Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 10 December	12 December >

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. v/r - T P 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Marangoni

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

The tagged banner at the top complete's the summary of what is wrong with the page. You can clearly see the user has tried to put an infobox but failed to clearly define the infobox correctly. In my opinion I do not think the user intends to add much more to the article or even clean it up to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Adamdaley (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the keeping or deleting of this article on the grounds of being a poorly cited biography of a living person (which is what I think the {{multiple issues}} tag on the page is trying to imply, among other problems), but "inexperienced user failing to completely and correctly implement a relatively complex piece of markup language" is a strange reason to call for the deletion of an article, as is making assumptions about the aforementioned inexperienced user's (who I've only just {{welcome}}d and informed of this discussion) intentions and understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- saberwyn 05:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the comments of saberwyn above. Inexperienced user may also not have had English as a first language. However, having had a dig through, I don't see sufficiently notability under the criteria set out in WP:AUTHOR. But appreciate that English language sources may be limited - anyone who is fluent in Portugese want to chip in? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:AUHTOR. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:35, 19 December 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 Dev Anand. TigerShark (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romancing with Life

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

fails to meet notability criteria. Disputed prod noq (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous mentions in reliable sources, including reviews. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dev Anand, unless it's expanded. There are plenty of sources, but most of them are limited to the book's launch and the recent death of the writer. The article has just two sentences, and doesn't need a separate page. utcursch | talk 06:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's clearly a potential to expand this article, see the sources provided by G-News archives. Wikipedia is a work in progress and we shouldn't delete articles just because they are incomplete. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with subject, as per complete lack of references. None of the google news hits seem to be people who're actually reviewing the thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 9 December 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Stuartyeates. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I took a good look at all the ghits, gnews, gnews archives, etc. and just can't find more than trivial coverage of the book. Every article mentions it in passing either due to the author's death, or the elaborate release parties held. I can't find a single review, despite quite a bit of trying, and in contrast to the assertions of other editors above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:53, 15 December 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 redirect to The Metro School. v/r - T P 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Program

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

Notability questionable, might be called Mosaic now. - Roy Boy 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't even make a claim of notability – this is an education system developed and used by only one school in Columbus, Ohio. A quick search reveals no sources. Has a whiff of promotion about it for the school in question. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none reliable source are established; and the article is written poorly. Regardless a sentences like: “Christopher Program has also in the past been involved in the Model United Nations as well as the Model United Arab Leagues.” have some potential to keep the article, unless good references are found. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sufficient assertion of notability, and I don't see any sign of rescuing it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Metro School. See Metro - Mosaic and Educational Council websites. Quote from Metro School site: "Mosaic, formerly known as Christopher Program, was founded in 1990 and has been recognized as one of Ohio’s Best Practices by Ohio’s Education Partnership. " --George100 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 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. Will WP:USERFY if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Sar Zameen (film)

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

The page is unsourced and doesn't appear to be in production so it fails WP:NFF Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, neither any sources are cited. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The author's own "More updates soon" at the page bottom let's us know he wants a placeholder while he continues working on the article. To that, I would be quite happy with userfying it back to him at User:Umargarcia/draft/Pak Sar Zameen (film) as he works. For now, and specially lacking sources, it is simply too soon for mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. No objection to userfication, though there is not much to userfy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't object to Userfication as well as long as the author specifically states that they will keep it as a subpage until they have improved it and until production starts of the film. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:53, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon

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

Fails WP:ORG. I suggest userfication the page. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I am really struggling to see sufficient notability, but I know we are normally soft on charities. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely promotional article about a local charity of borderline importance. Almost a G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and DGG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:37, 19 December 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 redirect to DIKW. v/r - T P 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy of knowledge

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009, and as original research since 2007. Searches reveal mostly mirrors to this article or unrelated topics. Ideas presented in this article appear to be entirely OR. George100 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One could make something of it but the title is not a good one and we have the article Branches of science, which is better. See here for a source. Warden (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or possibly redirect to Branches of science. Not exact, I know. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DIKW. original research. —Ruud 10:41, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sissel & Odd

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

Two solo artists making one record together does not establish a duo Orland (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletion rationale is non-sensical; indeed, it is common for established artists to come together and form a new band, temporarily or permanently - there is no established principal that we ignore it. For examples, compare Gnarls Barkley, or ABBA, or any of the bands listed at Supergroup (music). RichardOSmith (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed "common for established artists to come together and form a new band"; but that is not the case here, and there a no reliable sources to the idea that this one record collaberation is the beginning of a new band. My first argument is therefore lack of sources to the idea that their collaberation is the forming of a "new band".
  My second argument is that the existance of the article is based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of artist collaberation. Some comparitions: Johnny Cash has made several duet albums with other well known artists, but it would not be right of wikipedia to speak of Johnny & Tammy (or Johnny & Waylon or Johnny & Willie) as an established duo, would it? Not to mention how many new duos we could make out of albums like this one. Bw --Orland (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You presumably agree that some collaborations, such as Gnarls Barkley, do warrant their own articles (maybe you do not - your deletion rationale is that established artists forming duos have no inherent notability - but whether you do or not - consensus is that they do), and I agree with you that (obviously) there are other collaborations that do not. The question is, on which side does this duo fall? As it had a number one album and top twenty single in Norway, I don't think there is any doubt that it is notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I agree that some collaborations do warrant their own articles. But only if it proven by reliable sources that there is a collaboration that goes beyond that one album. You might have misunderstood my argument: It is of course possible for etablished artists to form new duos, but there is no proof that there has been formed a new duo in this case; all we can see is a one album collaberation between two major norwegian artists, very much like the Cash collaberation projects i refered to.
      You must allow me the benefit of playing on home ground here. I read norwegian newspapers daily, and I can assure you; there has not been any "What will be their next project together"-discussions in the media, and there is no common understanding in Norway that they now form an established duo. They made one record together in 2009, and march 2010 was the last mention of the term "Sissel & Odd" in the papers, that was in connection with the norwegians grammy Spellemannprisen for 2009. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which Wikipedia guideline or policy requires that the collaboration "goes beyond one album"? What we have here is (a) a collaboration that is notable (unlike some of your other examples) - as shown by the fact it produced a number one album (WP:BAND #2), and (b) no requirement for ongoing coverage (WP:NTEMP). According to inclusion guidelines the article qualifies. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, there is no doubt that there has been a collaboration; but the raison d'etre of the article is that the two artists are defined as a duo in the lead in-sentence, and there are no sources for that. IMHO being a duo means that a) the two agree to define themselves as a exclusive duo for a period of time, b) perform or record together.
        I fail to se the difference between this collaboration and my examples; at least two of the three mentioned Cash collaborations reached the charts.
        Concerning the inclusion guidelines: Should it not be responsibility to those in favour of keep to supply the article with good references? My claim still stands: We need sources to prove that this is a duo. --Orland (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. They might be next Simon & Garfunkel, but a short collaboration is not encyclopedic on its own... yet. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BAND #2 says that, in this case, it is. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The purpose of that rule is IMHO to make one hit wonders notable. There is no doubt that both Ms Kyrkjebø and Mr Nordstoga are notable in their own right; the matter of this discussion is whether they form an ensemble or not. I haven't met anyone in Norway who believe that they are. And then we're back with Johnny & Waylon. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Scandinavian coverage seems significant and Stralande jul was certified Gold in Sweden ((P.6) IFPI Sweden). Is there enough encyclopedic info in those sources to create an article? H & Claire (from Steps) also only recorded one album. Mattg82 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there was media coverage; these two are norwegian megastars, and they made a bestselling record together. But that is not the issue. In the case of H & Claire the article explicitely says that they "formed the duo". That is not the case here. The only raison d'etre for this article is claim that Sissel & Odd are a norwegian duo, which it is not. Why don't we take a look at some primary sources, like The Official Sissel Webpage, section "Musical family". Where is the alleged duo? --Orland (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this collaboration is something like what Robert Plant & Alison Krauss did? More like a duet than a duo ? If yes, I am voting Delete. The album Strålande jul will have all the info about this collaboration. Mattg82 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - To the point, exactly: "More like a duet than a duo" . Yes, that sums it up. Bw Orland (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I like this example as it clarifies the deletion rationale for me - thank you! However, whilst I more clearly see why there is a case for deletion, I remain of the opinion that the case for keep is much stronger. There are some good reasons why this particular comparison does not sway me:

Whilst we were citing some examples before to show a general trend; one specific case is not really indicative of anything, per WP:WAX. And even if there is'nt a Robert Plant and Alison Krauss article, that does not necessarily mean there couldn't be, (unless it has been tested at AfD already). Perhaps there should be.
There is a subtle, but perhaps important, difference. We are not discussing the Sissel Kyrkjebø and Odd Nordstoga article, we are discussing the Sissel & Odd article. The album and single are not simply attributed to the two individual artists, a new name for the duo has aparrently been created.

RichardOSmith (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesn't claim there is a long-term partnership, it simply describes the notable 2009 collaboration. The product was a multi-platinum selling album, attributed to "Sissel & Odd", that surely must have received sustained coverage. Again, rather than encouraging someone to find better sources and develop the article, we have an editor trying to delete an article completely. The resons for deletion are erroneous. Sionk (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to delete this article because it is describing something unexisting, and therefore without any sources. The difference between a duet and a duo has already been discussed. --Orland (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, change the word 'duo' to 'duet' or 'collaboration', which would be a far more constructive approach than trying to get an article deleted on grounds of semantics. Sionk (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agree with Orland. Individually they may be notable, but not as a duo. Their collaborative effort (e.i. the album) may be notable, so just move the info to Strålande jul and keep a redirect to it. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:51, 19 December 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. v/r - T P 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Said Shavershian

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

Not notable at all. All sources are linked to formspring or articles about his brother. Alpha Editor (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bodybuilder who briefly hit the news due to steroid use. I've never been much of a fan of the WP:BLP1E reason for deletion, however this also lacks a credible assertion of notability ("internet celebrity"? Please.). Assertion of notability is one of the iron-clad inclusion criteria, therefore, delete. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BLP1E doesn't apply for two events, (Steroid use; Death of his brother ~ which brought him in the middle of it) -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Formspring is only used as a source, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Other than some editors failing to read the sources, this article has multiple sources from The Daily Telegraph (Australia), The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald. This was not just from one event (steroid use) but played a role in the death of his brother too. Oh and "Internet Celebrity" just so happens to be the Sydney Morning Herald's words - not mine. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Moved to:[reply]
Delete - It's good to know when to stop, and so I will call it a day, for the article. If one day the individual does run into media, like he's already done, I have it saved in a Word document ~ I'll recreate, by all means. With respect to Worm, I oppose a merge, as it may eat into the quality of Aziz's article. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my vote, I've great respect for the amount of work you have put into the article, considering the topic. He may well become notable, his brother certainly is and if you ever need it userfication, then give me a shout. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am just not seeing it - he got busted for steroid possession (like a zillion other amateur body builders) and his brother died of a heart attack? Where is the notability? It is supposed to flow from his internet persona? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I find any discussion on such people inane and stupid, in the same way as I imagine Legis and Yeti Hunter... The issue here is WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - the significant coverage is about his brother.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And his (Said) steroid use. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, your assertion of notability for Mr Shavershian is that he uses steroids and his brother died?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look you may twist around the article's words as much as you want, but maybe read the article and the sources, to get a more understanding of the bigger picture. Also, on a seperate note, he never seems to avoid media attention...[1] (Network Ten news) -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recreational drugs too! It gets better!--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious or sarcastic - I'm sarcastic like 99% of the time, and I still can't tell if someone else is. Wow. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, the only thing he has ever done was get a $400 fine for using steroids - less than you might get for an unpaid parking fine. He was not involved in his brother's death (who is only known for dying in slightly unusual circumstances anyway), but one article on his brother commented that Said had been convicted of using steroids - maybe to suggest that his brother's death may have been connected to steroid use - with a quote taken from Facebook by Said about how he missed him (most of the links in the article about his brother's death don't even mention Said). This means that the first hit on Google for Said is now this article about how he had a small fine for steroid use. I don't understand why Wikipedia expects major criminals to be "renowned international or national figures" before they are allowed an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRIMINAL#CRIM but it can have one on someone almost unknown who was fined $400 for steroids. --120.151.202.171 (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

First off both Shavershian's are starring in The National Road Trip (Please examine the channel - although it's on YT, don't be fooled) -The show is part of Filmotion Productions - Cast memebers have explicitly called it a "TV show" ~ According to FMA it's not, but, "This video production was produced originally as an online video for youtube. Because of its ongoing success on youtube we're looking at continuing our production as a web series. More is yet to come on a weekly basis." Now I have no idea if FMA is "notable" ~ this is the only article I found in Google archives, mentioning the production company: [2]
"A pin-up boy of the amateur bodybuilding scene has been fined $400 and ordered to pay $79 in court costs for possession of anabolic steroids." SMH ~ Pin-up (According to web definitions, is: "cover girl: a very pretty girl who works as a photographer's model." - In this case it's for a "boy".) ~ so maybe he's "notable" for his looks?
According to Shavershian's fan-page on facebook (which has 30,500+ fans ~ a non-notable person with that many fans?) The above SMH article in dotpoint 2, even mentions his large fan-base. [3] More fans on Facebook than Australian TV reporters: Melissa Doyle ([4]), Grant Denyer ([5]) ... More fans than Australian shoows, "The Morning Show" ([6]), Today Tonight ([7]) -- Said even has more fans than Liberal Leader Tony Abbott ([8]) (which to me is no surprise.. ;) ). I know Facebook is really informal ~ but it just shows where he is on the world's largest social network site.
Sources call Both Shavershians "Ameteur bodybuilders" - even though they don't compete ~ they simply show their body's around.
I know this might not mean a lot but, Said has appeared on: Network Ten; ABC ([9]), Sydney Morning Herald (multiple times; [10]); News.com.au ([11]); The Daily Telegraph (Australia) ([12]).
So - Keeping per: WP:ENT ~ has notability; fan base; in a production of some sort. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" that makes him an entertainer? The "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"? Or the "large fan base or a significant "cult" following" based on the number of Facebook friends? I presume you are going for Facebook, because appearing in a YouTube show about his brother isn't going to pass the other two. I can't see how you can classify him as an entertainer based on the number of friends on Facebook. --120.151.202.171 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by what media sources have reported. One source even mentions his large facebook fan base. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article demonstrates notability via sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.84.38 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Lets break this down. Both Sydney Morning Herald sources are about him being fined for steroid use. The Daily Telegraph source mentions his father and Said talking about the death of Zyzz. The second Daily Telegraph article mentions him once, and not even by name. Just said Zyzz, his brother, lived with his parents and his brother. The Ninemsn article does not even mention Said. The Age article again, talks about his brother, with comments from family. I'm sure its common practice for newspapers to include comments from family members in regards to deaths, yet those family members, and most time victims, don't get articles. The only thing about Said himself is his steroid use and him being fined. That is not notable. If anything, add a blurb about him in his brothers wikipage. He is not notable enough for his own article. Alpha Editor (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without wanting to rehash the above arguments, notability hasn't been shown to my satisfaction in the press coverage, and WP:ENT doesn't seem relevant. When the subject achieves fame for something other than a court appearance and the death of his brother, an article may be appropriate. That time hasn't yet come. (Also - does the article really benefit from listing the bodybuilders he admires?) Colon el Tom 02:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Aziz Shavershian. I commend the editors who've managed to make an article which will likely be such a target for vandalism and keep it in a quality state, but it really doesn't pass our general notability guidelines minor criminal fines don't make you notable, nor does having a mildy well known brother. The sources generally only mention Said in passing, focusing on the brother. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:00, 19 December 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. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Nguyen (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was No evidence of appearance in a fully professional league, per this, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in Ligue 2. However, his LFP profil puts his lifetime appearances in the top two divisions in France at zero. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He either fails WP:FOOTY or is sufficiently close to failing that I can't see any serious argument over keeping him. It is not a bright white line that once you cross it you get a Wikipedia article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He played for Reims in National (third tier), but not higher. [13] Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who contested the PROD because he played one game for CS Sedan Ardennes while they were in Ligue 2. Shouldn't that make him notable because he played in a fully professional league? Can someone explain to me what I am missing? Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 00:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content claiming he has played for Sedan Ardennes is false. If you look at his player profile published by the Ligue de Football Professionnel (see link in nomination rationale), you'll see that he has not played in Ligue 2. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 17 December 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. At the very least, deletion is out. Whether or not a merge should occur is a editorial matter outside of AfD and can continue to be discussed locally on the appropriate talk pages. –MuZemike 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming conspiracy theory

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

In theory, of course, one can have an article on conspiracy theories. However, what one can't have is a long, BLP-violating (specific people are named as part of the conspiracy theory, without attempt at balance) article that actively promotes a conspiracy theory.

