recommend the same for them. If there are more proofs of notability, I would suggest finding more refs while this is in process. However, I feel deletion would be a step too far, as there is clearly some work put in, and with a bit more, this could be worth reading. Bennydigital (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This album plainly fails the requirements listed at WP:NALBUM. There is a total dearth of reliable, third-party coverage of the record. Frankly, I toyed with the idea of nominating the band's article for deletion as well but... a very quick Google search and GNews search suggests that sufficient coverage probably exists out there, and I don't want to overstep. But this album does not have the benefit of that type of coverage, as far as I can tell. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication how this would pass WP:MUSIC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flame (Korean Novel)

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

This article, while mentioning that the book received an award, does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) since the literary award is not claimed to be major; indeed, it is not stated what the award even is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this list of winners of the Dong In Prize, including the work in question, although that does not answer the question of what that prize is. LadyofShalott 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, According to Kim Dong-in, "In 1955, the magazine World of Thoughts (Sasanggye) created the Dong-in Literature Prize to commemorate Kim's literary achievements[14]."

Dong-in Moonhak Sang is Mangerment by Chosun llbo. and, you could see that : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/30/2010053001295.html --Winbbs (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate tells me that page says, "Services are very sorry for the inconvenience. The page you requested has been misspelled or the address of an address change, or delete pages, due to Is unavailable. The requested page address, please check again. If you continue to have the same problem Customer Center , please contact us. Thank you." In other words, the page doesn't seem to say what you thought it should. Can you check the link? LadyofShalott 02:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sole issue at hand here is notability, I should mention that there is now a Wikipedia page for the Dong-in Literary Award, which is relatively major, and this book is now linked from that page. I've also cleaned up a bit of grammar, but that seems incidental? Ccmontgom (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Dong-in Literary Award is a major award in Korea, so this book clears the notability guidelines. Francis Bond (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- After checking inside Wikipedia and outside, as far as I can tell, this was not 'a major award in Korea', it was the only literary award in Korea from 1956 until 1977 (the establishment of the Yi Sang Literary Award. The article definitely needs work though, so I've started the hunt for my Korean/English dictionary, and will see what I can add from its ko. article. If the article is kept, I will work on it further. Dru of Id (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to keeping this article now that notability has been established. However, I would like to see sources added to the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2011 (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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bull Years

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

Notability ; appears to fail WP:NBOOK; only outside press I could find was on CNYradio.com, mentioning its existence. Nat Gertler (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant treatment in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:BK. Deor (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Camilleri

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

Non notable author, two out of three refs not giving any info regarding subject, no indication of notability, fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only significant coverage is this book review in a Gozo paper where he apparently is originally from. The only other coverage I can find is this very short bit in the Times of Malta. That is insufficient to demonstrate notability in general, nor does it establish him as a notable author. The book is self-published through Authorhouse which may explain why there is very little in the way of critical reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Camilleri's page must not be deleted! He's one of the best author's around!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta64 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related to but distinct from the AfD notability question, the article text is basically the same as the referenced (but unsigned) article from GozoNews, with the same detailed description of which classes he took at school. So there is a WP:COPYVIO issue. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Green Capital

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Only one source found which has made a significant mention of the subject. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article has no references beyonf a link to the organistion's web site. A search for coverage finds this article,and some coverage in the NY Times where it is not the primary subject but the coverage is more than a passing mention. However, that taken in total is insufficient to establish this organisation as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per soundly-motivated nomination. lobby groups in Washington DC are a dime a dozen. No indication of how they are notable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:49, 2 April 2011 (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. O'Malley

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

Author who does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A few incidental book reviews in local newspapers and a plethora articles written by him, but there is no significant coverage about his works or his life in multiple WP:RS; the only actual non-trivial, non-primary sources appear to be his obituary and one article about his role in and expulsion from the AP Bureau in Moscow (which itself is not mentioned in the article). Per the article's talk page, there is a claim that he has some sort of importance in Butte, but no sourcing can be found to corroborate that assertion. Kinu ^t/_c 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is local, and of the two books, one appears self-published. The one book has been reviewed on a couple of sites, but beyond that I couldn't find much. Seaphoto^Talk 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this seems to indicate the creator does not understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a memorial. I see no evidence that this person is known outside of this home town of Butte, Montana (pop 33,892) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:01, 2 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs and Its Existence