The group of articles this is a part of is already extremely bloated, containing literally hundreds of articles. Much of this content is already available at Global warming controversy and Climate change denial, but told from a neutral view there, and from a promotional view here. As such, this is largely a WP:POVFORK, though one which may contain a small amount of content worth trying to save, however, it would need a fundamental reframing and reworking, and an elimination of the WP:BLP issues.

As well, the article does not deal with a single conspiracy theory, but simply serves to rehash a number of isolated attacks made against global warming.

As I said, there may be a small amount of salvageable content, but this article gives a number of non-notable one-off conspiracy theories WP:undue weight. Some of these may be notable enough to include as part of Climate change denial, and, to handle this, I'd suggest making the article into a fully protected redirect, instead of outright immediate deletion, in order to allow an attempt to salvage material by merger into a more appropriate place.

As such, allow me to begin with voting Delete and merge any salvageable content to Climate change denial. 86.** IP (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick note: Unfortunately, due to the absolutely abyssmal editing environment of the entire set of Global warming articles, I do not believe it possible to do a merge without going through AfD; a number of editors are willing to engage in obstructionist behaviour, even with an AfD and DRV-mandated merge, it would be impossible to move forwards without a mandate. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Climate_change_alarmism. While my view is slightly more nuanced than a simple delete, given the experience at that article, this seems the best process.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork, not worth saving. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what content? Please read WP:POV fork, and then specify where the fork came from, and what content we have that is duplicated with another POV. The assertions of 86.** doesn't hold water, since none of his articles have the same or similar content. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've never actually read WP:POVFORK, have you? It doesn't have to "come from" anywhere: "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) [emphasis added] is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." There is no requirement that they fit the criteria you propose. 86.** IP (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i have read POV fork, several times. In a nutshell: To be a POV fork, 2 things have to have happened: A) Similar content must exist (with another POV). B) Article must be written deliberately as POV (ie. in WP:BADFAITH). When claiming POV-forking, you are casting aspersions at the editors who created the article, and the ones who are editing at the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It explicitly does not: "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article." That directly contradicts everything you just said. 86.** IP (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do please read the 2nd paragraph of WP:POV fork, since you seem to fail to acknowledge it. Content forks happen all the time, but stating that it is a POV fork is an assumption of bad faith. Which POV does the article hold? (this is a question that you do not address) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination. 86.** has done no editing, no discussion, or any attempts of improving the article in question. He asserts that it is a WP:POV fork, but when examined, the content that he is referring to is not similar. When stating that the article is a BLP violation, he doesn't give examples, but instead asserts that because people are named, it must be a violation, no matter whether references support the namings. In fact it seems as if 86.**'s nominations is purely based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally the hatted part is simply unacceptable, it ignores WP:AGF and casts aspersions at his fellow editors. It is not a particularly good article, it could do with a lot of improvement, which hopefully will ensue from this nomination. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it worth responding to blatant personal attacks. 86.** IP (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I agree with Kim. Please invert your ratio

Time-and-text spent drafting improved text

--------------------------------------------------

Time-and-text spent complaining and arguing.

You seem to want readers to reject climate change denialism. I suggest the solution to bad information is good information, provided when editors like you actually write better article text. Trying to convince the rest of us to pretend the bad information does not exist in the first place is futile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I forgot the context... in the climate articles I watch, unless I missed it, which is possible, you have only proposed draft ALTERNATIVE text once. The preferred solution is usually not just deleting controversial stuff, but revising it in a neutral manner. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's around a hundred global waerming articlesþ. At least 75% of those are mediocre to awful. First, we need to et rid of the worst, so that resources can be put into improving the more salvagable. 86.** IP (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can be convinced that recreational argument is not your primary goal only by your significant editorial efforts to improve whichever "awful" climate article you think is "most salvageable". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please! This is very unhelpful. I have also been doing a trawl through global warming related articles, and I also find that there are many that need attention. We need to get the Climate Change Taskforce working on this. It's an area where Wikipedia's quality is going to be scrutinised by the general public, so we need to get focused. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a huge amount of time in the last week doing a merge, and adapting and fixing up content. I then got pages of attacks because I supposedly didn't discuss enough before doing a relatively simple merge. You can't winm, because if you discuss, you're told to edit, but if you edit, you get attacked. 86.** IP (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you've spent time trying to shoehorn climate change alarmism into media coverage of climate change which is a totally unsuitable place for it and expect people to be thankful to you for that? There's a word for that except I think you actually believe you are improving the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- Last I checked, "delete and merge" was still not a legally allowable choice. I've no problem with a merge to the appropriate article.Umbralcorax (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? And what article would that be to please? Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming seems like an obvious choice. If there's a sub-article where it might be more appropriate, then it can go there instead. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Encyclopedia of Global Warming has significant coverage of conspiracy theories by that title which demonstrates the notability and encyclopedic nature of the topic. Once again 86.** IP's nomination seems overbold, contrary to deletion policy and Arbcom guidance. This editor seems to be an account of a former editor of this topic area and this seems improper for a topic area which is plagued by sockpuppets. Warden (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fairly clearly an encyclopedic presentation of an encyclopedic topic. Plenty of sources showing. Not a POV fork, to my eye. The POV Warriors need to learn how to discuss and agree upon neutral presentation — blowing this up at AfD isn't the answer. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Amen. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Userfy. Bad POV problems not a sufficient reason for deletion. Merge discussion can be held separately re Climate change denial, and at a later time. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Global warming controversy. There isn't one single conspiracy theory, but a number of distinct allegations, the most notable appearing not in a non-fiction book but in a novel. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook POV fork. There is nothing new here, and it certainly doesn't warrant an article, especially since the article seems to exist to promote an absurd fringe view. eldamorie (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this isn't a fork of global warming controversy which is principally about scientific objections about it and any mitigation. It isn't a fork of climate change denial either unless you can show most people do this for money rather than just being conspiracy theorists. Could people please try and distinguish between describing a notable if strange views in a neutral manner and actual POV of editors where they try making sure only their point of view is reported in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge what is salvageable to global warming controversy, per Judith. Inherently pejorative title covering content that's better handled elsewhere and will inevitably be a POV fork. Realistically, "conspiracy theory" should be a short section in the "controversy" page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say Climate change denial as the target; that's the one that covers the media campaigns and similar attempts to distort perceptions. 86.** IP (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Denial is no more than loosely connected to conspiracy-theory. The first is ignoring what is being said, then second is acknowledging what is being said but stating that it is a conspiracy/ulterior motives that makes "them" say so. Both are disconnected to scepticism as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denial is the specific statement that X doesn't exist. Conspiracy is an explanation for the existence of the alleged X. Denialists use conspiracy theories to explain away the reasoning and existence of arguments against denialism. Ergo, I see it as a good place for the information worth keeping to go, in terms of "X deny that climate change exists, explaining the existence of the IPCC and their results as a conspiracy theory. Y agency and Z expert points out how this is not the case." I see it as a nice way of mentioning and contextualizing things while still giving due weight to the experts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denial on its own does mean that but in the context of climate change and in scholarly work it normally refers to something a bit more specific as described in the first sentence there 'Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons'. It is perfectly possible for such a denier to believe global warming is happening due to human action. Putting this stuff there would be saying that the conspiracy theories are made up by people for commercial or ideological reasons rather than that they actually believe there is a conspiracy. Is there any indication that the majority of these people are just making up these theories for such reasons and do not necessarily believe them? Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"CLOSE and refer to merge process as supplmented by any needed dipsute resolution processes Reason, 86's original proposal is a merge, and 86 admits this is packaged as an AFD to short-circuit the collaborative techniques for merging-by-consensus, e.g. WP:MERGE and WP:DISPUTE. That was [86s own statement, but I will go further to characterize the statement as soundly a lot like contempt for his fellow editors. On option, I suppose, is to just let the AFD run given all the editor input. However, in my view, this is an important teachable moment about wiki consensus and respect for each other in a collaborative environment. Allowing the misguided AFD to result in a decision would be to reward the contempt that led us here instead of to merge & dispute resolution, and to invite a repeat AFD. Please do not let AFD be co-opted in this manner. People need to be compelled to use the WP:DISPUTE procedures. What follows was my vote before I clearly understood that the AFD packaging was designed to get a holy mandate and just skip over the usual merge-with-dispute-resolution process everyone else is expected to use. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Google returns over 640,000 hits on "global warming conspiracy". Therefore, I do not see how this article's title is pejorative and it covers a concept very much in the public eye. Honest scientists questioning the science are skeptics. People who for whatever reason ignore or simply reject the science out of hand are in denial. What we have here is an article that goes beyond that. The statements covered by this article go to outright malfeasance... professional or legal misconduct, conducted by nearly the entire global scientific community. If we assume those nerds really do want to score massive grants and advancement as their detractors claim, then their holy grail is to produce data and analysis that turns the global paradigm on its head. No one has managed to do that and if they were able to do so, tenure and funding are assured and they may be looking at a Nobel prize. Unless, of course, the entire scientific and academic community worldwide is in on the conspiracy (making one wonder what sort of dirty money can buy that loyalty) or else the allegations of conspiracy really are just an unproven theory. Yet Google has over 600,000 hits on the specific phrase "global warming conspiracy". So of course the article belongs here, and requires accurate NPOV reporting. If anyone does not like the presentation of the topic, they are free to suggest ways to betterify it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. Your claims aren't really relevant to a deletion debate as they appear to be your personal beliefs about climate change (specifically that the existence of climate change is a conspiracy rather than a reality). Wikipedia is not a forum to engage in debate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect NewsAndEventsGuy may be being sarcastic, though I'm not really sure what his point is, if so. If he'd clarify a bit? 86.** IP (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I have the subtlety of an unusually unsubtle brick. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If ya'll think I am a denialist it says volumes about your attention to sources (ROTF). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were, but wasn't sure what your argument to keep is, behind the sarcasm, so... 86.** IP (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is prima facie. There was no intended innuendo, sarcasm, or hidden meaning. Just read the text in B&W please. And if it is still unclear read it again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Keep As Kim said: Bad faith nomination (etc.) 86** seems to be on a crusade to delete climate change articles, repeatedly initiating disruptive battles (such as these AfDs), accuses others of bad faith, and has been shown to be prone to misinterpretation and misstatement. He lacks credibility, his charges are tiresome and should be dismissed out of hand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly think this accusation holds water when other people have said it should be deleted. 86.** IP (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am pleased to say that I am on a crusade to delete (more precisely, to merge) climate change articles (more precisely, articles about the controversy). There are too many of them, which makes it difficult to maintain quality. I think exactly the same about history of Israel-Palestine conflict, transhumanism, astrology, and many other areas where I wade in. I don't think "bad faith nomination" is a convincing argument to keep an article. We will make more progress if we assume good faith all around. Series of articles arise rather haphazardly. An article gets too long and someone starts another and then perhaps the two overlap, and then another gets created. Sometimes a cull is productive. Fewer articles, more concise, more focused.... more informative. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can point to where it should be merged that would help. Or perhaps you would like to do something 'useful' like helping 86.** IP 'merge' climate change alarmism into Media coverage of climate change? Or are you just glad to remove anything which doesn't say the mainstream position every second sentence and don't really care if it is notable and not a fork? Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said above where I thought it should be merged, but I'm open to argument. See on FTN that I have gone through the whole category and posted my comments on each article - this is an attempt to get more eyes on the series of articles and get them neat and logical, so we no longer have these "fork of what", "merge to where" diversions. And I am currently doing a full systematic literature search of the journals on all the climate change denial/scepticism discussion. It is taking a while as you might expect but in the end I will show that there is a substantial body of political science and sociology to inform these articles. You can do some searching yourself if you want. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So saying merge to what is a diversion? Great. That's really constructive. You said you wanted a merge. Shouldn't you be fairly clear about where you'd merge to and what the result would basically look like? I'd have thought you could at least look at the articles you talk about if you're going to spend all this effort yourself on looking through the literature, and by the way the citations could save you some trouble. Dmcq (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said, I already said where to merge. And I said I posted to FTN the result of having gone through the whole category of articles. There are too many articles about the global warming debate. We are not fulfilling our remit of informing readers. What citations could save me some trouble? Oh, perhaps you mean I should start by looking at the works already cited in our articles? No, because our articles are out of date. Instead I searched in ISI and found dozens of articles from 2010 and 2011. For example: Whitmarsh, L., "Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time" GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS Volume: 21 Issue: 2 Pages: 690-700 DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016. MAY 2011. That sort of thing. Any good? Are you actually interested in this encyclopedia providing reliable information about the future of the planet? Or do you have some quite different, unacknowledged agenda? I am really starting to wonder. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious Judith, at to why you would select that article to reference, since doesn't make any mentioning of conspiracy (or even come close to the topic at hand? It is basically an examination of public opinion in Britain. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{od} I agree the climate articles could be improved. In particular, the excellent content in the article titled "global warming controversy" is only a small slice of full scope suggested by that title. IMO, many of the problems being debated here could be at least partially cleared up by retitling the current content of that article, and then reusing that title (global warming controversy) as some sort of navigation or disambig page for the many other topics that could be called "global warming controversy". For example, see this way. I am not pursuing it at present so if anyone else wants to bring it back from the archives, please do.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that article does cover what the scientists and most of the public see as the controversy plus quite a bit of the darker side as it were. Most of its content is devoted to the stuff actual real skeptics have put forward and it has references to subtopics on most of what it covers. It might be possible to get more of a disambiguation page and split that article up a bit. I fail to see how that helps here where you have a load of these fringe theory noticeboard people come along with a mission to expunge all non scientific thought. They seem to think that everything plus the kitchen sink ought to be put into the current global warming controversy article, or really in my opinion they just don't care where it goes provided the article disappear even though it is easily shown to be a notable topic. It can't go in the current article and if you had a disambiguation you'd need an article like the current one to contain it and the main content of global warming controversy would be in another article. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge due to WP:N. This is such an absurd and obscure conspiracy theory that it does not warrant separate coverage at this length. For example, how many people on Earth really believe that all the organisations and individuals listed really have met together and conspired to make up all this peer-reviewed science and other evidence? (The United Nations (The whole of the UN??), The Bilderberg Group, The Club of Rome, Green Cross International, Al Gore, Jacques Chirac, Maurice Strong, George Soros and Mikhail Gorbachev!) This is absurd, and unworthy of such serious coverage in a serious encyclopedia. It fails WP:N via the "Significant coverage" and "Independent of the subject" clauses, as well as lack of serious secondary sources generally. --Nigelj (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was an AWESOME characterization of the absurdity of the conspiracy theory. But fact remains there is still a lot of hollering about it. If we were to cover it properly, it would be readily apparent how absurd it is. If we do not cover it at all, then the hollering will still be there but without good wiki NPOV coverage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Leiserow(2005)[14] roughly 7% of the American public (~12 mio.) are "nay-sayers", amongst these there are 5 major categories 1. its natural 2. its hyped, 3.theres no proof, 4. denial, and 5. conspiracy theorists. Although Leiserow doesn't specify the respective sizes of the categories - #5 is large enough to make a distinct grouping. So, there are are significant number of such conspiracy theorists in the US at least. (my guess >1mio. but that is pure guessing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, George? Mikhail here. Can you get onto the UN and get them to produce some more extreme weather events in Europe? There are some people in Arkansas starting to doubt Global Warming again." "Yeah, OK. Jacques was trying to get The Club of Rome to publish some new graphs. Are any of those guys still working for us?" I mean, where is the serious coverage that anyone actually thinks this is going on? It's an article about a fantasy, built on top of a dream, that didn't happen in a delusion, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge So many poor articles. So little time. :) The melange of global warming/climate change ... theories/conspiracy theories articles is a haven per se for fights on Wikipedia. It is past time to winnow the topics to the main areas, and devil take the hindmost. While the main areas are abslutely notable, this does not mean each potential sub-topic is equally notable. Collect (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So many people from the fringe theory noticeboard just jumping in to back each other up. Read Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Global_warming_conspiracy_theory and figure out if you think they have actually read even the first sentences from the articles. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell how you associate me with that noticeboard? I suspect your answer should be quite illuminating, indeed. <g> Collect (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From that you were on that noticeboard a few weeks ago when the stuff about that other climate change article came up. That 'FRINGE' seems to come up a lot in your list of contributions. That you turned up at that deletion debate when you don't seem to frequent deletion debates or climate change articles. That you then subsequently turned up at this one. That you just say 'merge' like the others without having any indication you have checked what they say about the target. I hope that is illuminating. <+g> ROFL etc Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! Care to tell the editors here how many of my 20K edits are on "fringe" topics? You make an allegation - kindly back it up. Yes - I do appear on many hundreds of MfD dscussions - and my inclusionist beliefs for userspace are known, and if you consider that "fringe" - so be it. And since I read the article, and saw how poorly written it is, my !vote is fully as well-informed as anyone's. Now will you either show the others here how many "fringe" edits I have made? Or admit you are "pushing the envelope" a bit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you saw how poorly written it is - and vote to merge? With what? And why? 'So many poor articles. So little time. :)' I see that's amusing to you too but I have not heard poorly written as a reason to delete notable articles before nor that there were lots of other articles unless they were shown to be forks of the same subject. I gave my reasons like you asked. ROFL is not an answer. So how exactly did you end up here then if not through that route? Don't you think climate change has enough people with a mission trying to delete or angle things without having a bunch of people who don't seem to have even read the target article saying merge to it? Dmcq (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - so your accusations of me frequenting FRINGE are abandoned without even any sort of apology? ROFL! If one sees a really poor article in an area which has hundreds of articles, then Merge is an absolutely proper position to take. I am here, if anything, because I have well over two thousand entries on my Watch list. Did you understand that a person with well over two thousand watch list entries is seeing a great many conversations implicit therein? BTW, I have now read several dozen of the "climate change" articles (including the one you seem to think I did not reead), and I would likely !vote to "merge" a substantial number thereof. Collect (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to say where you came to it from of those 2000 watch list entries if you didn't come that way. That should be a very easy question for you to answer. Did you just read Itsmejudith's flawed summary of articles at the fringe noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? My User page lists several hundred BLPs I follow. I follow TfD, MfD, DRV, AfD, CfD and a few other boards including RS/N, AN, AN/I, BLP/N, NPOV/N and over a dozen others, on the order of a hundred editor talk pages, all the ArbCom pages, every page in recent memory on which I edited or posted on the article talk page, etc. In point of fact, it is quite likely that this article etc. are noted on a dozen or so of the pages I follow - to which the answer is "so what?" - it is clear that your allegation about me editing FRINGE articles was absolutely meritless, and that should be quite enough. Collect (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no point in persisting I suppose. Dmcq (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect part of the cabal now. ROTFL. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about fixing your stuff at that noticeboard where for instance you talk about moving the science bit of Global warming controversy to Scientific opinion of climate change? After all you said above you want to be be rid of these "fork of what", "merge to where" diversions. Or do you really think scientific opinion is about results in science papers? Maybe looking at Scientific evidence would help - that describes what is in global warming and a lot of global warming controversy. Or how about your remark "probably not a good idea to have an article on one extreme position in a debate" about climate change denial? So exactly how are you going to balance that? Do your thing of 'merge to global warming controversy' again? And on that point have you looked yet at helping 86.** IP with his merge of merging climate change alarmism into media coverage of climate change since it doesn't look like it fits into global warming controversy? Or is ROTFL the extent of your useful dialogue and you can't be bothered to deal with actual problems? Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only today I can't be bothered to do anything much at all. Next I am going to go through and make some bold but entirely justifed edits to a number of climate change debate articles. Probably tomorrow. Then watch me do the same in the astrology walled garden, the transhumanism walled garden (including ensuring that the white-supremacist eugenicist dimension is exposed), the evolutionary psychology walled garden, some other fringe walled gardens, and history of Nazism where the eugenics connection is not yet clear. Possibly also some bold stuff on some stalled Israel-Palestine articles, where Collect and I might not be so closely aligned as here, but we will see. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to put effort elsewhere. I'm asking you to fix your own stuff that you said you were putting some effort into which was to get an overall view of the climate change articles with a view to figuring out some structure. You seem to have some fairly basic misunderstanding like I was instancing above. Just because you want to be rid of fork of what", "merge to where" diversions does not mean the problems have disappeared. And yes Collect's essay Wikipedia:Editorially involved might be helpful to you. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with Collect's essay. Do agree with noticeboards. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'd disagree with Collect's Wikipedia:False_consensus#Coordinated_actions as well then. Oh sorry that is just reporting unanimously supported ArbCom decisions not his thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Group of editors", you want to apply that to noticeboard regulars? Together with noticeboard occasional contributors? And generally anyone who questions your assumptions? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK is what I think. If they don't look like ducks or swim like ducks or quack like ducks then they're not ducks as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, so I look like a competent, good faith, experienced, science-friendly, policy-minded editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can but hope you have some better idea of what the global warming controversy and scientific opinion on climate change articles are about after your pottering with them. Perhaps you can revise your merge target? Dmcq (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that User:Northamerica1000 has cleaned up Portal:Global warming nicely and it refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force which would have been a good place for prior discussion of the numerous articles and how they should be arranged rather than the IDONTLIKE business of 'It is past time to winnow the topics to the main areas, and devil take the hindmost' about a notable topic. I believe that task force should be made into a project and with the portal now being referenced on most pages that perhaps that would encourage new editors coming to the area to be a bit more constructive. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His/her approach is laudable. I completely agree about the project as a way to make good progress.Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep regardless of the accuracy of the conspiracy, it is incontrovertible that some people do believe it exists, and that such belief has received widespread coverage.

Comment The first few notes following were moved here from the top. I had placed the first after the proposers 'as a quick note' but that was within a 'hide' which has been removed. I've moved my reply here to try and stop the edit warring. Dmcq (talk)

Well after that perhaps I should point to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Global_warming_conspiracy_theory where a bunch of people as far as I can see think the mission of Wikipedia is to present the TRUTH and eliminate all erroneous ideas. I have presented my impression of their mission there. Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Remember that the arguments need to be judged on merit, and that conspiracy theories, gross personal attacks, and the like, do not count as arguments to keep. 86.** IP (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Let's not have another debacle like occurred at the Climate change alarmism AfD (see DRV), where the closer misinterpreted a near even split of opinion as consensus, and then declared a minority view ("merge") to be the consensus. We have a nearly identical situation here. As of 15:24 today I see the tally as:

Keep Carrite (talk) 02:18, 12 Dec.
Keep Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 13 Dec.
Keep J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 13 Dec.
Keep Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 11 Dec.
Keep Legis (talk - contribs) 09:00, 12 Dec.
Keep NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 13 Dec.
Keep Warden (talk) 22:21, 11 Dec.

Merge Collect (talk) 20:43, 14 Dec.
Merge Nigelj (talk) 18:50, 14 Dec.
Merge to GWC Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 12 Dec.
Merge Umbralcorax (talk) 21:57, 11 Dec.

Delete and merge ... to GWC WLU 17:31, 13 Dec.
Delete Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 11 Dec.
Delete eldamorie (talk) 15:25, 12 Dec.

That's 7 "keep", 4 "merge", 3 "delete" (and/or merge); "keep" has a plurality. Or if the nearly even split is "no consensus", fine. (Note that the WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators does say: "When in doubt, don't delete"; emphasis in the original). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tally I count an additional 4 "keeps" and 1 "merge". "Keep" now has a majority, for what all that is worth. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And accusations of bad faith, which half those keeps are, count as 0. This is strength of argument, not "troll the nominator." 86.** IP (talk)

And who are you to arbitrarily decide that bad faith on the part of the nominator is not a valid reason for rejecting this campaign of incessant AfDs, ANI complaints, etc., etc. As to a campaign: I took a brief look at your last fifty contributions (two days worth), and it's all AfD, ANI, and such stuff. Do you ever do an productive editing? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 86**: you should also note that alleging "conspiracy theories [a "cabal"], gross personal attacks [harassment, etc.], and the like" do not count as counter-arguments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at your actual vote: "As Kim said: Bad faith nomination (etc.) 86** seems to be on a crusade to delete climate change articles, repeatedly initiating disruptive battles (such as these AfDs), accuses others of bad faith, and has been shown to be prone to misinterpretation and misstatement. He lacks credibility, his charges are tiresome and should be dismissed out of hand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)" You haven't a leg to stand on. You've explicitly accused me of bad faith, without making any arguments why this article should be kept, just attacks. If you dion't think that's a gross personal attack... 86.** IP (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the various cabals' May I also point it was 86.** IP who started off the cabal business as far as I was concerned by accusing me of being part of a cabal in an AN/I they raised against me:

More can be seen on the talk page of the article and at the DRV, but it's clear that a small cabal of editors are determined to use any tactics to prevent any action being taken. ... 86.** IP (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So may I say pot kettle black Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86**, did you even read what you quoted from me? E.g.: repeatedly initiating disruptive battles (such as these AfDs), of which this AfD is yet another instance. I also charge you with repeated misstatement and misintepretation, which has been documented elsewhere, but here for now I'll let your quotation of my arguments demonstrate your misstatement that I didn't present any arguments. (Note that Kim also present related arguments.) But having cited those arguments, you then accuse me of "gross personal attack". This is grotesque. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW (and I almost hate to ask), but is this "cabal" just me and Dmcq? Or everyone that voted "keep"? Is it sufficient to merely not acquiesce with you in some matter to qualify for membership, or must there be some tedious matter of a secret communication? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shouldn't even be in AfD. It has been kept twice and not by slim margins. The last keep was only 3-4 months ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs improvement, but an encyclopedic subject, and does not appear to be a POV fork. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One could make a good argument to merge this subtopic into climate change denial, but nobody has. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Just so everyone knows, this is also being "discussed" at ANI. Unfortunately, since this link has a problem in some browsers, you may need to search the ANI page for Global_warming_conspiracy_theory to find the discussion. Q Science (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Global warming controversy. At the moment, there are (at least) three articles on the same topic controversy, denial and conspiracy theories (this one). I know that there are differences between these three terms but they are too subtle to warrant separate articles. Move everthing into the controversy article. Use that as a main article that gives a breif introduction to this whole thing, then link to specific events/people where readers can find more detailed information (such as the Climatic Research Unit email controversy ). See Holocaust denial (Holocaust controversy redirects there) and 9/11 conspiracy theories (9/11 controversy redirects there) for examples.Zlqchn (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They cover different things. The controversy article is mainly about the scientific or otherwise reasoned controversy, what a scientist means by skeptics. The denial is about funded or ideological deliberate befuddlement of the issues with no regard to the science. The conspiracy one is your usual conspiracy theories one, nowhere as widespread as the 9 11 or JFK assassination ones but getting into the ufo conspiracy realm of notability and way beyond for instance the water fluoridization conspiracy one. That hardly seems a subtle distinction to me. There's also one you haven't mentioned environmental skepticism which covers what is normally meant by 'in denial'. Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER When anyone says "Delete and MERGE-TO", does that require a MERGE-FROM tag on the destination article? The proposing editor of this AFD (86.**IP) recently did another regarding Climate change alarmism. In both, 86 asked to delete one article and merge "any salvageable content" to another article. HOWEVER, 86 does not tag the destination articles. In the Climate change alarmism AFD the destination article he proposed was one that I watch, Global warming controversy. However, since 86 did not tag it, I had no idea there was a discussion I wanted to participate in happening at AFD until it was over. I suppose there might be something in the histories that had the potential to clue me in if I had noticed and interpreted correctly, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a procedure for tagging MERGE-FROM and MERGE-TO articles so no one is left in the dark like I was. Ordinarily I would just help out by placing the forgotten tag on the destination article, but in this instance, 86s words and deeds suggest an intent to do many more of these AFDs in the future. For that reason, if ALL articles mentioned in the proposal need to be tagged to ensure all interested editors have fair warning, I think it might help to leave that up to the proposing editor, and to NOT CLOSE this discussion until that happens and any clock or whatever is used to decide on closing has been re-set to zero. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was essentially just shoved into Media coverage of climate change and chunks thrown away because climate change controversy was unsuitable as a target and, well I don't know the reasoning and it seems silly to me. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also point out WP:MERGE to people who do merges of big chunks from one place to another. See the bit in bold This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Do not omit it nor omit the page name Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D, please try harder to help us keep focus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER - SUPPLEMENTAL Who knew? If I read it correctly, AFD is the improper venu for the current proposal because the proposing editor wishes to merge "any salvagable content" to another article, and WP:AFDHOWTO says "Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers." And of course, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers discusses the issue of tagging all the articles that are involved. So now I think the closing admin should consider closing without comment on the merits and referring instead to the merge process as set forth at wiki/Help:Merging, and after "any salvagable content" has been merged over, presumably what is left will be crap and therefore ripe for a simple delete proposal at AFD. IMO, such a process would be a far superior means of collaborative consensus editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can use common sense. This venue isn't a bad choice since it tends to attract a lot of attention, a merge might attract more (because you have to tag multiple pages) or less (because those tags tend to sit at the tops of pages like rotting woodchucks for years without a consensus being generated). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a bad choice. It would be an abuse of process, not to mention a waste of editors time, to use AfD as a merge/improvement discussion - please see WP:DEL, specifically WP:DEL#REASON and WP:DEL#CONTENT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also note that "delete" and "merge" are distinctly different options, even ambiguous. And sentiment for or against a "merge" can reasonably depend on the proposed target. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Badly needed for a long time. The fact that this horribly POV-pushing original-research monstrosity is still around shows that when you leave something up to a vote that it doesn't matter how clearly against policy something is as long as there are a dedicate group of people willing to show up to support it. Since this doesn't look like it's going to go anywhere thanks to people who not only do not understand policy but toss out reckless accusations of bad faith, this is going to need to get escalated to ArbCom or some other process, unless there's an admin who is willing to follow policy and count the votes based upon which ones cite policy and which ones do not. Frankly, what we need is to get someone to realize that WP:FRINGE allows admins to liberally apply blocks against people pushing fringe beliefs. DreamGuy (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the "keep" votes actually support the beliefs presented in the article? If so then you are about as far from reality as you can possibly be. (basically your !vote is based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT, instead of policy...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the POV pushing global warming conspiracy cabal. It's here becaue it is notable, like UFO conspiracies are notable. And it isn't OR, it is well cited. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we really don't need is this constant pushing of AfDs (and ANIs) based on broad complaints lacking any particular bases, by an editor repeatedly shown to be inaccurate in his facts and tending towards disruptive behavior. Possibly some editors also need to understand that describing a fringe theory need not be advocay of it. As to counting votes, the main purpose of that is to show a substantial division of opinion, which is to say, no consensus. As this discussion has run the fabled seven days ("actually, a bit longer"), is it not time to close it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 19 December 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 per WP:CSD#G7 - page creator added {{delete}} (G11 would have equally applied). SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julio F. Torres Santana