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

Confusing and essay-like. May be a school project. Information from this article may (and probably should) be included in articles such as the main article on dinosaurs. elektrik SHOOS 06:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikiversity and Delete from wikipedia Yes, this does look like someone's school project for making a page at wikipedia. Not bad, but this is not the appropriate place for it. If the author is reading this, he can simply copy/paste the text of his article in http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_and_Its_Existence --Enric Naval (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy it for them? Just noticed - brand-new user, too. Seriously bitey just to delete it :o( Maybe someone could mentor them through using the text to improve existing article(s). Pesky (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Userspace and/or Wikiversity/Simple Wikipedia and inform author. Doesn't seem to be a copyvio, but a bit too basic for a Wikipedia article.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Are dinosaurs real? This question perhaps clouded the minds of some people. Because although there were a lot of evidences presented still they are lacking and debatable. How dinosaurs live, reproduce and die is the scope of this research. Our group chose this topic because it is interesting and exciting. Reading books and surfing the net about these creatures are like going back into their time. You might want to change the title before handing this in to your teachers. I'd suggest The Existence of Dinosaurs or Did Dinosaurs Exist? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move elsewhere. Laudable try but not yet up to Wikipedia standards. Don't give up though. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The nominator got it right. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay/original research. I disagree with comments above; I think these kids SHOULD "give up" from trying to post their school research paper on Wikipedia. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2011 (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) Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Seagull (theatre)

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

I object to the proposed speedy deletion of The Seagull (theatre), so have altered to AfD as it seems a reasonable article apart from lack of references and categories; both fixable. So I do not agree with deletion, but have put it up for discussion. I notice that there have been a lot of edits to the article!! Hugo999 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC) PS: the log entry seems to be wrong Hugo999 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An earlier version of the article contained a number of additional sources, subsequently deleted, that establish the notability of this theatre in its community[7] and Google has more sources[8][9] such as [10].--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - looks like edits which started to remove sources weren't caught in January, leading to all sorts of issues. I'm certain sources can be found to show notability, certainly from regional media if nothing else. I'll try and have a go this afternoon - I'd say a dial back to 1009 might be a good starting point. I'll also add it to my watchlist... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Artical Being Improved

This artical could be deleted but it can be improved. So i will do somethings to improve it. As can be done according to Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Please do not change my improvements to this artical as it can help prevent it from bing deleted. Darkcover21 (talk) 2:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Personally, I think that any theatre that regularly receives fully professional productions should be automatically notable. But beside from that, even if you disregard the coverage associated with AbI Titmuss, there's now more than enough sources to qualify. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, forget that, Speedy Keep. Given that the CSD tag was placed by Darkcover, who doesn't actually seem to be in favour in deletion, and the AfD was only created to discuss the deletion without the proposer being in favour, and reasonable steps have been taken to address notability, advertising and copyright, I don't think there is actually any case for deletion at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable, the article could do with cleanup, is certainly about a notable subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2011 (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. Withdrawn NW (Talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth E. Carter

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

I don't believe that the subject of this article meets WP:CREATIVE (the most applicable criterion is "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.") or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 04:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominated for two Oscars, winner of a career achievement award from the American Black Film Festival [11][12], clearly passes WP:ANYBIO.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-referenced article about a notable costume designer with 2 Oscar nominations, a significant award, and a quarter century career in Hollywood. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Two Oscar nominations clearly satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

0.1 Organic Vodka

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

Non notable, failing WP:GNG and verging on a CSD candidate for advertisement. Contested PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 01:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not notable, nothing of value would be lost. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Lacks sources, reliable or otherwise. Nothing turned up in Gbooks, Gnews or Gscholar searches. Standard search turns up mirrors, blogs and social media mentions. Appears to be written solely to promote the product, thus violating one of the things Wikipedia is not. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:40, 5 April 2011 (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. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 06:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual war memorial

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

First sentence is a dictionary type definition, the rest is a mention of a non-notable memorial, fails WP:GNG Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified; pretty much nonsense. First it gives a definition for "perpetual war memorial", but none of the sources support the definition. Then it says without attribution that the Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial in Irvine is the first perpetual war memorial in the world - even though that memorial does not use the term. Google finds nothing to support the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MajorVariola (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Apologies for being a newbie to the WP maintenance culture.[reply]

Re: references, have added. This was meant as an informational page to those seeking definition of the phrase, with pointers to other supporing articles including Pertual War (aka Long War) and war memorials. These are, by the way, widely accepted and well defined terms. But, I've put refs there so the article is more self contained. Thanks for the feedback.

The facts of the Irvine installation are referenced in multiple newspapers etc. There are more refs under its article.

Re: deleting the tags at top, sorry, didn't know the rules or lingo.

Re: notability: the first of a new variant of a class is notable by virtue of introducing that variant to the world. The "first X with Y" is the schema. The first book made with movable type, the first color movie, that kind of thing.

Re: MelanieN: the Irvine war memorial page explicitly contains a quote from a founder, ref to city documents, and several newspaper stories that describe the installation exactly as this page does. As far as "dictionary" definition goes, the phrase "pertual war memorial" defines a distinct category separate from any combination of those words, so the phrase is meaningful, much like "civil war memorial" or "genocide memorial" or "armenian genocide memorial". In an encyclopedia, it should be ok to state a definition, followed by history, relations to other concepts, any other interesting links. No? Just my memories of the Britannica..