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a recreation of a previous AfD'ed article, though sufficiently different to warrant a new discussion. However, I don't think there are the independent reliable sources available yet that give significant coverage, and show Torres meets our criteria for inclusion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This architect graduated in 2010, and the first sentence of the article calls him "promising". I think that's another way of saying "not yet notable". He won some nice but non-notable student awards but nothing so far sets him apart from thousands of other architects at the beginning of their careers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; nothing to set this guy apart from other good architect graduates. Also, the article's sole contributor would appear to be the subject, and he's has removed the AFD notice on the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though all of the above are true, only the first is relevant for the AfD discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yeah, but it really ticks everyone off when someone with a COI mindlessly deletes the AfD tag rather than discussing it sensibly. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion, fails WP:CREATIVE. --Elekhh (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promising young architect from Cornell he may be, but I just don't see any notability in that. Give a little bit of slack under the "small country" rule, but even if he becomes the best architect in Dominica, we are still way too soon. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:07, 12 December 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. Materialscientist (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Antonio (film)

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

film fails WP:FILM in preproduction. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources have been provided. Furthermore, although the Internet Movie Database lists this film as a project in development (actually, in turnaround), it does not list any cast members as being attached to it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline hoax - any (upcoming) film with that castlist would surely have a ton of press releases, sources and general coverage to establish some notability. Lugnuts (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for ALL reasons above. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the foregoing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Google search returns nothing except the imdb page. No news, no nothing. Unverifiable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF. The claim that Soderbergh will direct also seems unlikely at this stage as this is not one of the projects he is planning before his retirement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any basis for inclusion of this article. I agree that it may be a hoax. The author of this article seems to be creating many articles like this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only hit I got back other than IMDb and this page was to a rather nondescript page by someone claiming to be working on a script for Soderbergh. In other words, nothing reliable to show that this is real and nothing to show it's notable at this time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete This article does not provide reliable sources. It is most likely a hoax. Folgertat (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX, creator also just attempted to create hoax article The Expendables 3. Filing Flunky (talk) 15:29, 15 December 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 Deleted as G4 Recreation by Smartse. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:FILM due to being pre-production. As warned in the policy, things are subject to change. Hugh Jackman dropped out in 2009. Who knows if this film is even going to be made. Even IMDB won't list the cast list Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails due to WP:NFF. There are no sources for this article. I don't know what the last article looked like but this might be able to be speedy deleted under CSD G4. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cast seems unlikely, and the complete lack of sources puts this firmly into the realm of wild speculation. There are plenty of venues on the web for wild speculation, WIkipedia is not one of them. Wait until the film has substantial coverage in reliable sources. For now, this should be deleted, and probably speedy deleted under CSD:G4. Sparthorse (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline hoax - any (upcoming) film with that castlist would surely have a ton of press releases, sources and general coverage to establish some notability. Lugnuts (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for ALL reasons above. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FILM and WP:CRYSTAL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleo (film). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 12 December 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 deleted by GraemeL (talk · contribs). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Moravčík

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

Unreferenced per WP:BLP. Non-notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: not yet played in a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —Filing Flunky (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has many problems. In addition to being an unsourced BLP, the subject is not notable per WP:NFOOTY. Furthermore, there is no current claim to notability and could be a candidate for speedy deletion under criteria A7. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-A7}}. Subject is not notable to warrant an article in this encyclopedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:33, 11 December 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. v/r - T P 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troitse-Lykovo

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

Cancelled station. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The general rule with subway stations seems to be that they all get their article. Ironically a proposed but quashed station seems potentially more notable that may of the otherwise irrelevant stops on ever other metro line in the world. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The project didn't gain enough momentum to be notable on its own. No station → no notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cancelled new railway line might be notable. The propsoed stations certainly would not be. The articles should have eben subject to an immediate AFD when created as WP:CRYSTAL. I seem to recall this coming up for suggested Rapid Transit systems in Sydney and Birmingham a few years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the general rule is that subway stations get their own articles, but this rule should not apply to non-existent stations.--Slon02 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 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 redirect to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flitwick Lower School

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

Non-notable primary school Bleaney (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as failing WP:ORG or merge to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire, acting in the function of a gazetteer. Edison (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire per standard procedure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer. If this is closed as 'redirect' please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire per Wikipedia:Common outcomes#Schools.--Slon02 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wikipedia:Common outcomes#Schools. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flitwick - where the school is. That is usally the best solution for articles on Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shine On! Songs Volume One

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

Prod was contested by an IP twice. Original Prod rationale, "Entirely non-notable album featuring several non-notable artists and some notable artists who may or may not have authorized the inclusion of their songs on this." GB fan 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Prod was contested by sockpuppets. While some of the artists on the album are notable, none of the songs are, and the Israeli IP editors the registered accounts have been inflating the notability subject matter on several articles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I hate Sockpuppets. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now, the last two references (out of 4) are from Tyler Foundation, thus WP:SPS and useless in establishing notability. The first one just proves that this thing exists. The second one is not exactly significant, saying nothing much apart from acknowledging the existence of this album. So, delete for failing WP:N.Animusv3^{Talk to me! Contribs} 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears only one reference in a reliable secondary source to establish notability; in a small newpaper's website Metropolis (free magazine). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Deletion seems to be based upon bias, there are other reliable sources of information out there:
"Sheng Ofunato City elementary school "Nimomakezu Rain" recording work songs into English", Tohkai Shinpo Newspaper
"Tim Rice schedule archive", Tim Rice official website
"Charity CD Delivered to Sakari Elementary School", Iwate Nippo Newspaper --109.186.19.205 (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — 109.186.19.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- —Ryulong (竜龙) 11:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Rice's official website is not a valid reliable source for this article. The Iwate Nippo article was already in use on the page as one of the Tyler Foundation references. But still, none of these show that this album is notable. It shows that it had gotten some press, but it is not on a major label, half of the artists do not pass our notability guidelines, and there are no other references to the various original songs existing outside of the mentions of the Foundation itself online.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just mentioned the Tim Rice page which refers to the song he wrote. Secondly, just because you say that a local Japanese newspaper is invalid doesn't mean that that is fact. Something interesting found on the topic is a photo-article such as this. Verifies at least that notable artist worked on the songs mentioned.109.186.19.205 (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call any of the local newspaper sources invalid. Tim Rice's official website does not mention the album so it cannot be a source. And I removed a link to the Tyler Foundation website from the article. Why the hell did you show up on the day this debate was going to be closed anyway?—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just saw this debate after searching the topic of the album.109.186.19.205 (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo Voices article may not be reliable. I have checked their submission guidelines and it borders WP:SPS. [15] They do not have any requirement on notability or verifiability. Animusv3^{Talk to me! Contribs} 12:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you stated here isn't accurate. I just read Yahoo! Voices guidelines and publications are under editorial review. Plus, all statements must be backup by sources that are not user generated. "Be accurate, and cite your sources. Any information you provide that is neither common knowledge nor clearly established as something you've personally experienced must be drawn from a credible, cited source. In the text, immediately attribute any specific facts and quotes to their source, and link to the specific page that verifies your assertion. At the end of your content, list any authoritative sources that informed your content as a whole, using a format that allows any reader to easily access each source. Acceptable authorities include government agencies, scientific studies, established online or print publications, and articles by credentialed professionals. Do not use Wikipedia articles or other forms of user-generated content as authoritative sources."

In addition, all conflicts of interest must be disclosed. And I just read that content is not published if it is promotional in nature. Read Here Appears to fit both reliable source policies or WP:NEWSBLOG policy.109.186.19.205 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would like to extend an assumption of good faith, your timing and your geographic proximity to other individuals with vested interests and a superb knowledge of our internal guidelines suggests otherwise.—Ryulong (竜龙) 12:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and lacking in-depth coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be promotional over-coverage. articles with the wording "world-famous" in the first paragraph often are. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if we ignore the fact that this is spam for which the editors adding it are getting paid, the sources in the article and elsewhere do not demonstrate the nontrivial coverage in reliable, notable sources required to establish notability. As a practical matter all edits by these editors should be rolled back, the ip range blocked, and any duck-like socks that pop up again should be similarly purged. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DreamGuy, Ip edits shouldn't be rolled back just because you believe them to be coi. An article on Yahoo was released a few days ago, so plenty of people in our great country might be interested in the subject just like I am. I don't really understand the whole internet Ip ___location thing but I do know that I'm not in Tel Aviv. Besides, even if every edit actually came from Tel Aviv that shouldn't make every edit from that ___location invalid because the fact is that its one of the biggest cities in Israel. Oh and I read these sources and they seem to be good coverage of the subject, but it did need some translating to understand (thanks to facebook translate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.108.70 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on reasons given by nom, Google searches seem to come up with very little to no references. GrayFullbuster (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album was released in Japan... refers are more likely to be found in Japanese news... plus, the Iwate Nippo article demonstrates a reliable source with significant coverage and includes links to a notable singer Rie fu on the album and her song. I also noticed that Mark Ballas's song and Tin Cup Gypsy's were connected to this album from the Yahoo ref. The first ref has significant coverage from a Japanese paper that mentions not only the album, but the notable people affiliated with it. The Metropolis (free magazine) also is ok for a source, but also gives good coverage on the topic and notable people connected to it. It appears that there are serious bias going on here to me. This article should either be kept or merged but not deleted.79.180.108.70 (talk) 10:17, 19 December 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 per WP:BAND (6). JFHJr (㊟) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Non-admin closure[reply]

Doug Williams (bassist)

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

Fails WP:BAND. The article has had a lot of recent turmoil because of disruptive editing by the article subject, who has now been indeffed. A bit hard to search for secondary sources as the name is common. Mostly, though, all I find is that he played for bands but is not notable for his own sake. Could be redirected, but not clear to which of the two bands. Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I tried to research this subject last week and came up quite empty handed. I considered, but didn't nominate here because I saw WP:BAND (6): ...has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I had a look at Cephalic Carnage and Origin, which didn't jump out at me as worth questioning notability-wise. Since we can't re-factor the WP:BAND guideline at this AfD, it might be best to revisit this BLP if and when guidelines are revised. JFHJr (㊟) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JFHJr, I didn't notice that. I am willing to withdraw the nomination.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 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. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Peterson-Darbaki

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

Non-notable footballer, the "professional" appearances argued by the author are with the NPSL which is not listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Remember that WP:NFOOTY points out that they must take part in a "fully professional league". Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The NPSL is not fully professional, and it generally accepted that playing college soccer does not confer notability. More importantly, this article also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I also find this subject falls short of WP:BASIC notability requirements and doesn't fare any better under WP:NFOOTY. JFHJr (㊟) 23:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the foregoing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The NPSL is the successor of the Men's Professional Soccer League, it says so on the NPSL wikipedia article, the List of the Fully Professional is not accurate and not quite reliable. It requires updates and it even states that it needs to be updated and isn't fully complete as they are still registering leauges. Darbaki7 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a comment to be made here. Have that discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:03, 13 December 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rip (software)

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

I found zero sources for this which might be because of the common name. Appears to fail WP:N. SL93 (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but maybe redlink it in the fairly useless set of examples within CD ripper. (WP:RED would suggest leaving it unlinked though.) --Northernhenge (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Poking through the Google results, I don't think they're out there. That's hardly surprising given it's just a script. Msnicki (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sourced; doesn't appear especially notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:35, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCSI Express

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

SCSI Express is a proposed computing standard that has not even been created, let alone established any kind of notability for being a novel (or even useful) technology. "It exists," is not a valid reason for keeping something on Wikipedia. See also WP:CRYSTAL. Lithorien (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not convinced it will be sufficiently notable if/when launched, but we can cross that bridge later. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:59, 19 December 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. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brachiosauride

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. They don't have multiple releases on notable labels, no independent third-party coverage in reliable sources (just a bunch of webzines and blogs), no notable festival appearances or tours. Just another Myspace band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for sources for this page yesterday, and I couldn't find anything reliable.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:3family6. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:00, 19 December 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. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic Possessions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Demonic Possessions

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable bootleg recording, no coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not especially well known album of a disbanded and moderately well known band. Insufficiently notable in my view. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:31, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellum, Inc.

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

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Filing Flunky (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't see any basis upon which it can be said that the company is sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the companies are not equal, but if this company is not notable, I don't think Cornerstone_OnDemand is.. nor are many others. The page specifically cites an award the company won, as well as coverage from industry research firms indicating notoriety.

--Medra42 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing in the article yet explaining why the company is notable, and I can't find much online about it (under the new or old name) from independent sources, nor about the award from the Brandon Hall Group. The Cornerstone OnDemand article, on the other hand asserts endorsements (with references) from three notable tech research companies, and a quick search on Google News yields a great deal of coverage of the company and their product from independent sources. Both articles are rather short at the moment, but can be expanded. Can you find more in-depth coverage of Intellum from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources online showing why it's notable (which is not necessarily the same thing as famous), or are there paper press clippings that you could scan and upload? Please let me know if I can help with this. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bersin & Associates, Brandon Hall Group, and 37signals references do indicate that the organization is notable. They're independent sources and, in the case of the first two, are substantial, verifiable independent research organisations. The PRWire references are less substantive than Cornerstone's, but still valid & notable in the industry.

--Medra42 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another software and services company advertising on Wikipedia. This one makes learning management systems. "Management system" ought to be a criterion for speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising on Wikipedia? That's a rather overly-optimistic view of the effect a Wikipedia page has for traffic, profitability, etc... Why ought "Management system" be criterion for speedy deletion? You don't think it's worth knowing about?

--Medra42 (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CORP. Nothing notable about it. And yes, it is advertising since WP articles get listed near the top on Google searches. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:04, 19 December 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 Trixie Belden. v/r - T P 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gatehouse Mystery

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

Essay →Σ τ c. 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a book in the well-known Trixie Belden series of children's books. Just because it reads like an essay doesn't mean it must be deleted. Rather, it simply means that it needs to be rewritten. I've gotten the ball rolling, and a quick-and-dirty google search shows that it should be easy enough to find reliable sources and establish notability such that the requirements of WP:V can be satisfied. Agent 86 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article doesn't establish notability or reliable sources. The only "reference" is to the book itself. The external links don't do anything to help the article either. I'm sorry, but unless someone can magically pull sources for this article out of midair, and establish a little more notability, I have to say delete. NOTE: My response may change at any time if more sources are added. gwickwire ^(talktome) _(contribs!) 02:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. The article is a stub - a work in progress - and Squeamish Ossifrage's comment pretty much rebuts your "vote". Agent 86 (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is my reply a vote? I used the word vote at the end to avoid any confusion. Also, please show me where books 1, 2, and the rest of the series are on Wikipedia. Also, the article needs more sources to establish notability and reliability. gwickwire ^(talktome) _(contribs!) 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book 1. Book 2. I agree that this article, and the others, need more and better sourcing. But if there is evidence that that can be done, sourcing is an editorial issue. Deletion is reserved for situations where the topic lacks reliable sources, not merely where the article does so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found the first two books, and I can see that there are a few (2 or 3) other books with articles. However, this article needs to be worked on and sourced more before it is open to the "Google-searching public" in the articlespace. The ONLY sources in the article so far are the book itself (a primary source, which will not establish notability), and two articles. The recent (2003) one mentions the book once. This mention is not even in support of ANYTHING in the article. The mention mentions that the book is one of four that will be re-released. I do not see this information anywhere in the article. A totally reliable well-written source about kidney beans holds no water in an article about space travel. The final reference is an 11-year-old's opinion on the book (a "letter to the editor"). The first one is not acceptable for notability, but is acceptable (marginally) for the article, the second one is barely acceptable as it doesn't support anything currently in the article, and the third is not a reliable source (would you personally listen to a child's opinion on something? Have you ever seen an child's opinion as a reference in an encyclopædia?). You say that the topic does have reliable sources for the information in it, please feel free to provide some. Otherwise, I still believe this article should be deleted. gwickwire ^(talktome) _(contribs!) 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Book #3 in a 39 book series of well-known children's books has a good chance of being notable. Children's books from 1951 might not have sourcing readily available online. But in this case, here is a place to start, with discussion of this book beginning on the very first page. There's also some (admittedly limited) newspaper coverage of the reprinting of the series, including this one. This one may also be promising, but I actually don't have access to it from where I'm editing at the moment to confirm. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep – Many sources are available, but paywalled. Here's a couple of sources: [16], [17]. Also, the basis for this nomination, consisting of one word "essay" is very inaccurate, as the article does not read like an essay at all. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been considerably shortened since the nomination. However, my comment above still stands as an issue. gwickwire ^(talktome) _(contribs!) 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the grounds for the nomination, now?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Original grounds were that it was an essay, but I believe now it would qualify under WP:Notability and/or WP:Verifiability. Right after nomination someone drastically changed the article, but the issues I discussed above still stand. gwickwire ^(talktome) _(contribs!) 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I see now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a bit disingenuous, gwickwire. I admitted right up front at the start of this discussion that I edited the article to address the one-word reason for which the article was nominated. It read like an essay, I changed it from an essay. Not only that, it's in the edit summaries for the article. AFAIC, this was nominated for deletion when some clean-up templates were all that was needed, and AfD shouldn't be used for clean-up. Yes, the change was "drastic", if by that you mean "significant", but it's what should have been done rather than nominate it for deletion. It is also disingenuous to ignore the fact that your concerns have been addressed several times over. As others have noted, books from the 1950s are less likely to have on-line sources, and the real-world sources have been noted. The indicia of verifiability and notability are there, and the fact the article is still more or less a stub only means there's lots of room for expansion by editors. Agent 86 (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And since we're talking about your disingenuous statements, I'll answer your question, "Why is my reply a vote?", above. It's because you originally wrote, "My vote may change at any time if more sources are added." Going back and revising your original statement as you did here[18] and then challenging me was far from honest. Agent 86 (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that word from vote in the same edit I asked you that question. I used the word vote originally to avoid any confusion. And if we could avoid spending comments talking about my word choice, and calling me dishonest, I'd appreciate it. Nominating something for deletion is just that, a nomination, for the reason that someone thinks it should be deleted. The nomination reason may not be valid now, but that's no reason to assume the article should automatically stay. If someone wants to close this AfD and have me create a new one, please feel free. Otherwise, let's continue this discussion. I believe my comment above clears those sources of any relevance/reliability that they may have had. I noticed that in your last edit, you either missed or did not reply to my above comment. I'd appreciate it if I could get a response from you to the issues I presented above. gwickwire ^(talktome) _(contribs!) 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: potentially notable, but might make more sense to simply have a page with plot summaries of the entire series, with individual pages for any individually special books (if any).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge into a single page for the books in the series, which should be the default way of handling these, unless there's unusual and special notability for any one of them. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 9 December 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. The fact that the series may be notable does not necessarily mean that each of the books in the series is sufficiently notable to justify an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based upon comments by others, that there is just as much dead-tree source material establishing notability for each of these books as there is for any episode of any modern-day TV show that warrants its own article. It's just harder to find than lazily relying on what one can google without exerting any real effort. It strikes me that there is significant bias against these because their notability is in the past, which does not diminish under wiki policy. Agent 86 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The series is notable, but I don't think each individual book in the series is. Appreciate the problem of sourcing for older books, but what are we expecting dead tree sources to say? "It was a reasonably popular children's book...."? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're conflating "notability" and "popularity", but even that criterion is worth noting. As noted in the notability guidelines, a more common sense approach needs to be taken with older books, including whether it has been recently reprinted (it has, after a long hiatus), the fame that the book enjoyed in the past (no doubt about that). I've also added two new sources from established literary publications (a journal and a magazine), which help establish the notability of this book, one of six written by the series' creator, compared to many of the subsequent volumes. Agent 86 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect?) The series is definitely notable but individual books do not seem to have sufficient notability. This should also be done with the other books in the series that have articles as they are all just plot summaries with no references.(The Secret of the Mansion, The Red Trailer Mystery and The Mystery off Old Telegraph Road )Zlqchn (talk) 05:50, 13 December 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. TigerShark (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gummi (software)

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

I found zero significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 26 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—There's a slew of open source LaTeX editors listed on Comparison of TeX editors; many with their own articles. I think that adding a section there with a list of feature summaries and other details would make sense. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a lacking sufficient in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Alternatively, merge / redirect to comparison above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 9 December 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any signs of sufficient notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:19, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live At the Brattle Theater

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

noinderpendent notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUM. prod refund duffbeerforme (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent sources. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:55, 10 December 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I note that this band seems have to separate Wiki articles for each of their albums, although I am frankly not sure any of them are sufficiently notable. Just my view. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:18, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Light Ball (Pokémon)

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

Well written article, but I feel it would be more appropriate for a Pokemon themed wiki rather than Wikipedia itself. It is an item in a video game, therefore it should not get its own article TJD2 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There aren't any good sources to keep this article and I wasn't able to find anything that would be considered reliable. The links in the article are a link to another Wikipedia entry, a link to a review that doesn't mention the item at all, and a link to a fansite. They did prove that the item exists, but not that it has notability enough to warrant keeping. At the very most this might be worth redirecting to Gameplay_of_Pokémon#Items, but I just can't find anything to show that this is all that notable of an item enough to where someone would search it on Wikipedia and there's nothing in here that really needs to or can be merged to an existing page. Like the nom said, this isn't a fansite. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Ok, I understand why this article should be deleted. Let's just put it in Gameplay_of_Pokémon#Items! The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what can possibly be merged? I mean, I would not include the "Different descriptions", as that's purely WP:GAMEGUIDE material, the "Conclusion" section is pure original research, and I don't know what relevance the Pokéwalker has with this item. –MuZemike 21:58, 10 December 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) 17:21, 3 December 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I removed this content from Gameplay of Pokémon because it was unnecessary game mechanic exposition. There is certainly not enough to have an article on this here and it is not within the scope of this website to cover. This should have been sent to WP:PROD first.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not relevant to anyone not playing the games. Shii (tock) 07:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not sure where, Pokemon universe is not my field, but can't help feeling that there must be a repository of related minor articles for gameplay? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm tempted to say redirect, per WP:RETAINALLPOKEMONMATERIAL, but looking at the article it is not clear that there would be a relevant redirect target. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 19 December 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. TigerShark (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soar into the Sun

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILMS and violates WP:CRYSTAL. The reference provided does not discuss the subject in question. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. Article asserts "an upcoming South Korean film is remake of... ...Red Scarf (1963)..." Being far too premature fails WP:NFF. And we do not have a place where this might be redirected and spoken of as a remake of the original. While I did find a November 2, 2011 blurb in Beyond Hollywood about the actor Rain heading back to Korea to make this film, we can wait until principle filming begins, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 3 December 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NFF. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. I'll make an exception for an upcoming Harry Potter or James Bond. But not for this. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:16, 12 December 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. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sakto Corporation

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

I came across this article as part of the Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. Although I note that this company has received industry awards, I am skeptical that this counts towards notability as defined in WP:ORG. There are some mentions of the company in Google News and Google Books, but they are all in passing, so I do not think the company has the depth of coverage necessary for a Wikipedia article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to lack notability. Awards are interesting (although I have never heard of any of them...) but don't really feature in WP:CORP. If this was a case for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ATHLETE they might be more relevant. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to any notability. The BOMA awards bring some (little) notability within the property management field to the buildings, no so much to the builder. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:10, 19 December 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social engine

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

Fails WP:NEO Madcoverboy (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:18, 9 December 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — If this term becomes ubiquitous, then we can consider its inclusion. But right now, it is nothing more than a neologism. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:11, 12 December 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. TigerShark (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mod DB

(Find video game sources: "Mod DB" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

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

This article fails to establish its notability by introducing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources of this article are either from the subject itself (www.moddb.com), its parent company (DesuraNET Pty Ltd) or in one case a subsidiary website. Fleet Command (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. I took a look for sources, but there isn't much for GNG. I see an intreview, another interview and another and IndieDB and Desura [19][20] announcements. Their game of the year stuff [21][22][23] also attracts press. It's the biggest modding sharing community we have, so it's notable in real world terms. In Wikipedia terms, it sort of fails GNG with semi-primary interviews. But getting GDC interview does suggest notability. I'm sure there will be some printed sources too, but I don't have access to any. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References suffer from being primary sources, but its quite widely known. Will find some secondary sources in to put in. Rescendent (talk) 11:05, 11 December 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) 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added some refs Rescendent (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Well known <> notability. But I'll defer to those with greater expertise and interest in the field. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent improvements from outside sources. --Teancum (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should say I am surprised how AfDs can sometimes attract such competent people like Rescendent to make such good contributions that I myself am otherwise unable to do. Although some Wikipedians might want to see more reliable sources, it is enough for me to leave it alone. Nevertheless, this article will never become a Good Articled or Featured Article. Fleet Command (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never say never. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:04, 13 December 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 REDIRECT to Salman_Khan#Filmography. TigerShark (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Khan (film)

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

Wp:NFF. No sources confirming that principle photography has commenced. At the moment, Sohail Khan seems to be working on another film, with a different cast. For the process, I require more opinions. Please state them below. X.One ^SOS 08:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Sohail Khan~~ Salman Khan, with a section containing data about the film. X.One ^SOS 09:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about recent developments, but there are sources that might justify the existence of the article.[24] It is a notable project and we have a lot of articles in the Category:Upcoming films. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read that Salman's agenda is full for the next 2 years and plus he gave up on all plans for this film for a horror film. anyway, you may want to look for those news yourself. I don't think this film will be made anytime soon. --Meryam90 (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, Salman Khan is not taking up Sher Khan due to scheduling conflicts. he has multiple other projects in the pipeline. Hence, I think this article should be deleted. AnkitBhatt^WDF 13:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect it to Salman Khan upcoming projects section. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salman Khan per above —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Well, I trust the competence of the users commenting above. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:38, 11 December 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 Withdrawn. Per the reliable sources found by Goodvac and Michig. It is now quite clear that the subject meets the notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodoo Rhythm Devils

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

Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band meets the GNG, as evidenced by the following sources—"Hard-luck Hoodoos are not forgotten" from San Francisco Chronicle, "Hoodoo Rhythm Devils" (full text available at [25]) from The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music, and "Hoodoo Rhythm Devils" from Primo Times. The beginning of the last source is:
The Hoodoo Rhythm Devils play basic, no-frills rock'n'roll better than any Bay Area band since Creedence. Sparked by the R&B-tough vocals of guitarist-keyboardist Joe Crane and ...
This appears to be the beginning of a discussion of the band's history.
In addition, there is a May 13, 1978, article in Melody Maker titled "A hoodoo on the Devils" and listed as having the band as a main subject (citation accessed through EBSCOhost's Music Index). The aforementioned sources and the fact that offline sources may be more plentiful—considering the band's inception and heyday was in the 1970s—enable the Hoodoo Rhythm Devils to pass the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above there is also this from the Pittsburg Press, this from the Morning Record and Journal, and a brief mention here describing the band as "celebrated but short-lived". In addition, they released one album on Capitol Records and two on Blue Thumb Records, easily meeting criterion 5 of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Conforms to the general notability guideline. --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 20:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC per above. SL93 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 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. TigerShark (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Murray (writer)