Sorry, but can you show me that quote? I just spent 10 minutes on the memorial's website and I can't find anything like that. It says it is "The nation's first memorial listing the names of all the fallen American service members in Afghanistan and Iraq". It talks about the city council making it a "permanent memorial" after having started out as a temporary or ad-hoc memorial. The website contains links to six newspaper articles; none of them contains the phrase "perpetual war memorial".

I have no quarrel with the article Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial, and I have nothing but admiration for the volunteers who have put this together and maintain it. My only problem is with this article, Perpetual war memorial, where I simply can't find any verification that the phrase exists, or that it means what the article says it means. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the quote you were referring to - where the principal organizer of the Northwood memorial said "I think it is the first time, maybe in the nation, what we will have is a memorial honoring those who have fallen as the conflict goes on, rather than waiting 20 or 30 years" ? There are three problems with using this as evidence. In the first place he is an interested party, not independent. In the second place he says "I think" and "maybe" so this is not definitive. Third and most important, he doesn't use the term "perpetual war memorial," so it is still unclear where that phrase came from or how this meaning got attached to it. Remember that this discussion is entirely about the Perpetual war memorial article; nobody is criticizing the Northwood memorial. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all due respect to the people that this memorial honors, this article does not meet wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Claims of "first memorial complete before the war ended" in the article (which have been removed) are not supported by references provided. I'm also not finding anything to support this. RadioFan (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I have reversed that removal. IMO while the article is at AfD we should discuss it the way it is. It's true, as you say, that the definition given is not supported by references. But there are also no references supporting the claim that "perpetual war memorial" refers to to the Northwood memorial - which is how the article read with its intro removed. Basically there are no references to support the title phrase, period. There's nothing salvageable here. If we remove everything unsupported, we will blank the article. --MelanieN (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "citation needed" tags to the definition given for "perpetual war memorial," and to the claim that the Northwood memorial is the first in the world to fit that definition. Without verification that this phrase means what the article says it means, there can be no article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice: while it seems that Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial is notable, this article is mostly about that one. I'm not sure there is merit in describing a type of memorial when only one such exists (I appended "without prejudice" to mean that if this proves to be more prevalent in the future, we could re-create; however, I don't think a comparison with the first color movie is a valid analogy in this case). In any case, the referencing isn't enough to qualify the GNG. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courage is contagious (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I have yet to read an explanation of how "Parish Church" and "First Parish Church of America" (bot WL entries) are any different from "P-War memorial", aside from age.[reply]

MajorVariola, I know you meant no harm, but please don't use different names when signing your notes here. It could make people think you are creating a WP:Sock puppet, where a person uses multiple names or accounts, to try to make it appear that more people are speaking. I know this was not your intention - you are still learning your way around here - but sock puppetry is very much frowned upon.

I am puzzled by your recent changes to the article. You added several examples of other monuments to the Iraq/Afghanistan war, some of which are older than the Newport memorial. Does that mean we should delete the claim that the Newport memorial was the first? Also, none of the added examples are referred to as a "perpetual war memorial", so we still have the primary problem, that the meaning of this phrase has not been confirmed. I'm wondering - were you trying to create an article about Iraq War memorials or Iraq/Afghanistan War memorials? If so, maybe the article could be changed into that, by changing its name and removing the unsourced definition of a "perpetual war memorial". --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: If the result is "delete" I suggest userfying it to MajorVariola, so that he does not lose the research he has done on the various Iraq War memorials around the country. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance- An Automation Integrated Idea Exchange Symposium

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

Non notable symposium, contested PROD, un-encyclopaedic language. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable college event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 April 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not often I'm lost for words. Per Sodabottle and per nom. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no apparent notability, and no sources showing notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:30, 5 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur H. White

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

Non-notable corporate executive who has served appointive positions on a couple of federal and state boards. Sources are press releases, aggregators like Zoominfo, and articles about other people where he is mentioned in passing. Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a founder of Reading Is Fundamental is a very big deal, even if the program is not media-sexy. The housing finance thing looks like a state equivalent of Freddy Mac, which would also be significant. And Yankelovich was a big-time, important firm. This might be a hard article to write up, but JUSTDOTHEEASYSTUFF isn't policy. The GNews hits on Arthur+White+Yankelovich aren't trivial, but more important would be the nearly 1000 Gbooks hits, which even if whittled down still would indicate enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's rational. Co-founding RIF is enough to make him notable. [13] Everything else is gravy. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference does not cite his involvement with its founding, nor do our articles on RIF or Margaret McNamara, only additional 'school volunteers' (and unable to source founding involvement); while he is involved with program at an executive level, I await sourcing of 'co-founder'. Other accomplishments still speak for themselves (see below). Dru of Id (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additionally, his personal website includes highly praiseworthy birthday wishes which speak to his person (lacking in the actual article) from notable people including Hilary Pennington (director, U.S. Program Special Initiatives of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; see http://www.arthurhenrywhite.com/Guestbook.php?Guestbook_CurrentPageNumber_167296=4). Quick google searches on many of the other contributors speak to the importance of this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DW19865 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - nonsense! Notability is not contagious: you don't catch it by association with notable persons or institutions (to address Dru's note below this). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unruly comment. Think of notability as being more like an STD. You don't get it just by hanging around with people who have it, but you can contract it if your involvement is sufficiently substantial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - response on the contrary: most of the people who are involved with a notable person, do not thus become notable. How many people does a Steve Jobs or a Roger Ebert know by name, and think well enough of to wish them a "Happy Birthday!", without those persons thus becoming notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Major directorial involvement with Smithsonian Institutional programs. Dru of Id (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:O.K.; having looked at a lot more off- and on-wiki, under External links, #2 & #7 mention co-founding in passing but likely too long ago to show up indepth without knowing where to look. While notability is not contagious, it is not immune, either. A third of the headlines are him, with mention of the Smithsonian in the body; a third have both in the headline, and a third have the Smithsonian with Mr. White in the body. While the ones with just him in the headline are about his other endeavors, he is notable enough that the Smithsonian did not get top billing. That implies notability, even if not directly stated. Dru of Id (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2011 (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 Ultima (series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtues of Ultima

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced exclusively to primary sources and other promotional sources produced by business partners. Needs third-party sources in order to WP:verify notability. Could not find any significant coverage as required by the general notability guideline. Also fails the policy that Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE with extensive lists of game concepts... considering the article is entitled sourced to game guides. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was initially going to propose "transwiki and delete", since this is principally derived from primary sources and provides excessive in-game information. But first, I'd like to highlight some other possible sources. These I found at Google Books: Halos and avatars (Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), Quests (A K Peters, Ltd., 2008) both provide significant and, importantly, out-of-universe (WP:WAF) information about the Virtues. Videogames and education (M.E. Sharpe, 2008) and Digital Play (McGill-Queen's Press, 2003) provide additional verification. Personally I think that the topic belongs at Ultima (series), but one could argue that there is enough secondary coverage here to satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the Pelit mention near the beginning of the article. Pelit is the largest gaming magazine in its country and several nearby ones. Though not what it was in the Good Old Days, it's quite respectable. It'll take some time to excavate that issue though. --Kiz o r 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well! We now have sources that describe the virtue system as unprecedented, unmatched, a forebear of the morality systems that are now an "industry standard" (to quote the chapter on Ultima IV's virtues in Halos and Avatars), and as proof of the potential of the medium. It also garnered wide praise as an alternative to mindlessly violent games, and yes, there's a source for that. I'll give an unreserved keep for meeting our standards of verifiability and notability. Marasmusine, would you mind hitting me with a fish if I haven't integrated the sources into the article by the middle of the month? --Kizor 10:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, and good luck. Remember WP:WAF! Marasmusine (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy as pie! I'll just go through it and add "fictional character" or "fictional place" before any and all names. :P --Kiz o r 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator made this recent rule change up themselves. Concepts is unacceptable as a restriction. It goes to the heart of the creative process, the thing that makes any work of fiction or storytelling a unique addition to society. Concepts are what make decent works of fiction unique and memorable, and great works a testament for the ages. Mechanics are what distinguish one game from another to a degree, and should have had the notability test applied to them rather than getting a blanket ban, but this is going too far. Planning on getting rid of Concepts in Watership Down? Concepts of Democracy in Republics? Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming? The Concept of the Political? The Concept of Law? The Concept of Mind? The Concept of Irony?

The New York Times article mentioned last AfD, the Computer Gaming World article being used as a cite right now, and numerous Gamasutra articles in Google News, are quite sufficient to verify the article information and show notability. Anarchangel (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it verbatim from WP:VGSCOPE which has been around for years. It's good policy. There are no lists of video game weapons, and articles about items are confined to individual notable objects rather than detailed lists of everything in the game. It's one thing for a singular concept to be notable. It's another thing to have lists of concepts associated with locations where they are found and character classes that use them. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar, but not verbatim. VGSCOPE says:
Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
The addition to NOT says:
Video game guides. An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE.
Little changes to the text have large effects on the meaning. The former bans "lists gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" and then adds that this applies specifically or in particular to various kinds of minutiae. The latter bans the minutiae in addition to the list. This expands the ban to apply the matters the original didn't: it makes listing the gameplay mechanics that distinguish an RTS title from its contemporaries, or describing an intricate combat system of an RPG in enough detail that the readers understand its significance, suspect at the least.

There's also the statement that a game "should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game." This does not exist in VGSCOPE, neither do words to that effect, nor did it exist when the addition to NOT was made. It introduces demands and problems that are not present in the original: How would you be allowed to describe the variety or inventiveness of a RTS game's units? Take Red Alert 3: A huge part of its appeal is being able to shoot battle bears out of cannons to attack samurai with lightsaber katanas, but that is completely incidental to the actions the player takes to win.