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

promotional article for non-notable author. The one book she co-edited is in only 5 libraries a/c WorldCat. Several other career segments, none notable individual or collectively. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't quantify the coverage, critical reviews, and citations this WP:AUTHOR would need to have for notability based on her single publication, but it would have to be close to "lots," while I'm having trouble finding much. I agree with the nominator that the rest doesn't amount to any sort of notability. This might have been a good g-11 candidate. JFHJr (㊟) 06:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything reliable about her and what I did find was put out by herself or the publishing company that only has her as a client and appears to be run by her. The book she wrote is also on here, which I've put up for speedy deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:57, 12 December 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 as recreation (csd-G4). - Nabla (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of recently-deleted page. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recreated by original author. Tagged for speedy deletion (G4) and author directed to WP:DRV. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If by some chance this doesn't get speedy deleted, it definitely has no encyclopedic value.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Speedy delete — Textbook example of an article that meets CSD's G4 category. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:59, 11 December 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 keep as withdrawn , rationale for deletion no longer applies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Castle

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

Indiscriminate database dump. Again. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 11 December 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. v/r - T P 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Libel Tourist

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

Non-notable short film film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance, Included references do not appear to be significant enough to support notability. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This is a very tough call. To start with, I'm not so sure this fails WP:NOTFILM. There is at least one review of the short documentary, [26] although the author of that article does not appear to be particularly notable. Then you have this, which I'm not sure is an actual article or a personal blog; either way, this commentator actually is notable. Otherwise, I'm just not sure. A part of me is inclined to support keeping the article as a borderline case despite arguably not fully meeting Wikipedia's film notability guidelines. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the director doesn't even have his own article (as of this posting). I don't know if we should include an article about a documentary when its director is not considered notable. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I found it a tough call. Sounds like a well made 8 minute film, but if it was aired as a 30 minute TV programme, it would never be considered encyclopedic, so I'd favour deletion. If it had meatier critical acclaim I might change my mind. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per enough sourcability for an 8-minute short film to meet WP:NF and WP:GNG. Apart from the sources in the article, the film's website offers links to more that might be considered.[27] The article can expand upon current sources, and use a few more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to all for your input so far. If the issue is finding reviews, then perhaps the "critical reception" section could be tagged for expansion to get some more 3rd party reviews found and added by other editors. I, too, will continue to expand it as I find more info. If the issue is notability of the filmmakers involved, I know that the writer/director directed (to my knowledge) at least one other notable film, Over da Rainbow, credited there as "Jay Lap"; i.e., he is probably notable enough to have his own page (and I may work on that in the future) - and I believe that this film would constitute a significant work of his as per WP:NF. But perhaps most importantly, I believe there's a lot more to be said about this film, and I think it may get expanded as users read it and feel the urge to contribute (Article's OP) Zujua (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- National Review review is significant coverage, especially for an 8 minute film. PPdd (talk) 05:32, 16 December 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. v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Eubanks, Jr.

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

Local Christian minister without evidence of notability via either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Main claim to fame seems to be his authorship of several books and other publications, all of which appear to be issued by a publishing house of which he is the principal (these are essentially self-published). Sources in article are essentially press releases from one of his churches or from his affiliated publishing house. Article has been tagged for notability for 7 months. Orlady (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Notability is not firmly established by the sources, or even the details themselves. Eubanks is nothing more than a pastor who wrote and self-published several books, makes insignificant contributions to ATPM, and has taught at non-notable schools. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Master&Expert. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:52, 12 December 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" !vote does not forward arguments that address notability or deletion guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil: First Hour

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

Non-Notable Fan-Made Web Series created by a non-notable production company. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this series. Furthermore, there are no proper references in the article. StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — - Absolutely no references in the article itself, and even if there were, there's nothing about this webseries that makes it notable enough for inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The article isn't written in a way that fits with Wikipedia requires... there aren't any sources and I can only find information on the topic from sources that seem fine for the blogosphere but bad for Wikipedia. All-in-all this is interesting but just not suitable here.--Silent Bob (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I did find a review, one source is not enough. SL93 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you google Resident Evil: First Hour you will find numerous references to the series on sites such as bloody disgusting, fearnet, shock til you drop and destructoid. It also stars two actors who have been in films such as Captain America and Tim Burton's new film. Finally it is a featured series on Machinima's youtube channel and though it is 'fan made' it has been treated as an official release (much like Dragon Age: Redemption). [[User:92ala92;talk| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92ala92 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 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 redirect to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Syracuse

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

Only locally notable... Mythpage88 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also as nominator I'd support a redirect. Mythpage88 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm googling the group and it looks like even though this is a new branching off of OWS, there's a lot of coverage. It might be a little too soon to delete, but then I don't want to crystal ball too much in either direction. I'm going to try to add more sources to the article to help flesh it out. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The thing I'm mainly concerned about is that the only significant coverage I can find is purely local. Mythpage88 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know... that's a big sticking point so far. Everything I've found has ended up being local coverage, so I think that you're right in that it's only locally notable. It might be worth having the original article's creator userfy or incubate it until/if the point comes where it got beyond local coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no requirement that a group should have international or national or even regional scope. What we are concerned about is whether an article topic is encyclopedia-worthy and whether the information on that topic is verifiable through it's substantial coverage in multiple, independent, published sources. For some reason, 100 articles on various "Occupy" movements drives some people up the wall and we wind up haggling over these things endlessly, winding up in "No Consensus" outcomes. It would be swell if these were all combined into various state-level articles — but it would also be swell if articles on garage bands and TV shows were grouped up, too, by the same way of thinking. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not paper and there is no objective reason why the Occupy pieces should not exist as free-standing pieces until such time that events come to a close, books and scholarly articles start to appear, and we all begin to look at these things in another way. Nothing to be gained from deletion, information would be lost in the process, this a permutation of a historic political movement, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've got a point. Most of the Occupy pages that come up for AfD usually end in no consensus and in the process usually have an overly long out debate that can occasionally get a lot of feathers ruffled. It might be worth it to let these ride for a while and just deal with them in January, but then there's no actual policy on this sort of thing and even though 90% of these pages are kept, there are those rare instances where a page needs to be merged to a larger article. It's probably because of those pages that we'll have to keep going through AfD until someone comes up with something for this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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) 03:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. I'm just not convinced that this particular Occupy Wall Street protest is significant enough to warrant its own article. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Master&Amp. Like Tokyogirl179 I get tired of every jumped up student cause becoming a rancorous debate on Wikipedia as to how notable some very minor and local cause is. Seriously - 100 protesters on a march, and we have a Wikipedia article about it? I am sure in 100 years time they will thanks us. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're saying you don't want the article because you disapprove of the cause, which is IDONTLIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like he has issues with a lack of notability (and lax policy/guideline implementation) rather than him not liking it. Mythpage88 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:13, 19 December 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. v/r - T P 16:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Çağdaş Çetinkaya

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

This article is not notability. Because of this reason this article has been deleted many times on Turkish Wikipedia. My English is not good. I hope you see the point.--Reality006 (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also some files about this article has been nominated deletion on Commons.--Reality006 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Nominate on Turkish Wikipedia--Reality006 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. Reality006 is obviously an administrator on the Turkish Wikipedia, which means he would have a pretty solid understanding of the criteria for inclusion on that site. Since it's much smaller than the English Wikipedia, their criteria for notability is probably a lot less stringent than ours. If this person isn't even notable enough for an article on the Turkish Wikipedia, he certainly isn't notable enough for one on the English Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the notability criteria used over there are very much the same as here. --Lambiam 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, this person isn't notable enough for an article. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't had time to research the subject's notability, but would urge caution. The nominator's argument for deletion is very weak (Topic is not notable, and and AfD has been raised on Turkish WP). The repetition of two 'Delete per nom's adds nothing to the argument, nor does the assertion above that the nominator is "obviously" an administrator on Turkish WP. The fact an AfD has been raised on a very much smaller WP project is not an argument in itself for deletion.
Comment My English is not very well so I could not explain my idea exactly. Firstly, this article has been already delete. Then I returned it and I nominated for deletion on Turkish Wikipedia. In this way, community will decide the future of article. Actually, I do not know this article. User:Takabeg said me. In my opinion as living in Turkey this article absolutely not notable. (By the way I am administrator on Turkish Wikipedia)--Reality006 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tacci2023 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments. Person does not meet the criteria of notability. Esc2003 (talk) 17:04, 17 December 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 List of My Little Pony characters#Pegasus Ponies. Clear consensus has developed DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluttershy

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

Nominating myself for deletion because I don't really have a lot of sources to justify myself having a independent article. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 02:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it Fluttershy, but I think you're right. Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jclemens. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSED. You're just too bored on expanding things.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the existing entry at List of My Little Pony characters#Pegasus Ponies. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Jclemens, Merge. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the other main (mane) characters from this show have their own articles now, and they can be improved. This show is only going to grow in popularity. I just discovered these articles, and I'm doing a few things to spruce them up. (IMDb links, coloring the infoboxes...) dogman15 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They can be improved over time. - XX55XX (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs expansion, but yes, it deserves to be kept.XTUX345 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)— XTUX345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to List of My Little Pony characters#Pegasus Ponies as per above. Ncboy2010 (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above suggestions. Keep !votes boil down to WP:OSE and WP:ILIKEIT arguments. No independent coverage of the character. But +10 intarwebz to the nom for AfD nom-text of the month! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dogman SalfEnergy 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's too bad that Fluttershy became the scapegoat for discussion of deletion, and none of the other characters did. Poor Fluttershy! dogman15 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of MLP character articles follow the same style of editing as this one, and the result of this discussion will influence my decision to nominate the others if necessary. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 12:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jclemens and Livitup. Fluttershy may be my favourite pony, but there is nothing in the article that indicates the subject meets WP:N. What is needed is high-quality sources independent of the subject that gives out-of-universe information. A few details about FIM role just doesn't cut the mustard. The show may be notable, but Fluttershy is not. The same holds true for the other FIM character articles I have seen. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR Redirect via Reversion it looks like the original version from April was a redirect to List of My Little Pony characters#Fluttershy. It was fine like this until December 9 when User:XX55XX changed the redirect into an article. I propose that rather than delete the page, if this is not worthy of an article it simply be reverted back to its original redirect form. 174.115.134.108 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 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. v/r - T P 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Olivarius

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

Contested PROD, Promotional resume on person of little or no notability. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO. Mt king ^(edits) 02:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some news coverage about her [28]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Create article on her law partner Jeff Anderson, who has better coverage, and redirect there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is one @ Jef McAllister Mt king ^(edits) 05:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that would be a very good target as McAllister's notability seems to come from being a journalist/author. McAllister Olivarius could also be a title of the new article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has just been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McAllister Olivarius. Mt king ^(edits) 20:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm. Guess it would have to be at Anderson then. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 December 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) 01:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst she is clearly a very accomplished lady, I don't see any of the things on her CV (with the possible exception of being "one of the first female Rhodes scholars" (although a quick scan of List of Rhodes Scholars makes that claim sounds exaggerated)) that make her encyclopedic in her own right. She is a well rounded and very accomplished individual, but the world has plenty of those. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. As a relatively new editor, I may not be fully-versed on notability but have to disagree with you on the exaggeration of the claim to be one of the first female Rhodes. A quick scan of the web (e.g.,http://www.rhodes-caribbean.com/) will tell you that until 1977 no women were admitted as Rhodes scholars, and that was the year she graduated from Yale and got the Rhodes. --Pukkativa 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to give very strong evidence that she is (or was) notable but, because the events took place several decades ago, it is not so easy to find lots of independent sources by a quick google search. The article cited from the Yale Herald seems to confirm that Olivarius was quite dogged and courageous in progressing the rights of 1970's female college students. The fact it is still discussed 23 years later must tell us something! Someone with access to off-line law journals etc. needs to be asked to find references. Deletion isn't the way forward. Sionk (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs an overhaul - notable feminist and victim's rights advocate with several reliable sources. I'll start working on it. - ManicSpider (talk) 13:35, 17 December 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ShrinkTo5

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

I found nothing that shows that this passes WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not appear to be any more notable than other generic DVD copying engines. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as software goes, this is about as non-notable as it really gets. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it has no references and is defunct. Hopeless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:02, 16 December 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Mahmood (detainee)

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

contested prod, for a non-notale person. Artcile lists 3 sources, two of which failed verification. The soruce for these two sources is the third source, which is a one-line mention of the subject's name in a long list or other people JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I had a look outside the 'pediabox. I found verification easy enough (the one remaining is very frequently cited, but I haven't verified personally), and news coverage in multiple reliable sources here is more than trivial. I added it to the article. As it happens, subscription legal sites also seem to have court records indicating this subject may be held in connection with another detainee who's also apparently notable. Again, I haven't verified it personally, and they may even have BLP implications, so I won't go so far as to add that much. If someone has those subscriptions, I hope they'll add info and cites. At any rate, I anticipate this BLP, which already passes WP:BASIC reqs, will grow with time. JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the few British detainees in Guantanamo, he is one of the better known of them in the UK (I'd certainly heard of him and Moazzam Begg). The article is now very adequately sourced (though lack of citations isn't a reason to nominate for deletion) and augmented too. Sionk (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Keep~~ The article is now well sourced, and after trying to do some research of my own, I can tell you that there are many Tariq Mahmoods in the world. With a person that clearly meets notability standards, it is vital that Wikipedia have an article on someone that is so difficult to research any other way. I have removed the only questionable BLP statement I saw, which was that he was alleged to have ties to al-Qaeda. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the allegation appears here: "Opinion No. 29/2006" (PDF). United States Department of State. United Nations Human Rights Council, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 2005-12-08. pp. 6, 8.. Overall I'd say it's a pretty reliable source that the allegation exists, but it doesn't extrapolate on the accusers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it should be left out as per WP:ALLEGED and WP:BLP. Highly problematic to start an BLP based on that. More below. Jrwikieditor (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like confirmation that that the two contributors above are talking about the same allegations. Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the case. What's your point? Jrwikieditor (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- JFHJr seems to be talking about the allegations that Tariq had been tortured. You seem to have assumed JFHJr was talking about the allegations offered to justify his detention. That is my point. Geo Swan (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Red herring? little to no question about what we are talkin., he mentioned that also in his comment "alleged to have ties to al-Qaeda." and the source (pdf) he posted says: "Alleged to have ties to al-Qaida" concerning Tariq Mahmood. Well just ask him if you still have doubts. Jrwikieditor (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite - better merge into the UK torture case article - Hey guys i do not doubt your good faith but this article just "sucks". It is a complete distortion of the story and almost certain a BLP violation in this form. The article now circles around speculations and rumors pasted together from outdated press reports. It is a Red herring.

Hey! the ISI dumped him after 5 month and there are a lot of sources that speak about his unusual interrogations and treatment by various parties during his detention. Nothing to be found in the article. No no, don't be mistaken - he is not in Guantanamo :))

The real story and references have been left out:

As i said i do not doubt the good faith of the editors who wrote this biography but this is a biography of a living person and as i said it should be deleted/blanked or completely rewritten. Though i personally think it would be better to merge it into the UK torture investigation / compensation article. Jrwikieditor (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- "delete or rewrite" is not one of the opinions participants are expected to offer in {{afd}}. "Rewrite" would be a keep. Please only state one of the usual opinions here. Geo Swan (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are mistaken and i am surprised you do not know that. These are options here and you surprise me because apart from the raised WP:COMPETENT issues about your ability in writing WP:BLP and WP:NPOV compliant biographies there seems to be also a lack of understanding of core policies. Jrwikieditor (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jrwikieditor blocked as a sockpuppet of Iquinn.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a little bit of a case of WP:1E. The fact that he is "connected with" other more notable detainees does not make him notable in his own right. Possibly either merge or redirect, but I'd delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with arguments based on WP:BLP1E is that "one event" is not defined. Tariq:
  1. was captured by the ISI;
  2. held in extrajudicial detention;
  3. was not given normal consular access;
  4. claims MI5 officials played a role in his torture during his interrogations;
  5. has chosen to live in exile in Dubai because he does not feel safe in the UK after UK officials played a role in his torture.

Whether these are interpreted as "one event", or multiple events, is a subjective decision. Personally, I am inclined to think any individual who has made credible claims of torture, who is the subject of coverage of WP:RS merits individual here. Question, should we assume from your conflation of the events listed above into a single event that your position is that torture during interrogation should be considered normal, mundane, routine, not worth coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::I agree with the raised WP:1E concerns. He as a person is not notable. The alleged torture and mistreatment is. Jrwikieditor (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merge and Redirect After reading the discussion put forward by Jrwikieditor and Legis (thanks for pointing me to WP:1E!), I think it should be merged with the 'event' article, as per WP:1E and a redirect left in place.
- And which article are you suggesting this article be merged with? Geo Swan (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per simple reasoning of User:Sionk. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient press coverage. I continue to hold, as I held from the start, that every individual one of the Gitmo prisoners==guilty of anything real, or not--will prove notable as enough time goes by for sources, and enough time for them to attain a legend as martyrs. He has already accomplished both of those. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 18 December 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. v/r - T P 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESAF Microfinance and Investments

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

The subject is a private financier. Just one among many such concerns in India. It has absolutely no notability. It is not notable for any particular achievements, for being large, for the amount of money invested, for any speciality of its services, or anything. All the references used are regular reports on companies in financial/business newspapers. That does not establish notability assuch. Austria156 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took a look at the first source, which says "...the Evangelical Social Action Forum (ESAF) has grown to become one of the largest microfinance institutions in India. Today, with more than 250,000 clients ESAF focuses on microfinance services through groups, made up primarily of rural women." Sounds kinda notable to me. —SW— ^gab 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what the website of Oikocredit says. Now who is this Oikocredit? A microfinance company with whom the 'subject' is associated to (see the other links on the website and find out who they are). It is no third party source in the first place. And hence it is no reliable source. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 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) 00:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am going to go with non-notable company in a crowded field, and no independent third party sources. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is micro finance company with a limited marketing and public relations budget. Because micro finance companies never bribe media organisations because of their limited budget. It is notable in rural places of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and in some parts of Kerala. May be it is not the darling of media like SKS Microfinance.

114.143.76.2 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morry Alter

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

He is not a notable news reporter nor has been seen on TV or heard from in over five years. The article contains very little and outdated information about him and the two links are dead now. A Google search does not result in a lot of reliable, recent pages about him

Keep as there seem to be numerous Google Books references to him, including a few where authors have sought him out for quotes about his industry. They are not recent, but as WP:N says, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." --DGaw (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "notability is not temporary".--Cavarrone (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he really has won 20 Emmys, that should be sufficient I think. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:29, 12 December 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. (edit conflict) Going by vote count, this AFD doesn't have a consensus. However, I am tempted to lean delete per the strong rationales of the delete !voters. However, there is too much bad drama surrounding the nominator to close this as delete. Any delete close would immediately end up at WP:DRV. So I am closing as no consensus with no prejudice to renomination. v/r - T P 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre Willmott

AfDs for this article:

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

Her only notable involvement in politics was as a student, she withdrew candidacy before being "in" politics; she was working as a lawyer for politicians (as a public servant); she was the "initial" CHOGM director (evidently moved on); and is just a "group manager" at FMG, and not directorship. Twigfan (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have an issue with the deletion of the { { notability } } tag that was here previously, and had been, since October 2011. I'd say the enlisted search query just shows that she has been enlisted in 52 articles, of which some are her writings in law journals, others are her having a tilt at an election (which based on the article she withdrew), the point about her in student politics is totally non-notable, and the others about her shift to FMG. So based on WP:N, I'd say she has coverage by reliable sources - but this is not "significant" coverage. She is mentioned in trivial, but not as the main topic of the source material. Also, a lot of the non-law sources are not independent of the subject (her). Also, "significant coverage" requires reliable sources to write a whole article, not just half a paragraph or definition.

Delete: I'm going to introduce the { { prod } } tag and we can move this into a deletion discussion. Twigfan (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The points I raised, on the tag, I'll restate so you can comment on here:

* Her only notable involvement in politics was as a student, she withdrew candidacy before being "in" politics: So the point about student politics is totally irrelevant to determine notability. As "in politics" - she withdrew candidacy. She was never really a pollie. To be notable as a politician, you need to be an elected official. Not only didn't she "win" the election - she didn't even run in the election, as she "withdrew".

* She was working as a lawyer for politicians (as a public servant): My point is, public servants, for example, accountants/lawyers/engineers/even admin people working for the government, don't expect to be in the "public light". They are behind the scenes.

* She was the "initial" CHOGM director (evidently moved on): My point is that, though CHOGM is a public event, she was only there "initially". How long was this "initial" period? What did she do there? What was she notable for there?

* She is just a "group manager" at FMG, and not directorship: My point is, a manager at Disney Manufacturing, for example, might be a mom or dad. That might be the same for somebody at BORAL. They don't intend to be in the "public eye". She's a group manager, not the "Director of Communications" at FMG, for example.— Preceding unsigned comment added by twigfan (talk • contribs)

Delete – This subject doesn't pass WP:BASIC requirements of substantial coverage. She comes closest under WP:POLITICIAN, but that coverage doesn't approach even substantial local coverage standards. I think WP:BLP1E speaks to her best claim of notability. The rest doesn't amount to notable activity, and while it might fit in an otherwise notable BLP, a well-documented education and career alone don't pass the test. JFHJr (㊟) 04:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article and the behaviour around it suggests a WP:SPA is trying to remove an article related to FMG - and I fail to see adequate reasoning behind above arguments regarding notability - the local context is clear (although not to the delete arguments - but that is another story) - and really the various other methods of trying to remove the article suggest ulterior motives - also I do not endorse this Afd or the arguments being used - specially refactoring a comment I made elsewhere is simply not adequate, I have removed it and do not endorse the 'lifting of editors comments from one talk page to an afd page without the slightest consultation. Satu Suro 05:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I just tend to think that your arguments for keep surround myself, rather than the article itself. Don't you think this could be construed as argumentum ad hominem, as trying to remove an article, suggests ulterior motives, do not endorse... refactoring a comment I made elsewhere, do not endorse the lifting of editors comments from one talk page to an afd page without the slightest consultation - these are totally unrelated to establishing notability? I think the onus is on the creator of the article to establish it; not the onus of people who think it is non-notable to delete it. You do suggest "the local context is clear" - but what context? what is clear? Twigfan (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable person, involved in some of the biggest events in Australia over revent years CHOGM 2011, MRRT and WA State politics, all sourced[29] her involvement was notable to reported on the East coast of Australia something thats very unusual. Gnan garra 08:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Yeah, she was a Director at CHOGM (but who knows how long, she was only the "initial" one), interesting regarding the Minerals Tax didn't know that (but that isn't even mentioned in her article), as for WA state politics (she failed to get elected, she's a political wannabe). I'd agree with WP:BLP1E, as her best claim to notability as User:JFHJr suggested. As suggested, Wikipedia:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't mean notability. Also as suggested, her best claim to fame is WP:POLITICIAN, but to be one, you need not only be in the race to be elected, but also actually elected. She didn't even go to the elections, dropping out before hand! Twigfan (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Hmm, I agree there are reliable sources independent of her that cover her, but it seems like Wikipedia:LOTSOFSOURCES. Also, the articles are not about her - she seems just mentioned in trivial? What's she done to warrant her fame? Twigfan (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG. --Design (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 08:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She passes GNG, but I don't see much of an assertion of notability. The lead: She's "... a business manager and former public servant." There are probably millions of such people in the world. Why's she especially notable?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an easy one to me - pretty non-notable career; nothing which comes close on WP:POLITICIAN or any senior role in a firm that satisfies WP:CORP. Can't quite understand the "Keep" rationale myself. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding that the nominator is now indef-blocked for playing games (I concur with block BTW), and that there may be ulterior motives for the nomination, I can't really see the case to keep. Moondyne (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm undecided on the notability of the person but, to me, the nomination seems to have been made in bad faith, especially in light of the block of the nominator. Wouldn't that make it a Wikipedia:SK? I know its a bit of a hassle but any of the people voting for delete could start a new AFD without the stigma of a bad faith nomination attached to it, as it is now. Calistemon (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, has been in various public roles which have attracted significant local attention. Orderinchaos 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another one of those "enough brushes with notability adds up to notability" type articles. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N requires reliable sources (check) independent of the subject (check) that deal with the subject directly in detail (check). She seems to be a notable person in the Western Australian Industrial Sector. While that may not be too interesting to most people, interest to any one specific person is not what makes notability. A search of the Google News Archive reveals several articles that focus on her career movements and actions. ManicSpider (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability requres doing something notable, and any number of less than notable things added up together amounts to less than notable. I completely deny MiraclePen's proposition to the contrary: a mediocre record as any number of things remains a mediocre record. When I see a bio with minor claims in disparate fields, I look very very carefully. Student politicians have never been considered notable here unless at a national level, Deciding nnot to run for office isn't notable. Her government jobs would be notable if at a national level, but they were at a state level. "Group manager" is a vague title--being CEO of the company would be notable, but that's much less than that. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you are affirming rather than denying my point. When I said "enough brushes with notability adds up to notability", I was speculating on what the article's author was – and possibly the Keeps are – thinking, not trying to justify it. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting(CHOGM) is an international event involving the governments of some 50 odd countries its a bit more than a national level. All the other things while small arent related but she notable enough to be covered in each which makes her article the perfect daughter article. Gnan garra 10:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for closing admin - suggest no consensus specially as the nominator tried 3 times to eliminate the article as a new user without proper process - suggesting either a strong link to either Willmott or FMG - no other reason is particularly obvious from that particular user's edit history apart from being blocked and trying very hard to appear like a schoolgirl - which the editor is highly unlikely to be in view of the edit history and style of editing.
Why the Afd was not shut down after the editor was shown to be at error and under suspicion is a bit odd.
Willmott was a candidate for political office - and was one of two ex-UWA Guild presidents to try for nominations close in time - neither achieved an entry - despite having been through the usual apprenticeship for potential politicians of being associated with the UWA Guild (a look at the list of Presidents and it is not an accident you might see an ex prime minister and other ex ministers on the list) and/or the CCIWA - the fact that the system failed them is an interesting reflection on the dynamics of political candidateship in Western Australia politics - and the unwritten and backroom movements of the WA Liberal party are not public ___domain material - (if ever), so the significance of the wannabes is in fact more significant than the comments above make any allowance for. Mediocrity is nothing to do with this individual above - but in fact being in the wrong place in the wrong time - Western Australian politics and the issues of the importance make WP:BLP a twisted road to negotiate - - to argue for delete and even take any notice of the original nominator is to fall in a trap of how it is possible for public figures to manipulate (or by proxy) their Bio's on WP Satu Suro 12:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN: an un-elected run-of-the-mill high-level civil servant. Besides, WP is not for posting résumés. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:22, 19 December 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. v/r - T P 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betograve

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

One more of the many substubs by this editor, having his signature: it is a copy paste from one of the the first links that comes up on Google, writen as "<author> says in <reference> that <sentence-including-subject>". WP is not a copy paste mirror of Google searches, our readers, and our editors deserve better than this. And better nothing, and a chance to start afresh, than this. Nabla (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a perfectly valid stub article about a notable concrete engraving technique. Any deficiencies in the style of writing should be addressed through editing. Deletion is a last resource and should be reserved for only article topics which are not deserving of an article. Fix it, don't delete it. Mice never shop (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mice - most of WP started this way. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False argument. Check a sample of 10 Special:Random article's first edit: Edward Robeson Taylor, Kömür, Adıyaman, Stella D'oro, Dufay Collective, Open system (computing), Broadway (1929 film), Union for French Democracy, The Gorgeous, Cyperus haspan, Media Control Interface. All stubish, most have some kind of effort with formatting; most have a box, a stub category, or some effort to organize. 10 or 9 of them are far far better than this one. WP did NOT started this way. Stubs, yes, please, keep'em coming; Copy & paste Google searches are not needed - Nabla (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Keep. As I make it out, nominator seems to be saying, "Yes, this is a notable subject, but this piss-poor non-effort is not good enough." A fair judgment, I would dare to say, but only an argument for improvement. Where exactly is the argument for deletion? "Better nothing, and a chance to start afresh, than this"? Is nominator actually fearful that an art history professor with 1,500 well-footnoted words to say on the subject will see that WP has already covered the subject, and demur? I can see the argument for annoyance, but as no actual argument for deletion is proffered, I recommend speedy keep. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One, that you do not agree with the nomination (which is fair) does not make it void, the argument is exactly the one you noticed, agree or not. Second, why the rush? Are you afraid this gets deleted if not speedy kept? I doubt it... Is the discussion too heated, insulting or whatever reason to stop it? I don't see any. Why the rush, why the desire to avoid any further input? Please, drop the 'speedy's, except for the plain obvious. - Nabla (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And the day the said art professor gets to WP and finds out that Google searches poses as articles, how likely is it that he does not even try, because he knows any effort of his will be overridden by a multitude of editors that believe a Google search is an artcle? - Nabla (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, if you honestly believe that "notable but not good enough" is really an argument for deletion, let's give it its ~~day~~ week in court. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RUBBISH

Thank you! Most of all, I believe that usually there is no need to rush closing discussions. - Nabla (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note
This was Picasso's first monumental concrete sculpture. For years, Picasso had imagined working on such a large scale. When Norwegian artist Carl Nesjar introduced him to an innovative concrete engraving technique known as Betograve, Picasso immediately grasped its potential for his own work. Betograve involves first pouring concrete into a form tightly packed with gravel, and, once set, precisely sand-blasting the surface of the concrete to expose the gravel beneath it. For this sculpture, Picasso chose the folded sheet metal Head of a Woman, on view inside, from which Nesjar could realize the full-scale work. This sculpture inaugurated a working relationship between Picasso and Nesjar that produced twenty-four works and lasted for the rest of Picasso's life.