VGSCOPE is good policy, but I do not feel that the addition to NOT reflects it. Shooterwalker, what would you say to replacing this list item with a note on "Instruction manuals", saying "See also WP:VGSCOPE for writing about video games" or something similar? That item is mostly about video games anyway. Other opinions are also welcome, to make sure that I'm not just butthurt about this AfD. --Kiz o r 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being respectful. I do appreciate it... considering how many people disagree and turn it into an all out war. I'm okay with what happens to this article, even though my preference and your preference are different. As to WP:NOT I think it makes sense to put it there just because people commonly cite WP:GAMEGUIDE as a reason for keeping out lists of weapons and items, and not just when it's presented strictly as a "how to". But if I somehow mangled the wording that's my mistake. Was it just the injection of the word "also"? I think it almost goes without saying that some details can be important, and some details aren't. (So maybe one key game unit is cited in third-party sources as the reason why the game is so fun or innovative.) The point is that a complete list of every weapon or vehicle or unit in the game isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. (Which is my issue with this article, having listed and relisted the virtue system in multiple games in the series, with tables of where they are found and such. Again, crossing over from explaining the innovation of the system towards explaining every detail in that system. A WP:GAMEGUIDE.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In early 2007, just before VGSCOPE was invented, there was a helpful section on that page to direct people who wanted to move game content away from Wikipedia, which discusses how to mark up WP content for inclusion on, say, Wikia. 16 January 2007

"To help remove information that might read as a game guide, please add the {{gameguide}} tag to the article in question.

When moving content:

These gaming wikis all run MediaWiki. Thus, you can easily copy wiki text from Wikipedia. However, you should remove Wikipedia-specific code such as interwiki links, category tags (unless the category already exists at the other wiki), and template calls (unless the other wiki has a similar template). You might want to keep Wikipedia image tags and then reupload Wikipedia images to the destination wiki.

If you are not the copyright holder (if you are moving content submitted by another Wikipedian), then the GNU Free Documentation License requires that you preserve the History by crediting Wikipedia, in a way similar to Comixpedia:Template:Credit. The best way to do this is to mention that part of the wiki page is from Wikipedia and provide a link back to the Wikipedia article. For example:
This page uses content from the Wikipedia articles, Gameplay of Doom and List of enemies in Doom.

Note that those are urls, which now lead to the empty page with the deletion notice at the top. The actual titles of those articles were Gameplay of Doom and List of enemies in Doom

So you can see, WP:Consensus can change really is true. One would have to go further back than 2007, I think, to see where Wikipedians began to decide to move game articles off of Wikipedia and onto other wikis, though, as the helpful wiki export walkthrough shows. Anarchangel (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the right word? Walkthrough? It is sort of a How-To Guide. I'm sure many found it quite useful. Anarchangel (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - the article is far too much of an extensive coverage of purely in-game info without any relevance or connection to the real world. The relatively small amount of info relating to actual commentary on the system could and should be limited to the main article; this extensive sort of coverage is more fitting in a game guide. If this does end in keep, I'd certainly encourage participation in a merge discussion on the talk page. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summarize at Ultima (series) using the book sources above as a guideline. I'm not opposed to a standalone article, but it would need a significant rewrite to be reconciled with WP:VGSCOPE and WP:WAF. There is enough coverage either way. Marasmusine (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator my first preference is still for deletion. That's consistent with the policy on WP:GAMEGUIDEs, the video game guidelines at WP:VG/GL, and the policy that you need significant information about reception and WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. But in the spirit of building consensus, I would weakly support a merge to the Ultima (series) article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in summarized form (only what's sourced to third party sources) to Ultima (series). Current coverage is excessively based on primary sources, and what's based on secondary sources is too short for its own article. Sandstein 06:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far I've cut out some fat and done sucky work in integrating the found third-party sources. I believe that properly covering the subject (and we have the sources to do that) will take more space than the Ultima article can give. The virtues' descriptions can be trimmed further once I get out of bed tomorrow and caffeinate, but the article will have to gain stuff about character generation (vital - it's based on ethical dilemmas, which is fabulously rare) and the way virtues are tracked and practiced. There are sources for both of those. The sources also have some interesting material on how the concepts of implicit and explicit curricula relate to Ultima IV, and that could be added. We should also keep on covering alternative virtue systems and the perversion of the virtues: their importance to the depiction of virtues in the Ultima series makes concise summaries warranted.
So I guess I'm saying that this article should stand alone, and if this AfD ends in a merge, that decision shouldn't be taken to be final and irrevocable. The article may well be improvable enough to change that situation. --Kiz o r 01:25, 13 April 2011 (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. While numerically more users are in favor of retaining this, those making arguments to keep it have not presented valid, policy based arguments that back their position. That this group may be notable enough for an article sometime in the future is not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Writers