Taken from [30].--Coin945 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 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. v/r - T P 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth DeMarse

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

While sourcing seems to be ok for the subject, I don't think she passes WP:NOTABLE simply by virtue of having been CEO of bankrate.com. She hasn't won any major awards as far as I can see and the article reads more like a corporate resume. Until today, it was far more POV but it has been cleaned up quite a bit, which is what made it popup on my watch list. The top google search is her linkedin profile, and then a forbes user profile. To me this looks like a marketing ploy. N^oformation ^Talk 02:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems to have had enough reliable, third-party coverage to pass WP:N. Most of the results of this google news search are paywalled, but here are few that are not: [31], a brief article about her, [32], which contains a paragraph about her, and [33], a fairly extensive profile of her. She was president and CEO of Bankrate and CreditCard.com, and also held senior positions at Bloomberg L.P., Citibank, and Hoover's, has been on the board of directors of several enterprises, and seems to have started her own company (DeMarseco) also, which is partnered with Austin Ventures. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:28, 4 December 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) 00:21, 11

December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Too much like a vanity peace. So she is CEO of Bankrate.com, a regional financial services company with a whopping turnover of $300 million? I just don't see that as encyclopedic, and if it is, why does the article waste time talking about philanthropic work? --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree it was not well written at first, but has been cleaned up considerably. The third-party sources are reliable and high-quality. It is not promotional now, but factual.
Keep. I am having a hard time understanding the person who wants it deleted. For one, this is a crowdsourced encyclopedia. Whether this person thinks that this entry of person who is one of the leaders of her generation as a female public company CEO, tells me more about what he thinks than what other people think. He obviously has not done sufficient homework or he would be aware of the many studies about women in business and at Harvard Business School. One of the problems with Wiki itself is that most of the people who contribute are young males. This puts women at a disadvantage with regard to an appreciation of biography of a Women. His comment about why the article "wastes time" talking about philanthropic work betrays his idea that a women CEO is not a complete person, but must be defined by the size of the company she runs. He is factually incorrect to call Bankrate.com a "regional financial services company," which it is not, but one of the most successful internet companies serving the personal finance consumer market - that made more money as a percent of revenue than almost if not all public internet company including Ebay and Amazon. This issue is a wiki issue, with the demographics of Wiki contributors at over 80% male and approx. 70% under 30, it must make a concerted effort to not become a site of interest only to that demographic. Including entry's about successful women around the world will help in that effort.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediadevelopment (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Mediadevelopment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mediadevelopment, crowdsourced or not, we have policies and guidelines in place. Please check your conspiracy theories at the door, and please refrain from guessing about the nominator's motivations. It's in bad taste, it violates a core policy (check WP:AGF), and it doesn't address the matter at hand. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with Cerebellum, despite the use of an SPA above by Mediadevelopment. I'm wondering whether this article is worth including. I understand and sympathise with the nominator's point of view, but I think at the end of the day she just meets the [WP:N] guidelines. ManicSpider (talk) 17:13, 17 December 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. v/r - T P 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Baseballbat

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

Non-notable band. Does not satisfy any of the 12 "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" in Wikipedia:Notability (music). There's no evidence of the band being the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works." The television program is not sufficient, in my mind (especially since I cannot find any confirmation that the band was the subject and not just merely referenced). GrapedApe (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 9 December 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) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Took a quick research look, I'm not seeing much hope for this band.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:19, 14 December 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. v/r - T P 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teoman Cimit

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

Contested speedy, no reliable third-party sources except trivial mentions. Paolo Napolitano 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*keep~~ It is though to be objective when you create an article for an artist or request for deletion. It must be also though to debate 3rd-party sources in foreign languages. Here you are: #1 & #2 are Garantibank's magazine, #3 TUREB, newspapers #5 Şalom &#10 Sabah.--Tacci2023 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you agree that almost all these mentions are quite trivial? --Lambiam 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Garantibank's magazine And mag is a very prestigious magazine, it's not trivial but it's like the equivalent of Departures Magazine in Turkey.--Tacci2023 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 9 December 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) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:BASIC guidelines and also those particularly set out for WP:ARTISTs. Agree with Lambiam above, that mentions are overly trivial. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Person is notable enough for inclusion, article includes several sources. He has been in many magazines and has had many high profile guests. John Cengiz talk 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JFHJr. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't establish the significant coverage required. We need something written about him. Favonian (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the creator of the article and I change my vote. Best explanation by Favonian We need something written about him . Thanks--Tacci2023 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 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. No prejudice against fresh start. v/r - T P 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism in international relations theory

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

If the copyvio tag is correct, and I believe that it is, than that means that this entire article is tainted, since the copyvio came over in the very first edit, and has been a part of all subsequent edits. This needs to be deleted and started over with fresh prose and a fresh page history. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Ph.D. student in international relations, we absolutely need to have an article on liberal IR theory. And, frankly, it needs to be a lot better than what currently exists. Replacing the entire article with a stub is fine, so long as it isn't entirely deleted.—Perceval 19:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you prepare a stub from scratch in a subpage and then move it over after the article gets deleted. I recognize that there's a need for there to be an article under this name, it's just that every single edit to the current article is built upon a foundation of copyvio, therefore, sadly, every single edit in this current incantation of the article has to be deleted. If you're a Ph.D. candidate in the area, this should be a piece of cake for you to at the very least, create a stub with comparable coverage. Sadly, at approximately two undergraduate courses in the area, I know just enough IR theory to know that I'd botch trying to do it myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh. The implication just hit me; you branched this off from another article. That one needs to be checked too, because if you took the text straight over, it's probably also got some tainted test. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I created this article years ago by moving text out of the catch-all international relations theory article. I can make some stub text for liberalism article if needs be.—Perceval 20:47, 6 December 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) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is bad; if there are copy vio concerns, let's just userfy the reading list and blow the fucker up and start over. Probably an encyclopedic topic although I'm not enough of a poli sci guy to say for sure. Start her again, Percevall... Carrite (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete International relations theory seems quite weak. The competing schools such as liberalism are best covered in the main article so that the differences between them may be understood and we don't get POV forking. The copyright issue means that it would be best to delete altogether. Warden (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonel is a wise man, probably good advice. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- There shouldn't be a concern about POV forking. Within IR theory there are 4-6 broadly recognized schools of thought with long traditions and well-developed literatures. Realism, liberalism, Marxism, English School, Constructivism, and various Critical Theory positions (post-colonialism, feminism, post-structuralism) can all easily sustain independent articles. All these articles, including the overview article on international relations theory, should be better. This article should probably be replaced with a stub, but not deleted outright.—Perceval 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copy-vio taints are best dealt with by the Hemingway solution. I am not a big fan of academic style article on Wiki in any event - I prefer bread and butter core topics rather than articles like "feminist influences on the post modern movement". Just saying. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:20, 12 December 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. Consensus is that there are no adequate sources yet DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Owl

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

Does not meet Notability guidelines ThomasLB (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has a couple mentions on Wired, which helps the notability. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I definitely don't think it should be deleted. Daisy Owl is a supremely influential webcomic to people in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.213.90 (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 9 December 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) 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny it may be, but it is an entirely self-published cartoon and has only been online since July. I can't find any reliable independent articles or reviews online to show it has been widely noticed. Sionk (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable online comic. Best case for it is that it is WP:TOOSOON, but suspect it never will be sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not adequately assert subject's notability. I was not able to find reliable sources asserting subject's notability. Folgertat (talk) 18:59, 16 December 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. –MuZemike 05:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent weight

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

The article contains no references to "apparent weight" and reads like an attempted physics lesson (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) Gerardw (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: none of the references listed discuss "apparent weight" -- they discuss "weight," which has its own article. Gerardw (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree but think It should be merged or improved Robjp21019 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Of course the article can be improved a lot, but it's better kept separate from the main Weight article. It should be clear that "apparent weight" is a notable concept, when you type it in google, autocomplete makes "apparent weight" appear when you only typed as far as "apparent", and there are a huge number of different sources that mention apparent weight in the meaning it is used in this Wiki-article. It is inevitable that this article will be a bit more textbook like than the main Weight article, but that's inherent with this topic (although I think it can be made a lot less textbook like than it currently is).

It is a rather confusing issue with weight being defined in the way it is, that's not something we can rectify at Wikipedia. So, we're forced to clarify all those counterintuitive issues like weightless astronauts still having almost the same weight as they had on Earth, etc. etc. Such issues become notable issues in their own right, hence the existence of the apparent weight concept in the real world, and therefore also here on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of adjective noun pairs that appear in Goggle. It doesn't mean the phrase actually indicates a subject suitable for an encyclopedia. If there are suitable references WP:BURDEN would indicate supporters of the article should enter them. Gerardw (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is about verifiability of the content, not about notability of the concept. --Lambiam 08:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you do the Google book search on the term, you find among the first results several physics textbooks that have the term in the title of a chapter or section, such as this one. --Lambiam 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Weight. This is a problematic topic with a long history of confusing, low quality content (recently with some signs of improvement, especially at Weight). There is a great deal of overlap (one definition of "weight" being essentially identical to "apparent weight", as far as I can tell). It will be easier to create and maintain one good quality article if the two are merged. (psst... please no one mention g-force...!) 86.179.4.128 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article could be improved enough to be useful. —Entropy (T/C) 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: m.o.p 02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparent weight is a notable concept in its own right, and quite different to weight. Apparent weight is the amount of normal force the an object pushes up against you, so no normal force = no apparent weight, which gives people the feeling of weightlessness even though they still have a weight. E.g if someone is on space and orbiting the earth, they have a weight - they're being pulled by Earth's gravity, but there is noting pushing up against then so they feel weightless. It is a very useful article. I say keep and work on it.--Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By some definitions "apparent weight" is different from "weight", and by others it's the same. That's according to the articles. 86.160.208.69 (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tipler and Mosca, Phyics for Scientists and Engineers, fifth edition, 2004, pp 90, 91 seems to agree with what Coin945 is saying. It says that if the only force acting on a body is its weight (i.e. it is in free fall), it has zero apparent weight. James500 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one, so far as I know, disagrees that a body in free fall has zero apparent weight. The disagreement is whether its weight is zero. My understanding, based on what I've been told in previous discussions and also on the current contents of the article, is that this depends on which source you read. According to one definition the weight is zero. According to another definition the weight is the same as if the body were at rest. 31.53.244.181 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weight#Apparent_weight discusses apparent weight and is supported by WP:RS. Wikipedia is not neglecting a notable subject. The current article has zero reliable sources; therefore there is no content to actually merge anywhere. This article should be deleted/replaced with a redirect to Weight#Apparent_weight. Editors who feel there is more to say about the subject could then expand Weight#Apparent_weight with reliably sourced content per WP:BURDEN. If, at some future date, Weight#Apparent_weight grows too large, it could then be split into its own article. Gerardw (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absence of sources is not the same thing as absence of content. James500 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Gerardw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have just directed you to a reliable third party source on this topic, an undergraduate textbook. And that is an introductory text. James500 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't have that textbook, but you're more than welcome to edit the article to add the source. As I indicated above, there is an existing sourced section, Weight#Apparent_weight, that covers the concept. So what needs to be demonstrated is that there is sufficient coverage in Tipler and Mosca, plus the currently sourced information in Weight#Apparent_weight, to justify a distinct article. Gerardw (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on the nominator to look for reliable sources and confirm that they either do not exist or are not sufficient. See WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I could fix the article I would have. "Apparent weight" is just a descriptive term textbook writers and science articles toss around -- but if you try to delve into too deeply it turns into a house of cards. Again, my contention is not that it doesn't merit mention, it's that it doesn't merit a separate article. WP:BEFORE suggests tagging -- it's been tagged for merge since 2009 and "needs expert" since Feb 2010. It's an unsourced, WP:OR hodepodge. Gerardw (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books returns 102,000 results. Schaum's outline on applied physics, which I am under the impression is trustworthy, is on the first page. That looks like two reliable sources to me per GNG. James500 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that, if we were to momentarily disregard the separate existence of the topic of weight, the topic of apparent weight would be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Even the most cursory Google "research" makes that pretty obvious. However, according to the information presently in the articles, as I understand it, one definition of weight is the same as apparent weight. This means that "weight" must, and to some extent already does, explain "apparent weight". Therefore there is, as far as I can see, no point in having separate articles. 86.148.152.251 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the amount of sources on the internet is kind of irrelevant. Consult any physics school text book, or journal, or something like that, and you'll find whole chapters dedicated to the topic. I thinking its merely a case of digging, not notability.--Coin945 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [weight#apparent weight]]. I never understand this sillyness. You have two very closely related subjects, which are both notable. Rather than make a single article where we discuss them both we insist on making two separate articles which are either 90% duplication or one 3 line stub and one proper article. A good example of the latter is millimetre vs metre. We have good content available, why do we insist on presenting some of our readers with junk just so we can have separate article? In this case the apparent weigth article reads like a textbook and is practically unsourced, so redirect it to weight#apparent weight. If somebody wants to add more sourced content about apparent weight let him do so in that article. If the section ever becomes big enough that it needs to be split off (I highly doubt so) the redirect can be converted to an article again. Yoenit (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparing the short paragraph in the Weight article, with the present article, his is a reasonable expansion, and consistent with WP:Summary style. There are lots of ways to divide and combine topics, and we shouldn't be dogmatic--to me, its a god deal like other matters of style, there's no reason to disturb an established spin-off of this sort; equally, there's no real reason to make on if it isn't thete already unless things become unmanageably large, with detail that would confuse a reader who wants only a general article. This could be done either way: there's therefore no reason to delete even if one would prefer it the other way. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the criteria listed at WP:GNG, does it concern you there are no reliable sources on the article? Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? There are dozens of reliable sources on this subject, many of which are physics textbooks. --Lambiam 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None on the current Wikipedia article. See also [34]]Gerardw (talk) 22:07, 11 December 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In my humble opinion, this AfD has nothing to do with the current state of the article. It is about the sum potential of an encyclopedic article on the subject. We are (supposed to be) debating whether the article is encyclopedic or not. To that, I say yes. The sources, we'll find later, in due course. Wikipedia is continuously growing. The article gives good information. Just let it be.--Coin945 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Weight, per Entropy. Needless duplication. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:12, 12 December 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 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.)

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

All this does is provide links to other existing lists (most of which are featured lists) then proceeds to just duplicate them without any of the sources, creating a redundant content fork. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have an AFD for every article in this series, after consensus was established to keep these articles? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was established to keep List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.), which happens to provide more info than the two existing lists because the current one won't provide any sort of analysis until after the year ends. This is a separate nomination because the annual lists in the 2000s are far more comprehensive, well-sourced and informative than this one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not the reason the community decide to keep the "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)" article - it was agreed that the article meets the qualifications for WP:LIST. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I must point out that in my opinion it makes no sense to keep only the the article which covers the chart in the 2010s and not have the rest of the articles in the series which cover the chart in the preceding decades. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the yearly chart articles do not contain important statistics for the entire decade (such as the artists whom achieved the most number-one hits during the decade, the artists whom were featured in top of the chart for the highest total number of weeks during the decade AND songs that were featured in top of the chart for the highest total number of weeks during the decade.) TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the difference is, remove all the duplicate lists and just keep the unsourced trivia. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~because it begins with "This is a list"~~ because it's redundant to the 2000s lists, which are detailed enough at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons that the U.S.-2010s list should have been deleted. It's all duplicate information; there's no need for it when the material is already covered elsewhere. - eo (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has qualification for WP:LIST. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for maybe that whole sources thing. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 24 November 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 9 December 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:24, 11 December 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.