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

Delete. Article about a regional literary co-op, club, or association. None of the references provided mention the group. Notability is not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article needs significant coverage of the writer's club. At this point, none of the sources provided indicates notability of Walden Writers, and the writers within the group, for the most, lack notability. Cind.amuse 06:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I like this plucky group's response to globalisation and think this the page about this co-op deserves to survive. There are now links to literary festivals they have contributed to. They are an interesting but disparate group. Meeraman (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that more material has been added to demonstrate the co-operative's notability and the notability of the authors. It's a Work in progress Troglopedetes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- While information has been added to the article, the sources merely confirm existence of various nonnotable authors. None of the sources establish notability of the organization. Cind.amuse 08:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thiought I'd add to the debate. The group contains influential writers and the fact that the press hasn't picked up on them is more of a reflection on journalists and the time it takes to search out refs than the true notability of the group.... which contains the author of THE book on Children's Lit and several award winners. I think - if allowed - this page will evolve and be a useful contribution. Africawallah (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1st April 2011 2.30pm[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomination rationale. This is a walled garden in the making, viz: "The co-operative was set up in 2008 to cross-promote the work of its members, to organise literary events, to exchange information and to give one another mutual support." Whilst not denying that some of the authors in the cooperative may be notable, the SPAs namely Meeraman (talk · contribs), Enrevesado (talk · contribs), Cmulley (talk · contribs), Troglopedetes (talk · contribs), Africawallah (talk · contribs) all seem to be "cross-promoting and mutually supporting". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:25, 2 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steamworks (gay bathhouse)

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

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Not altogether convinced that this meets WP:N. It's a place of business that, like many similar places of business, had a bit of a county council licensing hiccup - no real earth-shaking legislation resulting from its licensing struggles or anything. The only source - aside from a couple of brief newspaper articles wholly concerned with the licensing struggles and the bath house's own website - is a LGBT-themed travel guide. The place certainly exists, but so too does the van down the street from me that serves Mexican food. I don't think that being mentioned once in a local newspaper is automatic notability. Perhaps other people see it differently? Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make into a disambiguation page. Yes, true. Turns out there are at least three establishments, all gay, all bathhouses, and at least two of them notable.
Los Angeles 1 of 13 Google News hits for Steamworks Los Angeles, no quotes. The Sacramento Bee

Berkeley 1 of 17 Google News hits for Steamworks Berkeley, no quotes. Bay Area Reporter

Size matters as sauna plans to build next door; 10 April 2002. Edinburgh Evening News
Gay sauna legal row’s an open and shut case; 17 May 2002, Brian Ferguson. The Scotsman

Anarchangel (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May be appropriate in a guidebook for gay people visiting Edinburgh. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only indicators of notability fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. The kind of boring-routine news coverage that fills the local news sections on days when nothing really happens. At least in the US, you can find similar local news coverage whenever a strip club or adult video store finds a hole in suburban zoning, when Mrs Murgatroyd gives her annual presentation to the Garden Club on the wonders of edible aspidistra, or the recurrent biographies of the high school football coach (especially in Texas) who wins the league championship every two or three years. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should not be", and this is not, a news story. WP:NOTNEWS forbids articles be written about news reports; it does not preclude news reports from being used as RS, or to show N, as should have been obvious. It is surely sad to someone that you are bored by news. Who knows, maybe they will stumble over your little SOAPBOX about it. Anarchangel (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Leftover cruft from the Ash (talk · contribs) era, should have been tossed long ago. Scant mentions in local sources for multiple "businesses" of the same name do not warrant a disambig; the target articles themselves would never pass notability. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem + assertions of Cruft with no facts (going backwards through the Cruft arms race timeline, we find each and every cruft warrior agrees: WP:Cruftcruftcruft-"editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion which policy it fails and why it fails it.". WP:CRUFT2-"Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be "cruft", should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed.". WP:CRUFT-"this usage is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies")

Local Edinburgh sources? Edinburgh, population .47 million? Please. Anarchangel (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Berkeley, except that it is also across the Bay Bridge from the San Francisco offices of the Bay Area Reporter, and L.A., well, it is pretty big. Which does not really matter, because it is hundreds of miles away from the 'local source' in Sacramento. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the "cruft" name-drop, I actually provided explanation, so your red herring essay linkages kinda fall flat. Is that all you have? Tarc (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more convinced that my arguments were red herrings if you were to point out in what way they were inapplicable. It seems that you are implying that asserting no RS was sufficient to back a claim of Cruft; I was under the distinct impression that that assertion was in fact a claim that a dab page would be inappropriate. I disagree on both counts. You pass directly by my showing that the use of the word 'local sources' to describe news sources serving cities with large populations is misleading; "Is that all you have" is more convincing after such arguments have been addressed. I will address any future handwaving dismissals of multiple arguments as the former deserve; this is the one and only opportunity to avert what I currently see as a necessary change in my dealings with such gaming of the system. Anarchangel (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (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 with no prejudice against recreation if the verifiability issue has been resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Chen, Hubei

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

There is absolutely no assertion as to why this village is considered notable. While places generally will have some notability, nothing is shown here, and I can find none myself. Delete. (If kept, should be moved to ~~Wangchen, Hubei~~Wangchen (no disambiguation necessary) per WP:NC-ZH (that no spacing is required between pinyinized Chinese characters when describing a single entity).) --Nlu (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. I generally feel all villages are notable, but this one may fail WP:V. I can find lots of people named Wang Chen, but no evidence that a place of that name exists. Change to keep if a reliable source can be found. Pburka (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the evidence that the village did exist. Pburka (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm not positive on this. It seems according to googlemaps, "中国湖北省武汉市江夏区汪陈" means Wangchen, Wuhan, Hubei, China. I've even managed to get directions from Wantchen to Hubei. [14]--Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, Google Maps, and for that matter Google Earth, is not always right. There is no Wangchen Village (汪陈村) in Jiangxia District as Google Maps claimed; see this list of all administrative divisions in the district.

Comment: This village (汪陈村) once existed but was merged into some other villages between 2002 and 2005. See the 2002 and 2005 lists of administrative divisions within Tianmen City. As I have shown you that this particular settlement no longer exists as a separate entity, we would have to insert the wording "Wangchen was merged into _ Village(s)". However, CCP decisions regarding administrative merges/upgrades must be sourced. Unless there is sufficient sourcing (which I doubt exists) indicating the merging, this should not be its own article. Lastly, villages usually have at most several hundred people, which would be equivalent to a portion of a Western-style suburban neighbourhood. So, should WP have articles on suburban residential divisions? No, and likewise, villages should not unless they are spread out wide and far in a particular region. Save for notable villages, this sets a dangerous precedent here on WP in terms of coverage. We don't have articles on many of towns in China, and should focus on them first before dealing with the hundreds of thousands of villages. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was once an independent village and now merged with several others, that actually increases the case for inclusion. It's long standing practice and consensus that all population centers no matter what size are notable. Lachine, Quebec was once its own city, but its now part of Montreal but that doesn't mean Lachine is magically non-notable. If it was a village, as you even stated, then most likely Chinese language sources exist. If a similar size village in the United States was up for deletion with English sources easily found, this wouldn't be up for discussion. Don't want to look like we're practicing systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all trying to practise systemic bias...I am of Chinese blood. What I meant by my wording for the sourcing issue was that the CCP, given its size, would probably not care to report on village mergers, which likely occur all the time, as opposed to merging of districts or counties. At most what I could find was a source mentioning that construction of Wangchen occurred for a while in 2009 ("如汪陈村，4月份动工，6月份竣工"), but nothing about merging, which was probably enacted 2003, 2004 or 2005. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our standard practice of keeping articles on villages anywhere in the world that are verified to have existed. In reply to HXL49, deleting this will not magically cause the articles that we should have on larger towns in China to write themselves - Wikipedia is not a zero sum game. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not at all attempting to suggest articles will "magically" write themselves, and I would still prefer that specific mergers are mentioned. Land does not simply disappear. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your comment, "we don't have articles on many of towns in China, and should focus on them first before dealing with the hundreds of thousands of villages". A volunteer happens to have contributed an article on a (former?) village rather than a town. Deleting that article will do nothing to help anyone focus on writing the articles about towns that you rightly say are lacking. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the standard I touched upon earlier still applies. articles on villages really should identify what is notable other than the fact that X village is located in some ___location. I think of WP:INFO here. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Stealthysis (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of apparent notability. Could hardly call a (designated) village of at most several hundred inhabitants notable, especially when comparing it to, say, an equivalent-sized suburban residential neighbourhood, many of which have no articles precisely due to the notability issue. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our guidelines are that any populated place is notable. The problem here is that this place does not seem to be identifiable. If this was a geopolitical area, where is a government map? Unscintillating (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm all for geographic places, but there has to be some notability. There are about 370 mentions of "Wang Chen" in the English Wikipedia and except for this article and the disambiguation page, they all refer to people. Maybe if there was a Wade-Giles spelling some historical mention could be found, but it seems a long shot. Article seems a pretty easy delete. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2011 (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. Big Dom 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hilton (politician)

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

Non-notable unsuccessful politician and blogger. I can't find much coverage of him in reliable sources; he has been mentioned by the media a few times, but I'm doubful that those mentions add up to notability. See [15], [16], [17]. Being a local councillor, standing unsuccessfully for election to Parliament, and contributing to political magazines, aren't enough for notability by themselves; it's necessary to have been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources, and as far as I can tell he hasn't. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Links shows that the article subject has been mentioned in the news....--BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lack GHits and GNEWS of substance. A lot of blog commentary, but appears to lack mainstream media coverage. ttonyb (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnews is not an indicator of notability or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Tell me how "lack of lack mainstream media coverage" is not. ttonyb (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said.. Gnews IS no indicator of notability or not. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Once again, "lack of lack mainstream media coverage" is. ttonyb (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a never ending debate....to delete this article is not the answer.;)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, GHITS isn't supposed to be used as an argument of itself, but its totally acceptable to bring it up as part of a rationale, it's fine to use pragmatically, just not as an absolute determinate of worth (a la the examples on the WP:GHITS page). Repeatedly dismissing a valid comment just because it uses GHITS in part isn't as helpful as suggesting why an internet commentator and blogger isn't well covered on the internet. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesnt change the fact that Gnews hits cant be used as an 100% legitimate reason to say Non-notable as the user does above.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that lack of mainstream news coverage is a significant issue, certainly doesn't seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its all personal opinions. But this is per fact not a clear cut non-notable article subject. And in part he does pass WP:POLITICIAN.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable blogger and unsuccessful politician. I can find sporadic coverage of a few lame stunts he has pulled, a few court cases which hes been involved in and a couple of occassions where hes been quoted as a commentator, but nothing of any substance which is actually about him. Low level of GNEWS and GHITS indicates that I probably havent missed anything, especially since he shares his name with a retired champion boxer, a sports journalist, a quotable police detective and a Microsoft executive.Bob House 884 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if children by the million sing for Alex Hilton when he comes 'round, he's not notable as a politician, and blogging coverage doesn't seem sufficient.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:52, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albie (cartoon)

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

I can information about a book series by this name, and indeed by Andy Cutbill, but I can find no evidence of an animated series. The link where such info can be found is supposedly here (which links to the aforementioned Amazon UK link), but no such info is found at that link. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even bother notifying the author because it's an IP that hasn't been on Wikipedia in almost seven years. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know much about this, but it seems to be real. See [18], [19], [20]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See, that's the confusing thing. Links like that do show up (which are actually all mirrors of each other), but the place where one can actually find info about the show is what I can't locate. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to exist in this form. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is too easy. From the program creator's author page at HarperCollins, which is a major and highly reputable publisher: "Andy also created and developed Albie, the award-winning British animated television show for children."[21] Here's a reference to the program on the BBC website [22]. Here's documentation for one of the awards [23]. Apparently it's being "rested" right now by the network that owns it, but it was running last year [24] and artifacts in the Google search results for Albie + CITV suggest it might even have been aired last month. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This exists in the form specified by the Article - support Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this show has been aired within the UK just over a year ago at the least, and as specified, possibly within the last month. I'm sure Cosgrove Hall would have a field day if you told them this didn't exist :) - If you want proof it exists, I'm sure you'd find this, or this, maybe even this, or a listing on an Online Video Guide as proof. Need anymore proof?Barking Fish 02:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Barkingfish.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I suck at googling. Not convinced that most of the sources like Toonhound or BCDB are reliable, but we've at least verified that it exists now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:40, 2 April 2011 (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 Prime (Transformers). (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy (Transformers)

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

This article fails to demonstrate like Emperor of Destruction why it is notable without reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick search found numerous third party references to the term. I added some to the article. Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prime (Transformers), since it's really just a different language equivalent and the title is applied to all the same characters. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a true statement. Nitro Convoy is not called Nitro Prime in the US, she's Override. Flame Convoy isn't Flame Prime, he's Scourge, Live Convoy isn't Live Prime, he's Evac, Big Convoy is simply Big Convoy in the US, meanwhile the US character of Vector Prime is called VECTOR PRIME in japan... I don't see how you can say "Prime" and "Convoy" mean the same thing. I've given 5 examples of where it is NOT the same thing. Mathewignash (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Transformers character lists. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prime (Transformers). While there are exceptions, "Primes" in Western fiction are "Convoys" in Japanese fiction and vice versa. The exceptions could be noted in a paragraph. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Both articles prominently and unambigously state that they are discussing the same thing 'Convoy is the Japanese Equivalent of Prime.', 'The Japanese equivalent of Prime is Convoy.' Assuming thats true I think theres only room for one article and naming conventions & I think relevant canon (although I've never really liked Transformers too much) says it should be Prime. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important character. Many notable references to him. Stickee (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to note that, according to the article, 'Convoy' is not a character at all, but a title or honourific applied to fictional characters - sort of like 'Grand Moff' Tarkin in Star Wars. Bob House 884 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Changed !vote. Stickee (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prime (Transformers) It's just an equivalent term. Stickee (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you know if might make sense to take this and a lot of other Transformers terms (many of which have been deleted already) and make one article called List of Transformers terms. Mathewignash (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2011 (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.